I was disappointed in the response from Robert Mitchell
concerning my letter. I guess I expected a more serious and less
sarcastic reply as well as some concern for everyone involved.
I was disappointed in the response from Robert Mitchell concerning my letter. I guess I expected a more serious and less sarcastic reply as well as some concern for everyone involved.
I’m glad he noticed the capital letters. I like them, too. I find it a RELATIVELY civilized replacement for CURSING, which I doubt I’d be able to CONTROL were I addressing the matter in his presence.
I was surprised to learn that the information on the California Indian Holocaust was “common knowledge” or “ubiquitous,” as Cynthia Walker likes to call such things. This is welcome information to those who have fought academic battles for YEARS with people who have DENIED, ridiculed and EXCLUDED such “common knowledge” from public discourse. Mr. Mitchell should provide details of some of the K-12 schools where this information is currently being disseminated. It is interesting that Mr. Mitchell claims such detailed knowledge of this history and it has no effect on his opinions.
Mr. Mitchell complained that I opened the topic into an area which he didn’t, namely the history and culture of the California Natives as it pertains to these issues. I did it intentionally.
Mitchell brings his upstate New York background into the discussion. This makes little sense since the territories he refers to are about as far away from California as possible. Besides, the Iroqouis have a completely different relationship with the U.S. government. I do know what he’s talking about though. I consider myself fortunate and honored to count Caughnawaga Mohawk artist and former ironworker Richard Glazer-Danay as a teacher and friend. I wonder if Mitchell knows that many ACTUAL MEMBERS of these tribes have a different take on the matter of the “shared” territories of Western New York than he does.
But Mitchell’s fierce rejoinder as well as his “qualifiers” mostly seemed like an attempt to put a spin on his original statements.
I am left wondering who Mitchell is really angry with (other than me). He seems to want us to think is that it is the LAW that is faulty NOT the Indian people themselves. But his tone is decidedly hostile. In his first missive on the matter he said: “If the People-Who-Have-Always-Been-Here find the admittedly erroneous label ‘Indian’ offensive, why are they seemingly so cool with it when it’s linked to the noble enterprise of gambling?”
Where the heck did that come from? Funny though, I’ve never been told what to call people. I’ve heard people referred to as “Indian,” “Native American,” “Indigenous,” “First Nations” and the fairly redundant “Native American Indian.” I have heard a number of people say that they considered it more respectful to be called by their tribal names (Miwok, Wiyot, Ajachamem, Kummeyaay, Washishu, etc.) But I’ve only heard white people say “you have to call them Native Americans now.” Frankly, I would be interested in seeing some documented background on this supposed “problem” of political correctness. I think it’s a pile of lies.
Call me picky, but it sure seems hostile to ask questions like: “Is it pure coincidence that for the last few years whenever assemblages of Native Americans suddenly discover that they’re a tribe, often of which no one including themselves had ever heard until the feds dangled the words ‘gaming profits’ in front of them, they also suddenly discover that the sacred native ancestral lands they just realized they had are remarkably handy to a freeway exit?”
This is simply trash. California Indian people have been seeking tribal recognition since the DAY that recognition was forcibly removed from them, as late as the 1880s and as recently as the 1960s. Mitchell’s portrayal is vicious and hateful rather than funny. I defy him to show ONE tribe that fits the above false description. Mitchell’s ignorance of these facts is more evidence that these people were virtually invisible before the casino issue brought them back to public attention. Mitchell is baldly trying to assert that all kinds of FAKE tribes are sprouting up. Will he prove it?
Mitchell must know that California Indians were decimated (murdered) to an extent where it is often difficult to accurately identify surviving tribal members. People were sold out into slavery or scattered to the winds, often taking up refuge with other tribes. This and the fact that the criteria for proving California Native heritage is uniquely prohibitive (only American Indians have to PROVE their ethnicity) leaves the law riddled with “Catch 22” like provisions. People and their families have worked hard FOR MANY YEARS to document their heritage to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But California Natives have not always been ignored. A recent Sacramento Bee article quoted Clara LeCompte, a 62-year-old member of a Maidu group which is seeking federal recognition: “Nobody asked me to prove I was Indian when I was kidnapped from my home in Susanville at age 5 and taken across state lines to the Stewart Indian Boarding School in Carson City, Nevada.”
Mitchell has plenty of outrage for lost revenues. Why is there so little outrage for lost lives and cultures?
Guest columnist Bill Jones is a Gilroy resident. Anyone wishing to write a guest column may contact Editor Mark Derry at 842-6400 or by e-mail to
ed****@ga****.com
.
