Redskins vs. The Many Native American Nations

The Museum of the American Indian is a much more acceptable depiction of Native Americans than the exaggerated, easily-represented, old-fashioned stereotype used to symbolize the Washington Redskins. In the pop-culture encyclopedia from which simplistic concepts like sports teams are taken, the native american is a feather-adorned, red-skinned, warpainted, weapon-wielding noble savage. Like all stereotypes, this image takes a grain of truth and treats it as though it is the whole truth. As shown by the museum exhibits we saw, native americans are a vastly complex, varied series of different nations, all of which have unique identities. The “Native American” is not a single idea, but a term that can only be used correctly when referring to all the indigenous people of the Americas.

The depiction of the Native American given by the Museum of the American Indian is one of a number of different people who are described as human beings, with the histories of any other number of world civilizations and the same modernization and variation that other cultures have today. The pop-culture depiction embraced by the Redskins strips the humanity out of native americans, reducing them to an outdated cliche that, after bombarding the population enough without opposition, begins to affect peoples’ thoughts about real Native Americans. Without a strong presence of real Native American culture to be an alternative, the cliche is sadly all the exposure some people receive to the idea of Native Americans. And when this is the only idea they have to work with, Native Americans logically seem like an idea that isn’t real, and can’t really exist in the modern world, and become in peoples’ subconscious minds an extinct concept, like crusaders or Arthurian knights.

Largely because of this, the fact that Native Americans are real people who not only live in the present and are nothing like the stereotypes depict, but are also a people who still struggle with ongoing problems left over from the European conquest, slips many peoples’ minds. This is not just a matter of cultural knowledge and sensitivity, but poses another hurdle for the problems of Native Americans. When a marginalized group, such as African Americans during various periods of history, are given attention and presented accurately, people quickly begin to figure out the injustices and problems they deal with, dismissing flawed conceptions of the group in question as they go. But when a group is pushed to the side and never gets a chance to speak, overcoming any problem becomes much harder. And because the stereotypes of Native Americans is so pervasive (and not nearly as widely derided as stereotypes of most other minorities), Native Americans not only have to make their voices heard, but have the added task of doing away with the stereotypes first. After exposure to Native American cultures, such as the exhibits of the museum, it is simple to see that it is a more acceptable depiction, because it is a more accurate depiction. Unfortunately, too few people get that kind of much-needed exposure.

“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”

Benjamin Franklin

Is Columbus to Blame?

I think Columbus did have a bit to do with the direction of how the native people of America were treated. Columbus came to the "new world" with a slight superiority complex, thinking that "civilized" European culture is what these "uncultured" people with no religion needed.

Columbus couldn't accept that the natives had a different culture, language, and religion that served them perfectly well before the Europeans cam along. I think Columbus' treatment and view of the natives set a precedent for how others treated and viewed the Indians. Good relations in the beginning between the Europeans and the natives could have led to better ones in the future. The constant push of Christianity and European culture and values on the Indians, however, diminished the potential for cooperation, made the natives feel threatened, and caused conflict.

Blame Columbus

It is completely fair to blame Columbus for what happened after he “discovered” the Americas. Columbus essentially decided how the Native Americans were going to be treated the moment he stepped foot onto the “New World.” While he can’t be blamed for bringing diseases like smallpox to the natives, he is at fault for setting the tone for the negative treatment of Native Americans. He promised gold and slaves for the Queen of Spain, even though Queen Isabella didn’t want slaves. Had Columbus looked at the Indians as people of equal stature instead of savages to be exploited, the terms between the Europeans and the Native Americans could’ve been a lot friendlier. As the leader of the settlers who reported back on what he thought was Asia, he set the tone for future interactions between Native Americans and Europeans.

Leaders are what they are because those who listen to them follow them. Because the European crew have never met Native Americans before, they would have looked to Columbus for guidance as to how they should relate with them. While nothing is certain, if Columbus acted courteously for the good of both sides, history could be dramatically different. The treatment of these people as objects may have become the precedent for the future practice of slavery in the United States. Just like how we learned how our parents dealt with a situation we’ve never seen before, they did the same thing. Columbus could have peacefully traded goods instead of winding them up and shipping them off as slaves. Today we often blame our leaders for screwing up and causing problems. We should look at Columbus with the same eyes we do with our present leaders.

Blaming Columbus

Can we blame Columbus for what happened to the Native Americans? Surely he was no saint, and certainly had no respect for the indigenous people here, but we cannot blame him for Europe’s response to the new world. Even if Columbus had been an idealistic, altruistic adventurer who respected native people, was willing to be fair with them, and wanted to explore more than to make money, it would not have had any impact on the way the Native Americans were treated.

The culture of Europe at the time was one that combined the early renaissance values of developing new ideas, expanding fields of knowledge, and outwards-thinking expansionism; with the religion-infused, narrow-minded concepts that had been internalized and strengthened throughout the dark ages. Europeans had a great drive to become a successful, enlightened people; but were limited by the decades to centuries of a stagnant social condition, lack of attention to the evolution of schools of thought on multiple levels -- political, technological, scientific, artistic, philosophical --, crushing poverty, and religious fanaticism brought on by the massive death rates due to both the Black Plauge and the devastation that followed; that had drastically slowed the development of European society. When Europe emerged from the dark ages, they were socially not far removed from the crusades, invading and slaughtering to heroically spread the word of Christ among heathens. They were taking risks and venturing into the world with their rising power, but did not have the knowledge and development to match. In short, they were rather like uneducated enthusiasts secure in the knowledge that they knew best. It is ridiculous to think that upon discovering a new land, filled with an abundance of resources and populated by a people who seemed primitive savages to the best of their knowledge and were most certainly not Christian, Europeans would collectively decide to be respectful and diplomatic with these new people and lands, even if an important adventurer had protested.

Europeans at that time did not have the standards to measure up to that we do. They were convinced that the people they had discovered were lower than they were, and did not deserve to have their way of life respected, not when it so neatly fit their ideals about spreading the Christian and European way of life as the superior way. They were struggling to emerge into a period of renaissance, and would not have dreamed of leaving alone land and resources that were so abundant and easily taken. Perhaps if, by lucky chance, Columbus had been an unnaturally learned, experienced, and enlightened person who also had an immense amount of power; he might have been able to stall the European conquest of America slightly, or maybe inspired a school of thought that pushed for a less brutally oppressive campaign. But even so, the discovery of the new world was such a godsend, and arguments against its conquest so unsupported, that it never would have been left alone. Columbus may have done nothing to make the plight of the Native Americans easier, but he had a minimal impact on the European approach to the Americas after discovering them.

The Representation of "Indians"

Americans have become accustomed to calling Native American "Indians" because of that little mistake Columbus made. Mention of "Indians" conjures up images of dark skinned people clad with feathers and war paint.

This particular image of Indians is very "Hollywood" and "whimsical," taken advantage by the Washington Redskins to represent their football team. The superficial notion that Indians are "redskinned" and savage warriors does not do justice to the complex cultures of the various Native American tribes.

Exploitation of this stereotypical image undermines Native American as a people. Plastering the image of a so called "Indian" on football helmets, hats, flags, banners, souvenir cups along side colts, dolphins, and bears and having a "redskin" parade around as a mascot doesn't seem right.

Cultures deserve to be respected. Preserved and taught about in museums is one way to do this. What I particularly liked about the Museum of the American Indian is that it conveyed that Native American culture is not a dead one and a thing of the past, but rather a living culture that is still practiced by an array of people who are not "redskinned"and adorned with feather headdresses.

Reflection: The Shining City on the Pale Blue Dot

First of all, let's settle this now.  The woman giving the presentation on behalf of the World Bank seemed to brush off New Jersey as this cesspool of corrupted garbage.  Let me tell you something: this country would be nothing without New Jersey.  You all can live with tuberculosis?  Didn't think so.  What about living without college football?  Yeah, me neither.  New Jersey makes this country's trains run on time.  Plus, we have several bad sports teams to ridicule to make you all feel better about your own pathetic teams.  Who would be your punching bag then?  That's right.  New Jersey is just around to make all of you complacently say "hey, at least I don't live there!"  Whatever, we don't want you anyway.  

Anyway, the woman who came from the World Bank explained the priorities that the World Bank has recognized throughout its history as an international entity.  These priorities sound familiar when discussing the problems facing citizens in the United States.  Lack of shelter, lack of healthcare, lack of food, clothing, etc.

We talked about the issue of equality in class.  While I agree that that a capitalist society should run on the principles of winners and losers, the "survival of the fittest" mentality that was brought up in class is an extraordinarily primitive principle.  Yes, we at American would probably feel that it doesn't matter if we help the destitute, seeing that we are on the "top of the class" relative to them.

I'm not saying that the incomes of everyone in the country should be equal, but there needs to be equal opportunity for all.  And in that, in an ideal world, our social programs would be effective in providing people with the opportunity to better their lives.

How can we solve this, then?  The woman from the World Bank gave very daunting statistics regarding the allocation of money that developed countries have exhibited in previous fiscal years.  1.4 trillion dollars is spent, per year, on defenses.  A vast majority of that money comes from the United States.  In this country of ENORMOUS affluence, it is a disgrace that we spend seemingly unlimited amounts of money on instruments of destruction and war, while it has become damn near impossible to get a 30 day extension on unemployment benefits for those still out of work.  We need to reexamine our priorities in this country, or soon we will find our citizens dying in the streets of Kabul as well as in the streets of Washington.  

I see the argument for war, but the way I see it we should spend our money more on instruments of peace and prosperity.  Peace is better than war, because life is better than death.

Also, talking to Erin earlier in the week made me realize that it has been 14 years last week since the death of famed astronomer Carl Sagan.  His ideals regarding the fate of humanity, particularly when it comes to the exponential defense spending of developed nations, are aptly shown in his speech below regarding the photo taken of Earth by Voyager 1 in 1990, when it was 4 billion miles away from Earth:

That's here, that's home, that's us.  On it, everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives.  The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, ever mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "supreme leader," every "superstar," every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there -- on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage, in a vast, cosmic, arena.  Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on he scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.  Think for a moment of the rivers of blood, spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters -- of a fraction of a dot.

Our posterings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe are challenged by this point of pale light.  Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.  In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere -- to save us from ourselves.

Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand.  It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and preserve and cherish, the only home we've ever known.  The pale blue dot. 

Reflection - World Bank

I found the presentation from the World Bank to be an excellent one, although it was unfortunate that we could not go visit the World Bank at the same time. I think the World Bank Organization is a great thing for the world to have. It is dedicated to the betterment of the world by helping out countries that are in need while also encouraging them to improve on their own by using incentives and developing infrastructure. This gives rise to wealthy states with healthy economies and stable political systems, which in turn lessen the need for the World Bank’s help and makes the world as a whole a better place to live in.

The World Bank also has careful policies to maximize its effects. Its policies regarding investment returns for the countries that give it money to fund its programs greatly incentivize the countries in questions to do everything possible to make the programs succeed. Also, higher donations mean higher amounts of discretion over spending, which gives the country that gives the most money the most power because money can be used as leverage in international politics, fostering more cooperation and providing better conditions and advantages to the countries with increased power. This helps not only the countries being helped, but the countries doing the helping, thereby increasing the amount of people helped without having to increase the amount of money spent on programs.

The Bank also has careful restrictions on the qualifications for getting money, and discretion over which organizations in a country gets the money, which decreases the likelihood of the money being eaten up by corruption and incompetence before it has an impact on the people who need it the most, as happens in general block grants. I really admire well-constructed and efficient organizations that once started are self-powered, generating wealth and stability in the world leads to more funding for the bank, which in turn generates even more wealth and stability.

I think this kind of organization is the kind that gets to the heart of the problems of inequality and hardship in the world. It is difficult to be totally altruistic when your country has limitations of its own, but it is unanimously agreed upon (by people with balanced and healthy minds, at least) that leaving poor countries in the dust is unfair. However, this conflict is often incorrectly branded as a choice between two separate paths. In reality, helping other countries helps the whole world; the world, especially now after so much globalization; has become small enough that we can view it as a closed system in which (in most cases that is -- irrational and/or fundamentalist religious states still pose a problem in this area) a weak country weakens everyone else. and a strong country strengthens everyone else.