Amerindian resistance mode (was: amerindian an offensive
Gerold Firl (geroldf@sdd.hp.com)
5 Aug 1996 20:37:45 GMT
term)
Keywords:
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960802105419.28291E-100000@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>, "Stephen W. Russell" <srussell@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu> writes:
|> Eric is in the resistance mode. Your are in the conquered peoples mode.
|> If you want Eric to change his mind about who he is, what you have to do
|> is quite simple: kill him.
I would like to better understand this form of resistance. Eric is a
special case; the pathology and perversity of eric brunner is that he
works so hard to create enemies where none existed before. He is so
anxious to be victimized that he that he plays the noxious clown ad
nauseum; that particular mode is guaranteed to always find resistance.
Are you familiar with the nature conservancy? This organization buys
land in order to set it aside as a nature preserve. You suggested, in
another post, that indians be "allowed" to decide their own destiny,
without the interferance of bureaucrats and without dependance on
charity. There was an article in smithsonian magazine a few months ago
about a southeastern tribe which pulled itself out of poverty and
aimlessness by hooking into the money economy and then reinvesting on
tribal lands. Very promising, very hopeful. It was interesting to note
that the money was not nearly as important as the hope and optimism
generated by success. The man who made it happen actually got his start
when he was in the army, stationed in postwar germany. He saw a
defeated people pull together and rebuild, based not on hatred and
resentment, but on a common goal of building a future together. He was
able to inspire his tribe with that vision, resulting in renewed pride
and hope. Pride and hope are pretty good cornerstones for building a
future; a lot better than shame and spite. People like eric brunner who
are consumed with hatred, shame, and spite, will always be in
"resistance mode", but what good does it do for anybody?
What is your longterm vision for the american indians? Where would you
like indian resistance to lead? Personally, I find the idea of vast
tracts of american land being set-aside for a
hunter-gatherer/horticultural lifestyle to be very romantic and
attractive, but unless our total population drops considerably, it just
doesn't appear practical. What would you like to see?
Lets step back a couple of paces at look at amerindian reservation
culture. The lifestyle has some major problems. Could it be that the
kind of hysterical pathology evinced by brunner is a form of cultural
innoculation created by the reservation culture to prevent dissolution?
Surely many young people on the reservations would seriously consider
the possibility of leaving. This phenomenon is seen throughout the
world today, where formerly isolated tribal cultures are melting into
more mainstream/globally integrated cultures. But if young people can
be indoctrinated with a sufficient dose of hatred for outsiders, and
shame for themselves, then they will tend to stay home. This is a
poison far more dangerous than mainstream oppression.
I had hoped that eric was an isolated case, but maybe he isn't. It is
important for indians to feel pride in their heritage. For decades
indians have felt ashamed to be indians, and I'm glad to see that is
changing. But it must be coupled with a forward-looking vision, and a
healing of past wounds, to combine hope with pride and move towards a
better future. That's the only way we're going to get there.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf
|