More on xenophobic BS

[urocyon]

Just spotted through an excellent comment on the_future_modernes's So Elizabeth Moon outs herself: a great post from sanguinity, "...the native peoples had the most troubles with the immigrants...":

In short: we're not your rhetorical pawns to play with. If you want to go after Muslims or Latinos or whoeverall, stop using us to do it. And if you're criticizing U.S. xenophobia and nationalism, thus defending Muslims, Latinos, and whoever else needs it -- well, I personally approve of the goal, but I can't say that I'm much pleased with the method of white people once again using imaginary Indians to score a quick point off of each other. And I'm especially not pleased when doing so distorts and denies that Native peoples have current interests in this fight. Native people are also being harmed by nationalism and xenophobia, and they're being harmed right now, not back in the 17th and 18th centuries. It'd be good if your references to Native peoples in this discussion were actually cognizant of that.

I can't add much to that.

In the "need to stop imagining what indigenous people have to say about immigration" category, I can't resist the opportunity to point at Tom McElwain's take, from The Use of the Mingo Language in the Last Half of the Twentieth Century (emphasis mine):

There is no Mingo political entity, nor has there been one since Chief Logan ratified the traditional Mingo position not only against the Iroquois League, but against all representative government. Mingos still maintain self-control and neighborly co-operation as the only acceptable form of government. That has not prevented some descendants from running for public office, however...

From the Mingo point of view, the indigenous peoples have the right of sovereign self-government. Mingos have historically chosen the path of community self-definition without representation within the framework of indigenous houses on the continent. This means that Mingos do not recognize the authority of non-indigenous agencies, although in practice they might either take advantage of them or submit to their regulations. Such submission does not imply any more recognition of their jurisdiction than giving over one's wallet to a mugger implies acceptance of mugger authority. Both the United States and Canada are no more than guest worker unions with no jurisdiction over Mingos. The fact that guests have been on the continent for several generations does not imply that they are no longer guests. The fact that such guests, who are for the most part welcome in the country, have a tradition of behaving badly does not imply a conquest either. If they were truly the extension of the Roman empire their constituents would be able to pronounce E pluribus unum. They have the possibility of adoption or "naturalization" into the eastern woodland peoples just as people can be naturalized into legitimate nations such as Finland or Denmark. If they have chosen to remain guests over many generations, they are free to so choose, but they are not free to set up government on earth where a viable society has been in place continually for hundreds of years. Such pretension is merely bad behavior in guests.

Trying to set yourselves up as the true spiritual descendents of the folks your ancestors mugged? Deciding you should be in control of who can come and go--not to mention how they should behave while there? Further bad behavior on the part of guests.

Inspired by the bumper sticker sanguinity pointed out, here's a tongue-in-cheek language lesson I ran across a while back, in Giduwa dialect (source):

Description: Video, "Welcome to America, now speak Cherokee!"