A response from a tribe.net post at:
http://shamanism.tribe.net/thread/17e44cfd-628d-4fee-b4ed-29ca6a0ed0bd?newpostingid=04d10046-d322-4582-b50f-4a99f06028d2#04d10046-d322-4582-b50f-4a99f06028d2
posted by Exodus entitled FOR ALL THOSE WHO WERE INDIAN IN A FORMER LIFE
My responses follow (a bit rough, so hold on):
This is an example, roughly articulated, of solidarity thought where indigenous folks, as a group, get thrown right out of the window when settler/"white" politics is viewed as being in some way "More Equal"...
I read through Andy Smith's sharing in a topical way, i'll admit, yet i think i have something to offer.
i think it is crucial to note one thing that most or a lot of indigenous challengers have apparently missed when seeking to challenge "white society"/settlers, and that is to think through the meta realities of said society, rather than attack the symptoms. Of course, there is good reason to attack the symptoms, such as in order to gain the attention of said settlers who do not see what they do. On the other hand, to challenge only in this way as a rigid way not allowing grey areas, and basically replicating the mind-set of settler alienation, well, that is obviously problematic.
Because then indigenous folks can get stuck in the perpetual war that settler society is stuck in; i.e. never seeing the bigger picture, never thinking things through, never using one's own intuitive intelligence and creativity to solve challenges via the amazing excelling styles of our being human beings!
The crucial thing that ought to be systematically challenged, instead, in my feeling, is the reality of a *chain of command* mentality throughout settler society. Then, to systematically challenge the ways that formalized (as different from informal, intuitive, and free) ways of thinking, relating, and believing fool and tool we settlers.
So the germ of truth Andy makes in discussing feminists has some truths --YET such leaves out the all-important CONTEXT to why and how!
((NOTE: sounds like Andy (like so many other native folks) lives in a rural part of the country where some truths about the most politically-known feminist community are "dragged through the coals" by "right wing" interests --such as The New American --whom don't tell you that they have, as part of their interests, the desire to put females back in a subordinate position to males; this being said, the "left wing" is hardly better, as taken as a whole it is deceitful to their real interests, such as of perpetuating domestic imperialism and formal settler hegemony over "conquered" peoples))
Like every other "rights"-oriented group in settler society (feminists being only one more amongst oodles of superficial challengers), the reality is that these groups are organized into something like military structures themselves; that's because they are groups which have usually been organized *into* structures which petition the occupation state for "A Seat At the Table" of security and freedom. This in itself is tell-tale for anyone outside of such positions. Thus, one is "free" to discuss the single issue --of feminism in this case-- but not free to go deeper than that, really.
How settlers dismiss
So, to take a little somewhat recent history (1980s) if a thing like the political import of showing solidarity with the Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua shows up into the consciousness of New Age-type folks (via the media they read), solidarity with Miskito Indians will depend upon whether the feminists' trusted leadership deem it politically valuable or not, first and foremost. If, as happened, the Miskito people are deemed non-allies, then, suddenly, their voices are censored and empathy becomes unheard of. Why? Because the meta of every state-subordinated group is playing the game of not playing the game of politics/polytricks.
Of course, in this case, the Miskito thought it in their best interest to remain neutral, and in some cases openly retalitory where the Sandinistas were concerned --as they were painted with a broadbrush to be "Contras" working for the c.ia. Thus, they wouldn't play the meta game, and they were "out", to use a little parlance that Noam Chomsky uses from time to time (see his "Media Control" speech, published as a book now, for more examples, where he's talking about Iraq).
This example, of the Miskito and Sandinistas was actually a very real situation. And if you look at www.coloradoaim.org's site, they discuss this at length, and give the reader grey areas that were never tolerated in dominant feminist media. Not even Z Magazine discussed the Miskito situation thoroughly, to my knowledge. Everyone just joined in on what the orders were.
And now you can start to see why indigenous folks see right through the superficiality of feminist New Agers, or New Agers in general (those dominated by Leftist, or even Rightist ways of Telling), or euro-peons all.
Because we, as a people, are largely subordinated to chain-of-command ways of thinking and being. If our trusted leaders Tell us to think in some way, we largely go along with that. We largely do NOT challenge, nor do our "alternatives" provide adequate space and time to critically appraise topics; actually, we as a mass are seen as *incapable* of such things, for whatever reason!
So what indigenous people are getting at is that we as a general population just DON'T HAVE IT IN US to be true indigenous people! Regardless of our claims, our actions prove the truth. We still remain subordinate to the polytricks (politics) which control the thought and actions of our communities, generally. And so, in seeing this, you may now see why indigenous folks are saying that everything we touch that isn't really who we are, we pollute!
Exodus (a tribe.net poster), what do you think of this way of saying? i'm sure i could have said this much more succinctly; perhaps a better writer will take this and run with it! Good!
My responses follow (a bit rough, so hold on):
This is an example, roughly articulated, of solidarity thought where indigenous folks, as a group, get thrown right out of the window when settler/"white" politics is viewed as being in some way "More Equal"...
I read through Andy Smith's sharing in a topical way, i'll admit, yet i think i have something to offer.
i think it is crucial to note one thing that most or a lot of indigenous challengers have apparently missed when seeking to challenge "white society"/settlers, and that is to think through the meta realities of said society, rather than attack the symptoms. Of course, there is good reason to attack the symptoms, such as in order to gain the attention of said settlers who do not see what they do. On the other hand, to challenge only in this way as a rigid way not allowing grey areas, and basically replicating the mind-set of settler alienation, well, that is obviously problematic.
Because then indigenous folks can get stuck in the perpetual war that settler society is stuck in; i.e. never seeing the bigger picture, never thinking things through, never using one's own intuitive intelligence and creativity to solve challenges via the amazing excelling styles of our being human beings!
The crucial thing that ought to be systematically challenged, instead, in my feeling, is the reality of a *chain of command* mentality throughout settler society. Then, to systematically challenge the ways that formalized (as different from informal, intuitive, and free) ways of thinking, relating, and believing fool and tool we settlers.
So the germ of truth Andy makes in discussing feminists has some truths --YET such leaves out the all-important CONTEXT to why and how!
((NOTE: sounds like Andy (like so many other native folks) lives in a rural part of the country where some truths about the most politically-known feminist community are "dragged through the coals" by "right wing" interests --such as The New American --whom don't tell you that they have, as part of their interests, the desire to put females back in a subordinate position to males; this being said, the "left wing" is hardly better, as taken as a whole it is deceitful to their real interests, such as of perpetuating domestic imperialism and formal settler hegemony over "conquered" peoples))
Like every other "rights"-oriented group in settler society (feminists being only one more amongst oodles of superficial challengers), the reality is that these groups are organized into something like military structures themselves; that's because they are groups which have usually been organized *into* structures which petition the occupation state for "A Seat At the Table" of security and freedom. This in itself is tell-tale for anyone outside of such positions. Thus, one is "free" to discuss the single issue --of feminism in this case-- but not free to go deeper than that, really.
How settlers dismiss
So, to take a little somewhat recent history (1980s) if a thing like the political import of showing solidarity with the Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua shows up into the consciousness of New Age-type folks (via the media they read), solidarity with Miskito Indians will depend upon whether the feminists' trusted leadership deem it politically valuable or not, first and foremost. If, as happened, the Miskito people are deemed non-allies, then, suddenly, their voices are censored and empathy becomes unheard of. Why? Because the meta of every state-subordinated group is playing the game of not playing the game of politics/polytricks.
Of course, in this case, the Miskito thought it in their best interest to remain neutral, and in some cases openly retalitory where the Sandinistas were concerned --as they were painted with a broadbrush to be "Contras" working for the c.ia. Thus, they wouldn't play the meta game, and they were "out", to use a little parlance that Noam Chomsky uses from time to time (see his "Media Control" speech, published as a book now, for more examples, where he's talking about Iraq).
This example, of the Miskito and Sandinistas was actually a very real situation. And if you look at www.coloradoaim.org's site, they discuss this at length, and give the reader grey areas that were never tolerated in dominant feminist media. Not even Z Magazine discussed the Miskito situation thoroughly, to my knowledge. Everyone just joined in on what the orders were.
And now you can start to see why indigenous folks see right through the superficiality of feminist New Agers, or New Agers in general (those dominated by Leftist, or even Rightist ways of Telling), or euro-peons all.
Because we, as a people, are largely subordinated to chain-of-command ways of thinking and being. If our trusted leaders Tell us to think in some way, we largely go along with that. We largely do NOT challenge, nor do our "alternatives" provide adequate space and time to critically appraise topics; actually, we as a mass are seen as *incapable* of such things, for whatever reason!
So what indigenous people are getting at is that we as a general population just DON'T HAVE IT IN US to be true indigenous people! Regardless of our claims, our actions prove the truth. We still remain subordinate to the polytricks (politics) which control the thought and actions of our communities, generally. And so, in seeing this, you may now see why indigenous folks are saying that everything we touch that isn't really who we are, we pollute!
Exodus (a tribe.net poster), what do you think of this way of saying? i'm sure i could have said this much more succinctly; perhaps a better writer will take this and run with it! Good!
Further
one thing more to add as far as settler culture goes, it really is a top-down type of culture.
A few stalwarts rise to the "leadership" often after having their very authoritarian impulses heavily funded by government; in dominant feminist politics, some feminists, those called "radical feminists" like Andrea Dworkin and Cathrine MacKinnon, received crucial funding and crucial openings and support at a very curious time for very curious reasons, while other feminists, namely the truly liberatory feminists like Pat Califia and Camille Paglia (or how about Karen McElroy?), who DID NOT preach an authoritarian scenario of retaliation (and further division), were heavily marginalized and struck from what is called "normal" feminist consciousness today.
And then they dictate the culture, and the rest of the community of feminists, takes those orders and basically goes in the direction they're herded. Oh, sure, individuals mumble and sometimes openly dissent, but their non-politicized/"political naivite" (aka crucial critique) is outwardly frowned upon, and "managed". Therapy is even advised for those who "refuse" to be "progressive".
And since the politics that took over's (when the professional activists and organizers entered the movement and commandeered it) sole purpose is to assimilate, and thus reinforce the chain-of-command of the state, the values of that dominant society must be replicated. If feminists --like all assimilators (whom usually know not what they do, or believe such is *all* that is open to them, as they look upon the fate of the Black Panthers and AIM)-- don't remain "vigilant" about these values and subordination to them? Ah, then CHAOS is said to arise and the ideologues step up and tell their constituencies to STOP THE BASHERS AND ABUSERS BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!
Why do they systematically resort to such hype? Because, above all, they MUST keep their constituencies (that's what we're all reduced to, mass numbers, mass "weight") "on the proper track"; this is true if you read Edward Bernays or Walter Lippmann (and so on, social managers et al) and it's true as far as political vanguardists/leaderships are concerned. Again, Chomsky's "Media Control" speech touches on this in a pivotal way, and is worth reading.
So, yes, this is a roughshod attempt to expose the reality of polytricks/politics, and why indigenous people are *rightly* critical of such.
Unless, of course, they are themselves seeking to assimilate (there is a growing number of this in indigenous communities, thanks to milliions in b.i.a. influence strategies, and "conservative" aboriginals as well --whom likely have been just as fooled and tooled as "liberal" aboriginals)...
If this latter is the case (and there seems to be a growing pattern of this thought), then the unmentionable meta is even more sinister than before, and i personally am MOVED to say, hey, maybe it's TIME to put my safety on the line again and try to expose this further reality as well; and then be "offensive." Because if such a way of seeing gets entrenched (i.e. ideological/rigid ways of thinking used as trickery to blind righteous victims to a very narrow way of behaving and subordination to Given orders), such instilled dogmatic mind-set will continue to become even more polluting than it already is, and the challenge of autonomous thought and the original insights of indigenous great spirit? Even more lost by the wayside of ideologically-challenged beliefs!
Know what i'm sayinG?
No comments:
Post a Comment