Okay, I’d like to know who these people are, especially if they have somehow magically figured out how being Indian translates into getting a paycheck (as opposed to surplus gov’t cheese). Can you name some? Besides Ward Churchill, who isn’t an Indian anything.

“There are plenty of these types by us–they realize that by dressing up and complaining about white people they don’t have to go work at a real job.”

Sooooo…”Professional Indians” are Indians who wear regalia all the time and “complain about white people” and somebody actually pays them to do this? Where do I sign up for this gig?

“Your comment that just because indians killed each other for land doesn’t mean it made it ok for white people to do that doesn’t make sense. It’s no worse for whites to steal land than natives. It’s no better either. The point is that there’s no difference between the two.”

Then I still don’t understand your point. I have heard this “point” (though there’s never an ounce of proof offered to support it) raised every single time I, or anyone else, points out that white people stealing Indian land was generally a bad thing. If your only point is that people kill each other, what the heck does that have to do with stealing land? Why even raise it at all? Because, frankly, every single time I have heard this point raised, it sounds like a justification.

Beyond that, though, what precisely do you mean by a “professional Indian�? You seem to be implying that Indians who point out how badly their tribes have been treated by the United States are somehow less valid, or at least less fun, than those who assume “people are people� (an attitude Indians would have appreciated more if white people had adopted it 150 years ago).

What do I mean by that phrase? A professional indian is one that sees being indian as a paycheck, basically an opportunist. Most of the ones we know (and we know a lot of them where we live) in grand scheme of things could care less about the plight of the poor indian. They make their living and reputation running around talking about how bad the indians have it and don’t really do a lot to improve things except for in their immediate families. I know that sounds sour, but it really is frustrating to see people that are being acknowledged as “experts” are for the most part frauds. There are plenty of these types by us–they realize that by dressing up and complaining about white people they don’t have to go work at a real job.

Having said that, there are plenty of natives that do lots and lots of good things for their tribes and tribes all over–they just generally aren’t the ones on platforms talking loudly.

As far as not looking native, I have a niece that’s half native that has blue eyes and blond curly hair. You really can’t tell by looks.

Your comment that just because indians killed each other for land doesn’t mean it made it ok for white people to do that doesn’t make sense. It’s no worse for whites to steal land than natives. It’s no better either. The point is that there’s no difference between the two.

John Ross, the greatest Cherokee chief in modern history, was 1/8 Cherokee by the racist “Indian blood” standard and the rest Irish. He was proud of his Irish heritage and even arranged a fund-raiser among the Cherokee after the Trail of Tears and sent money to Ireland at the height of the potato famine. There are many red-headed Cherokee and the links between Celts and Cherokee go way back. The point is, there’s really no such thing as “Indian blood”; you are either part of the culture and the society or you are not. If you are, blood is (or should be) irrelevant. If you are not, then it doesn’t really matter who your great great granddaddy was. Having said that, I would encourage your family to research their genealogy as best they can. We owe it to our ancestors (Indian and otherwise) to learn and remember their history.

Okay, well, assuming that it is even true, so what? How does the fact that Indian tribes fought each other make it morally acceptable for whites to invade and conquer their land? Poland invaded Ukraine; did that make the Nazi invasion justified? Your argument appears to boil down to “everyone does it,” which is frankly not very effective.

“The notion of Indians as proto-environmental pacifists has been effectively de-bunked by Shepard Krech and others.”

I don’t recall saying Indians were “proto-environmental pacifists.” That argument is generally a steaming pile of white New Age crapola. But, as Vine Deloria, Jr. wrote, it is also true that no Indian ever thought of dumping enough pollutants into a river to make it burst into flames. But, again, even if they did, how does that justify stealing their land?

“He’s got a better outlook on life than many people. The “professional Indiansâ€? are more of a problem than the white guys. In fact, it is interesting that a number of the “professional Indiansâ€? are not even enrolled members of any tibe – see Ward Churchill as Exhibit A.”

Ward Churchill is not any sort of Indian, professional or otherwise, and he never has been. He’s a fraud, plain and simple. Beyond that, though, what precisely do you mean by a “professional Indian”? You seem to be implying that Indians who point out how badly their tribes have been treated by the United States are somehow less valid, or at least less fun, than those who assume “people are people” (an attitude Indians would have appreciated more if white people had adopted it 150 years ago).

The “noble savage” stereotype is just as offensive, untrue and racist as the “bloodthirsty savage” stereotype and again involves white people projecting their own fears and prejudices onto Native peoples. I know of few, if any, Indians who want “reparations”; I know of plenty who would appreciate it if maybe, just once, the United States government honored ANY treaty it ever signed with ANY tribe. They could pick one at random, surprise us.

Romanticizing people – any people – has its dangers. One of them is that we make people into something which they are not, either by making them appear to be without blemish, or by demonizing them. The ‘noble savage’ stereotype is appealing to a lot of people, but it is every bit as damaging as the ‘bloodthirsty savage’ stereotype. Katie’s husband sounds like someone I would enjoy talking to, someone who recognizes that people are people.

Another somewhat odd view that he has is that unlike everything you read, the natives of old were not particularly noble. They stole, raped women, and often starved to death in lean years. He finds it interesting that what he calls “professional natives” only look at things like ceremonies and not the hard living that most native cultures really had. He also gets annoyed over many natives wanting reparations for things that happened generations ago. Granted, white people stole land, but that’s happened for years. Heck, indians used to steal other indians land.

As I said, his view is pretty different than a lot of people’s. He doesn’t see why people put native culture up on a pedestal–especially when so much of it is based on mythology rather than christianity.

He feels the same way about wolves too. Thinks they’re mangy creatures that often kill just for the fun of it. So maybe he’s just a wrong thinking guy!

Local Crank Says: “This is revisionist historyâ€? What exactly is revisionist history? That Native Americans were swindled out of their land? And as for the “everyone did itâ€? canard, how is that even an argument? From whom did the Native Americans “stealâ€? this land?”

For starters, the various aboriginal peoples cheerfully fought with and slaughtered each other, often for control of land. No one has a patent on man’s inhumanity to man. Indians are just as willing to engage in warfare as whites, or Africans, or Asians. The losers in inter tribal warfare were willing to see if they could work a deal with the strange people to even old scores. Why do you think Cortez, with a few hundered men, could take on the Aztecs? Because the Aztec’s neighbors were tired of being the losing side in fights with the Aztecs, and tired of providing human sacrifices for the Aztecs. The pattern of shifting alliances was well established by the time the English and the French were trying to conquer North America from the Indians and the Spanish. Indians, like whites, had some rather unsavory customs, and they both treated the “other” as less than human when it served their purposes. The notion of Indians as proto-environmental pacifists has been effectively de-bunked by Shepard Krech and others.

Slavery is a horribe thing, but it was virtually universal in much of the world before 1400. Including some north American Indian tribes. What many people overlook is that the African slave trade was made possible by Africans enslaving their fellow Africans, and then selling them to Europeans. The Portugese and the Spanish and the Dutch were not sending parties into the African interior to capture slaves as much as they were buying them from other Africans. So while damning the Europeans and Americans who profited from the slave trade, save a few curses for the Africans involved in this business. They were not all victims.

The attempts to write history as a morality play are generally poor history, and even worse literature. The Europeans were not gentle or subtle, but they were not much different than most of the Indians. The values of Europeans and Americans were different from the values of most of the Indian tribes. That doesn’t make one “right” and the other wrong. But it does suggest that if there is a conflict in social values, there will be winners and losers; no culture remains static unless it dies. The Europeans and later Americans were agents of dramatic change to the Indians. But, as James Axtell notes, the Indians were also agents of change on the whites. It wasn’t an equal exchange, but it was an exchange. That process continues.

What exactly is revisionist history? That Native Americans were swindled out of their land? And as for the “everyone did it” canard, how is that even an argument? From whom did the Native Americans “steal” this land? Our ancestors were either created here (according to traditional beliefs) or they have lived here for at least 30,000 years. As for the “that was a long time ago” argument, the Cherokee were rounded up into concentration camps and shipped across country in 1838-1839, hardly Phoenecian times. Indian treaties were broken by the federal government in a wild orgy of lawlessness called the Termination Era as recently as the 1950′s. Forget reparations, how about if the Federal Government actually kept one, just one, treaty it signed with an Indian Nation?

Terms like “advanced” are loaded. The largest cities on Earth in 1492 and the world’s largest land empire were located in the New World. More people lived in North and South America at the time than at Europe, and with a generally longer life-expectancy (the Puritans, for example, were astonished that many Indians knew their grandparents and great grandparents). And without being too Cherokee-chauvinist, I think the tribe overall showed a great historical flexibility and adaptibility that has helped it survive. Just to use a few examples, Cherokee were quick to trade for iron weapons, spinning wheels and firearms when they encountered them. When the Cherokee genius Sequoyah saw the advantage white people had with a written language, he single-handedly created one for his people.

“2. Do you think that the Cherokee could have preserved their own civilization (and maintained a fully sovereign nation on the lands they inhabited) if they hadn’t tried to adopt a European style governance? Obviously this ultimately led to them being betrayed, but do you think it could have turned out differently? ”

No, it didn’t matter. White Americans were never, ever going to allow non-whites to keep their land (particularly after gold was discovered in the Old Cherokee Nation); some Cherokee tried to adapt, others tried to withdraw, some tried to fought–the result was the same. Though not all whites were vicious racists, the ones in power, such as the government of Georgia and President Andrew Jackson were, and they were the voices that counted. Actually, there is one way the Cherokee might have kept their land–if they had joined the Shawnee warrior Tecumseh (who in at least one version of the legend had a Cherokee mother) in his alliance against the United States in the War of 1812.

CS,
I need to make a trip to the Great Smokey Mountains and visit some of the places relevant to the Cherokee…I’m always looking to further expand my knowledge any way I can.

You should do, CP, not only for the Cherokee sites but also for the natural beauty here. I assume you don’t get to enjoy mountain vistas and waterfalls in the hood.

I can think of almost no spot on earth where powers didn’t rise by stepping on others. Spain was also once a great empire, by crushing and exploiting much of Central and South America. On the other hand, the great empires of the Maya, Aztec, Olmec etc. were built on the blood of their enemies. I think a civilization must be judged by how they behave today, and if they acknowledge their past.

Five Percenter Muslims

It’s more like not really being afraid to go anywhere, if you exude that love and respect for where you’re going and who you’re going to see…things always work out. I’ve been in houses where there is nobody but Five Percenters…I’ve been in some of the worst neighborhoods here and elsewhere. If you’re not confrontational or fearful of anywhere you go you’ll be okay, trust that.

CS,
I need to make a trip to the Great Smokey Mountains and visit some of the places relevant to the Cherokee…I’m always looking to further expand my knowledge any way I can.

That’s not a comfortable thought, but the question is, is it really possible for reparations to be made, or is it enough to acknowledge the sins of the past and learn from them?

It is a false question, IMO. This is revisionist history. The story of mankind, and history itself, revolves around displacement/conquering, and cannot be changed.

To me, the issue is that while we should try to learn from what has happened in the past, and develop a mindset that prevents as much as possible similar conflicts and displacements in the future, you cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together.

The past has to be left where it is – in the past. As soon as you open the door to ‘reparations’ or similar discussions, the salient question has to immediately turn to ‘how far back do you go’? To the 19th century? The 14th century? Roman times? Mycenaean, Egyptian, or Mesopotamian times?

So, some questions relating to this:
1. To what do you attribute the Cherokee people’s relative willingness to adopt European ways? Do you see that as a sign that they were a more advanced civilization (relative to other tribes), or just different? In other words, were other Native American tribes equally advanced in your opinion, but perhaps less willing to adapt due to concerns that they would lose their own culture and heritage?

2. Do you think that the Cherokee could have preserved their own civilization (and maintained a fully sovereign nation on the lands they inhabited) if they hadn’t tried to adopt a European style governance? Obviously this ultimately led to them being betrayed, but do you think it could have turned out differently?

I guess..

I may not be black but I live in the hood where I can’t get gas w/o being near a shooting. But I love the hood, it’s a great place!