Note: The authors of this blog do not take credit for the above image.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
This billboard is obviously causing some controversy and I think it appalling that the pro gun lobby would post this. In essence is mocks the notion that the Native Americans were taken care of by the United States. Furthermore it take the picture of a stereotypical Native American dress and uses that instead of taking a picture tat actually shows the poverty that these people live in. Why not take images from Pine View reservation, oh wait that would only detract from their gun message and take away from the fact that the entire nation has turned its back on a group of citizens. It should be noted that there author of this sign has decided not to be named. I would ask the question, did they do this becasue they new the ad was appalling to Native Americans? I would guess that over the idea that they were worried about their stance on guns.
Its seems strange that too this day we still mock this population, there would be a billboard of African Americans saying "turn in your guns we will take care of you" and depicting slavery. That is insensitive, so how it this any different?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/us/colorado-gun-billboard/index.html
Comment from one of our readers
This comment was sent to us from a reader. What do you think, do you agree? (Discuss!)
"In response to your COMM project:
"In response to your COMM project:
Republican Democracy vs. Indians
In Jefferson’s republican civilization, homogeneity and thus Christian-based virtue was valued above all else. While it may have been the Native American’s land that put them in the path of white imperialism, it was ultimately their otherness that made their very existence irreconcilable with the society created by our founding fathers. Because Jefferson’s government was a republican democracy, heterogeneity threatened to impede the advancement of public interest. Laws and values have to be universally applicable to all members of a society; therefore, the culturally different Indians were simply barred from this society all together. This outcome significantly differed from the one that befell blacks, for whom whites felt a sense of paternalism. The blacks could be integrated into society, albeit as second-class citizen, due in great part to their lack of sovereignty. Native Americans, on the other hand, had their own modes of law and order that were completely different from the European and American models. Therefore, they posed a threat to republican democracy of early America.
In Jefferson’s republican civilization, homogeneity and thus Christian-based virtue was valued above all else. While it may have been the Native American’s land that put them in the path of white imperialism, it was ultimately their otherness that made their very existence irreconcilable with the society created by our founding fathers. Because Jefferson’s government was a republican democracy, heterogeneity threatened to impede the advancement of public interest. Laws and values have to be universally applicable to all members of a society; therefore, the culturally different Indians were simply barred from this society all together. This outcome significantly differed from the one that befell blacks, for whom whites felt a sense of paternalism. The blacks could be integrated into society, albeit as second-class citizen, due in great part to their lack of sovereignty. Native Americans, on the other hand, had their own modes of law and order that were completely different from the European and American models. Therefore, they posed a threat to republican democracy of early America.
The extemporary reason for the clash between the Native Americans and white settlers was land disputes. With the invention of the cotton gin, plantations began to engulf the frontier lands surrounding them. As expansion continued, the Indians were pushed further and further west. This explanation, however, fails to address the question of integration. The answer to this is simple; Indians are too different (or at least perceived as such). The Indians were seen as uncivilized savages who knew nothing of Republican Virtue. Under this code of conduct, individuals were expected to be sober and productive members of society. They were expected to behave like civilized, proper folk. Republican Virtue was essential to the success of Jefferson’s democracy. Jefferson believed that the biggest threat to any republic is licentiousness. In this way he drew from the Greek and Roman models of effective governing. For Jefferson this virtue was embodied by the image of the yeoman farmer. Yeomen were hardworking non-slave holding farmers. They were the cornerstones of Jefferson’s democracy. Native Americans, on the other hand, had their own value system that was rooted behind centuries of tradition. Jefferson’s society looked contemptuously upon the Pagan practices of Native Americans. The introduction of the savage Indians threatened to undermine the values that the society was built on. The only way to reconcile Native Americans with the ways of the Yeoman would be for them to give up their culture and act “civilized”. Putting aside the issue of cultural clashes, the very structure of a republican democracy favors homogeneity.
In a republican democracy the entire population is represented by a much smaller subsection of society. For this form of rule to be effective, the interests of the aggregate have to be represented by members of the government. If the population is too diverse, a government risks one of two outcomes. Firstly, if there are groups not being represented, a government risks rebellion and dissent. The second outcome is a smoke screen of political ideals. In the second outcome, the interests of minority groups sideline the interests of the majority. Furthermore, the constitution purports the goal of universal equality. The terms of citizenship are universally applicable to citizens. However, it is never implied that anyone can be a citizen. In order to ensure that laws and values can be universal, the population must be homogenous. In the case of Native Americans, the ideals of the constitution would not serve their interests. If integrated as they were, Native Americans would either threaten the very fabric of the constitution or be ignored by its representation. Although many minority groups were abandoned by the constitution, the Native Americans were in a class of their own. Their history in the US significantly differed from that of the blacks. White Americans felt a sense of paternalism towards black Americans. Being black was seen as an affliction that individuals should not be blamed for. In addition, the blacks were introduced to Americas as slaves; thus, they lacked sovereignty. This made it easy to integrate them into the republican civilization, albeit as second-class citizens. Blacks could be impressed with the Republican Values of their masters. In this way the idea of equality for all citizens was quickly warped into the concept of making all citizens the same. For these reasons, Indians as Indians could not be integrated into society. But what if the image and economic ideals of Native American’s changed?
As is evident in our modern society, different cultural groups can cohabitate as long as their goals and interests are aligned. In Jefferson’s era the biggest impediment to cohabitation was the perceived otherness of the Indians. If Indians were to become a part of the nation, their public image must be changed. While his society regarded Indians as inherently different, Jefferson himself publicly attempted to change popular opinion. He waged a campaign to “publicize the image of the Indian hunter as the forerunner of the yeoman republican.” If society viewed Native Americans as virtuous and hard working, they could be tolerated in the new democracy of America. Jefferson also touted his plan to educate Native Americans on republican and economic values in return for agricultural training. Despite the public claims of Jefferson, however, his administration never had more than fifteen thousand dollars devoted to Native American matters. In addition, his rebranding of Indians as forerunners of the yeomen did little to change public sentiment. Effectively, the public message of Jefferson provided a curtain, behind which speculators and settlers could continue to expel Native Americans over minor disputes. In this way Jefferson’s republican dispensation, “not to destroy but to fulfill,” was never fully applied to Indians. It is unclear whether Jefferson believed in his own public rebranding of Indians, or if it was merely for show.
In a government in which the interests of the many are represented by the few, homogeneity in the population is essential. This was the case in Jefferson’s fledgling democracy. However, the existence of Indians posed a threat to this homogeny. They were simply too different at the time from the rest of the American population. They governed themselves in a completely foreign way from the colonial settlers. In addition, their savage image directly contrasted with the values that were emphasized by Jefferson. Given the stark contrast between the Indians and the American settlers, it seems unlikely that they could live peacefully in a republican democracy. However, if the Indians changed their cultural and economic values they may have been able to integrate into American society."
Washington Redtails?
Article from earlier this morning: It explains a resolution that D.C. Council member David Grosso is preparing to introduce that suggest the Washington Redskins change their name, possible to the Washington Redtails.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-may-push-washington-redskins-into-washington-redtails/2013/04/30/456cb72c-b1a7-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html
Thanks to Megan Kowalski and AISU member Chemia Kimberly for the article.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Say NO to Voter ID Laws Infringing on Native American Rights
Voter Identification laws are an often discussion topic in the political sphere. To give some background information, Voter ID checks are for voting purposes in elections. It requires an individual to have some form of ID, like a drivers license, in order to cast a vote every other November when we head to the polls. To be concise, there are essentially two sides to this debate. One side argues that Voter ID laws are necessary to prevent fraudulent voting in elections. The other side argues that Voter ID laws disproportionately (and adversely) affect certain demographics, like minorities or the elderly, on the basis that those groups are less likely to have ID's like driver licenses. This side argues that as a result, those groups are discouraged from going out to vote, thus impeding the democratic process of elections.
This isn't a political blog so I'm not going to talk about the pros and cons of Voter ID laws as a whole or evaluate the accuracy of the claims that voter fraud is a rampant issue in need of Voter ID laws to remedy. What I want to talk about, obviously, is how this issue of Voter ID laws affects Native Americans and their citizenship rights and civil liberties.
Native Americans are a group frequently targeted by these Voter ID laws and are one of the groups that may be less likely to have one of the valid forms of ID that increasingly stricter Voter ID laws require. North Carolina recently passed new Voter ID laws. For most of the legislative process, lawmakers had deemed Tribal ID's as unacceptable and not up to par with their idea of a valid form of ID. It was not until the final round of revisions that lawmakers acquiesced to the demands of one lawmaker and decided to reinstate Tribal ID's an acceptable form of identification. Some people may argue that since there is only one federally recognized Native American tribe in North Carolina, it should not be a big deal if the Tribal ID's of that one tribe are no longer viewed as acceptable. However, I would vehemently oppose that claim, because that type of thinking not only marginalizes and belittles the rights of Native Americans, but it also destroys the very principles of a democratic society.
Democracy is strong because it is the voice of all the people in a land expressing their opinions. Democracy is strong because every single person is free to vote for the cause and candidate he or she supports. This freedom is what keeps people from feeling oppressed. Therefore, it should be the governments job to ensure that every group, like Native Americans, are given an easy path to expressing their democratic ideals. I applaud the North Carolina lawmakers who passed the bill tacking on Tribal ID's as a valid form of ID. However, it should never gave gotten to the point where not counting those types of ID's was actually a potential part of the law. The excuse of it not being a big deal since there is only one federally recognized tribe in North Carolina is also ridiculous if you think about it. If we aren't paving the way for every person to be able to easily vote then we're hindering the democratic process. It is only as strong as its weakest link, so every effort should be made to include even the smallest groups of people.
In contrast to the final results of what happened in North Carolina, I want to shed light on what's currently taking place in North Dakota. In the "Peace Garden State", where 5.4% of its population is Native American, a bill is making its way through the state legislature that would - you guessed it - make it harder for Native Americans to express their right to vote at the ballot box. This is happening right after a Congressman from North Dakota went on a disturbing rant against one of the state's Native American tribes. 5.4% of a state's population is actually a large amount, although it may seem like a small single-digit number. Again, I want to bring up the fact that democracy is made strongest by everyone participating. When viewed from that perspective, I hope you see why this is actually a big deal.
North Dakota Native Americans are rightfully ready to fight this injustice. There is talk of how this bill would violate federal provisions in the Federal Voting Rights Act that allows for the use of Tribal ID's as an acceptable form of ID. That aspect highlights the obvious legal issues involved in restricting voter access. Apart from that legal aspect, however, is the more important issue of ensuring the Native Americans have access to the same citizenship rights and civil liberties that all groups do. It should not be due to a legal technicality that this bill isn't allowed to pass. It should be because of citizen outrage and intrinsic values of democracy instilled in the lawmakers of North Dakota.
Next time you express your right to vote, I want you to think about this post. For most of you reading this, you probably will have few problems, if any, going through the voting process. But remember, for some, it is not that easy. Through your awareness of issues like these, make sure that you're voting for officials who support equal access to voting to ALL people in America, not just some. It is the politicians who believe fully in the democratic process that should be representing this nation.
This isn't a political blog so I'm not going to talk about the pros and cons of Voter ID laws as a whole or evaluate the accuracy of the claims that voter fraud is a rampant issue in need of Voter ID laws to remedy. What I want to talk about, obviously, is how this issue of Voter ID laws affects Native Americans and their citizenship rights and civil liberties.
Native Americans are a group frequently targeted by these Voter ID laws and are one of the groups that may be less likely to have one of the valid forms of ID that increasingly stricter Voter ID laws require. North Carolina recently passed new Voter ID laws. For most of the legislative process, lawmakers had deemed Tribal ID's as unacceptable and not up to par with their idea of a valid form of ID. It was not until the final round of revisions that lawmakers acquiesced to the demands of one lawmaker and decided to reinstate Tribal ID's an acceptable form of identification. Some people may argue that since there is only one federally recognized Native American tribe in North Carolina, it should not be a big deal if the Tribal ID's of that one tribe are no longer viewed as acceptable. However, I would vehemently oppose that claim, because that type of thinking not only marginalizes and belittles the rights of Native Americans, but it also destroys the very principles of a democratic society.
Democracy is strong because it is the voice of all the people in a land expressing their opinions. Democracy is strong because every single person is free to vote for the cause and candidate he or she supports. This freedom is what keeps people from feeling oppressed. Therefore, it should be the governments job to ensure that every group, like Native Americans, are given an easy path to expressing their democratic ideals. I applaud the North Carolina lawmakers who passed the bill tacking on Tribal ID's as a valid form of ID. However, it should never gave gotten to the point where not counting those types of ID's was actually a potential part of the law. The excuse of it not being a big deal since there is only one federally recognized tribe in North Carolina is also ridiculous if you think about it. If we aren't paving the way for every person to be able to easily vote then we're hindering the democratic process. It is only as strong as its weakest link, so every effort should be made to include even the smallest groups of people.
In contrast to the final results of what happened in North Carolina, I want to shed light on what's currently taking place in North Dakota. In the "Peace Garden State", where 5.4% of its population is Native American, a bill is making its way through the state legislature that would - you guessed it - make it harder for Native Americans to express their right to vote at the ballot box. This is happening right after a Congressman from North Dakota went on a disturbing rant against one of the state's Native American tribes. 5.4% of a state's population is actually a large amount, although it may seem like a small single-digit number. Again, I want to bring up the fact that democracy is made strongest by everyone participating. When viewed from that perspective, I hope you see why this is actually a big deal.
North Dakota Native Americans are rightfully ready to fight this injustice. There is talk of how this bill would violate federal provisions in the Federal Voting Rights Act that allows for the use of Tribal ID's as an acceptable form of ID. That aspect highlights the obvious legal issues involved in restricting voter access. Apart from that legal aspect, however, is the more important issue of ensuring the Native Americans have access to the same citizenship rights and civil liberties that all groups do. It should not be due to a legal technicality that this bill isn't allowed to pass. It should be because of citizen outrage and intrinsic values of democracy instilled in the lawmakers of North Dakota.
Next time you express your right to vote, I want you to think about this post. For most of you reading this, you probably will have few problems, if any, going through the voting process. But remember, for some, it is not that easy. Through your awareness of issues like these, make sure that you're voting for officials who support equal access to voting to ALL people in America, not just some. It is the politicians who believe fully in the democratic process that should be representing this nation.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)