(no subject)
May. 27th, 2003 10:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
urocyonI haven't updated in a while, for the simple reason that I couldn't think of anything to say that wasn't terribly repetitive. It has remained too wet to get much gardening work done, and I have too much time on my hands. Besides my not wanting to bore people with the process of becoming increasingly more attached to someone at a distance again, for good or bad, which has been occupying entirely too much of my time and energy.
I did look at an overview which helped me clarify some thoughts. I've enjoyed Mr. McElwain's generally thought-provoking (and humorous) posts to Mingo-L, not to mention appreciating the work he's done toward preserving the language. In this particular article, though, it seems that we are roughly in agreement on language loss not necessarily equating to loss of culture and identity among Eastern Woodland people, at least. Beyond that, he addresses something, along the lines of which I'd been thinking recently:
What follows is not based on fieldwork as such, but on what I remember of family tradition. 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.
A nice, straightforward approach, which seems to have been shared by other "unrecognised" [1] Eastern Woodland people--this does sound all too familiar, from family tradition. Seeing this stated so succinctly was helpful, though.
And I start thinking again how unfortunate it is that external concepts, including blood quantum, have been imposed on us to the point that even those of us whose ancestors were largely assimilated [2] occasionally have to stop and think about our identities. Beyond the simplest "I am who I am," "I am a member of this family/community/etc.," even "I'm as indigenous as they get, damnit!". *g* Worries about cultural appropriation seem misguided--unless one is really trying too hard--but they still crop up, no matter what direction one chooses. One of the results of living in a creole culture, I suppose.
[1] Whatever you think of the list, the language, Mr. McElwain, or tribal recognition, please do not fill up the comments. I am not slurring anyone.[3]
[2] An at least two-wave effect here. The Native population taking in trickles of Europeans and Africans, then intermingling with a larger group of later settlers (many of whom also brought in Pamunkey, Mattaponi, Saponi, etc. influences), with surprisingly little conflict. Of course, it's happened to a lesser extent since.
[3] This is only a slightly paranoid inclusion.
I did look at an overview which helped me clarify some thoughts. I've enjoyed Mr. McElwain's generally thought-provoking (and humorous) posts to Mingo-L, not to mention appreciating the work he's done toward preserving the language. In this particular article, though, it seems that we are roughly in agreement on language loss not necessarily equating to loss of culture and identity among Eastern Woodland people, at least. Beyond that, he addresses something, along the lines of which I'd been thinking recently:
What follows is not based on fieldwork as such, but on what I remember of family tradition. 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.
A nice, straightforward approach, which seems to have been shared by other "unrecognised" [1] Eastern Woodland people--this does sound all too familiar, from family tradition. Seeing this stated so succinctly was helpful, though.
And I start thinking again how unfortunate it is that external concepts, including blood quantum, have been imposed on us to the point that even those of us whose ancestors were largely assimilated [2] occasionally have to stop and think about our identities. Beyond the simplest "I am who I am," "I am a member of this family/community/etc.," even "I'm as indigenous as they get, damnit!". *g* Worries about cultural appropriation seem misguided--unless one is really trying too hard--but they still crop up, no matter what direction one chooses. One of the results of living in a creole culture, I suppose.
[1] Whatever you think of the list, the language, Mr. McElwain, or tribal recognition, please do not fill up the comments. I am not slurring anyone.[3]
[2] An at least two-wave effect here. The Native population taking in trickles of Europeans and Africans, then intermingling with a larger group of later settlers (many of whom also brought in Pamunkey, Mattaponi, Saponi, etc. influences), with surprisingly little conflict. Of course, it's happened to a lesser extent since.
[3] This is only a slightly paranoid inclusion.
