Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page wrote a piece, published in some newspapers Nov. 17, about the passing of Vine Deloria, Jr., a Native American leader from the Standing Rock Sioux and prolific writer.
In reviewing some of Deloriaīs perspectives and accomplishments, Page provided valuable information and insight about him, Native American people and their relationships within the culture of the United States.
Without a doubt, Deloria made significant and valuable contributions to understanding the unique, and sometimes forgotten and hidden, importance of the Native American experience and culture. Page communicated many of these elements well.
However, in his column, Page quoted Deloria and another Native American writer-filmmaker, Sherman Alexie, on an issue about which all three of them got it wrong. Not only that, all three reveal significant problems in viewpoint and understanding.
I wouldn't want to bash a fellow journalism alumnus of Ohio University, Athens, like Page, but he and others might benefit from considering additional information about Native Americans, race and the historical, psychological, spiritual, biological and genetic factors involved.
In his article, Page makes significant mention of the Cherokee, and of people who are mixed-race with Cherokee and other genetic backgrounds.
He seems to do so in a demeaning and racially-slanted way, in part, quoting Deloria and Alexie.
Page, being African-American, surely feels some kinship with the experiences of Native Americans and the bitter history of both groups in the evolution of the United States. Rightly so.
As an Ohio University alum, Page spent time in Athens, Ohio, located just north of the cultural range of the ancient Cherokee civilization.
Maybe, reflecting the lack of information in our educations about Native Americans, Page didnīt learn about the history of Cherokee at Ohio U., or anywhere else. Such is our educational system that Deloria and others have commented on.
The following four key paragraphs toward the end of Pageīs column are the ones that require further scrutiny:
"I regret never getting a chance to thank Deloria for opening my eyes. Caught up as I was in how similar we all are under the skin, he helped me to respect our differences of experience, too. We Americans are not a melting pot; we're more of a mulligan stew, all contributing some flavor to the pot and absorbing new flavors from the mix."
"In this vein, he ridiculed the odd situation of having the blood that white Americans, among others, most wanted to have in their own family background, as if having "some Indian blood in the family" actually makes you a "little more American" than those who don't have it. The most popular tribe seemed to be Cherokee, he noted curiously."
"Years later, I was recalling those lines with the fine Native American writer-filmmaker Sherman Alexie, author of "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven," among other books, as we prepared to appear on a public television race relations panel with then-President Bill Clinton."
"Later during the show, as if he had been listening to us, Clinton revealed to the world that his own family had "some Indian blood" on his mother's side. "Cherokee," he announced, looking somewhat bemused. Alexie, a Spokane/Coeur d'Alene from Washington State, and I traded here-we-go-again glances. We Americans sure do love that Indian blood."
Do I note some sarcasm there? And is Page referring only to people who are mixed-race of European and Native American or is he also including those who are African-American and native?
How about the people of Mexican heritage who are part-Spanish and part-native?
As for Deloria's and Alexie's comments, which Page seems to embrace, that people who talk about Native American backgrounds in their family history are somehow phonies, this is where a problem seems to be present in the perspective of all three of them.
On the issue of mixed-race Americans who have Cherokee in them, this is not necessarily a made-up fantasy of wannabes.
Anyone who has studied Cherokee history knows that there was very widespread intermarriage between Cherokee women and the male explorers and mountain men who ventured into the Smokey and Appalachian Mountain region in the decades before the American Revolution and after.
The ancient Cherokee culture was matriarchal, female-oriented and allowed significant social and sexual freedom to women.
In some ways, the ancient Cherokee culture was comparable to the Polynesian societies of the Pacific region. This freedom, the reported warmth of the Cherokee people and lonely hunters, trappers and explorers resulted in many mixed-race children.
Through the 1700s and the "Trail of Tears" forced migration in the late 1830s, and beyond, many generations of mixed-race Cherokees were born.
Often, but not exclusively, these were people of Cherokee and English or Scottish backgrounds. By the time of the Trail of Tears, there were already several generations of this kind.
These mixed-race people then went on to marry others of the same background, or other backgrounds. They spread into the surrounding regions, and later, the "states" of the new nation, whether in the eastern traditional Cherokee mountains or in Oklahoma and elsewhere after they were forced out.
Many people claim Cherokee background because the Cherokee intermarried with Europeans more widely than many other tribes. And those intermarriages were further back in history, allowing a wider dissemination into many family trees.
It was before the more widespread efforts at genocide of native people. Before the isolation of militarily-defeated tribes on reservations.
Some full-blood Native Americans may look down on these mixed-race people. Do Deloria, Alexie and others feel they are better than mixed-race Americans? Does Page?
If your great-great grandmother was Cherokee or some other tribe, is that OK? What if it was your great-great-great grandfather? Does that make you a wannabe phony.
Here's something else to consider. Our DNA within each cell of our bodies acts in ways we do not fully understand.
The genetic history of our ancestors is passed down over the centuries and comes together in a child in certain ways, creating certain physical features, and, we suspect, possibly psychological and emotional tendencies.
A certain genetic background does not affect a person strictly by percentages, though native tribes use this criteria to allow official membership.
If you are one-quarter, one-sixteenth, one-thirty-second, one-sixty-fourth, does that mean the genetic history within you, which goes back into the ancient past, is not valid? Does it affect a person by these concrete percentages?
Does having a great-great-great grandmother or grandfather who was Native American, instead of being one-half, make you less prone to a certain way of thinking, feeling?
Is your spirituality less affected? Is the way you view Nature, the Earth, animals not part of that deep DNA with you?
The Native American DNA within people who seem "white," "black," "brown" or whatever is something very significant. In some people, it is "sleeping." For others, they have always known there was something in them connected to the ancient times in the Americas.
They may even have slightly darker skin, a certain facial or body structure or other genetic traits. This background may manifest itself a little or a lot.
Despite what Page writes, many people don't claim their Native American background. Many don't know about it because that side of the family may not have detailed written records, or the family didn't talk about it. The family may prefer to self-identify as "black," "brown" or "white."
But more families are finding out. The interest in researching family trees in recent years has revealed to many Americans that their background includes not only Africans and Europeans, but also Native Americans.
This is something to explore further, to understand what it means. To understand what is within us and what its importance is. This should be encouraged and valued, not disrespected.
There was a prophesy by a Native American wise man -- maybe it was in the book "Black Elk Speaks." That the time would come in North America, when new generations, who have a different color skin, would recognize their Native American nature, and the people of this land would once again embrace the love of Earth, Nature and spirituality of the native peoples.
This time is emerging now.
AUTHOR NOTE TO READERS: Please visit my Joint Recon Study Group blog.
In reviewing some of Deloriaīs perspectives and accomplishments, Page provided valuable information and insight about him, Native American people and their relationships within the culture of the United States.
Without a doubt, Deloria made significant and valuable contributions to understanding the unique, and sometimes forgotten and hidden, importance of the Native American experience and culture. Page communicated many of these elements well.
However, in his column, Page quoted Deloria and another Native American writer-filmmaker, Sherman Alexie, on an issue about which all three of them got it wrong. Not only that, all three reveal significant problems in viewpoint and understanding.
I wouldn't want to bash a fellow journalism alumnus of Ohio University, Athens, like Page, but he and others might benefit from considering additional information about Native Americans, race and the historical, psychological, spiritual, biological and genetic factors involved.
In his article, Page makes significant mention of the Cherokee, and of people who are mixed-race with Cherokee and other genetic backgrounds.
He seems to do so in a demeaning and racially-slanted way, in part, quoting Deloria and Alexie.
Page, being African-American, surely feels some kinship with the experiences of Native Americans and the bitter history of both groups in the evolution of the United States. Rightly so.
As an Ohio University alum, Page spent time in Athens, Ohio, located just north of the cultural range of the ancient Cherokee civilization.
Maybe, reflecting the lack of information in our educations about Native Americans, Page didnīt learn about the history of Cherokee at Ohio U., or anywhere else. Such is our educational system that Deloria and others have commented on.
The following four key paragraphs toward the end of Pageīs column are the ones that require further scrutiny:
"I regret never getting a chance to thank Deloria for opening my eyes. Caught up as I was in how similar we all are under the skin, he helped me to respect our differences of experience, too. We Americans are not a melting pot; we're more of a mulligan stew, all contributing some flavor to the pot and absorbing new flavors from the mix."
"In this vein, he ridiculed the odd situation of having the blood that white Americans, among others, most wanted to have in their own family background, as if having "some Indian blood in the family" actually makes you a "little more American" than those who don't have it. The most popular tribe seemed to be Cherokee, he noted curiously."
"Years later, I was recalling those lines with the fine Native American writer-filmmaker Sherman Alexie, author of "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven," among other books, as we prepared to appear on a public television race relations panel with then-President Bill Clinton."
"Later during the show, as if he had been listening to us, Clinton revealed to the world that his own family had "some Indian blood" on his mother's side. "Cherokee," he announced, looking somewhat bemused. Alexie, a Spokane/Coeur d'Alene from Washington State, and I traded here-we-go-again glances. We Americans sure do love that Indian blood."
Do I note some sarcasm there? And is Page referring only to people who are mixed-race of European and Native American or is he also including those who are African-American and native?
How about the people of Mexican heritage who are part-Spanish and part-native?
As for Deloria's and Alexie's comments, which Page seems to embrace, that people who talk about Native American backgrounds in their family history are somehow phonies, this is where a problem seems to be present in the perspective of all three of them.
On the issue of mixed-race Americans who have Cherokee in them, this is not necessarily a made-up fantasy of wannabes.
Anyone who has studied Cherokee history knows that there was very widespread intermarriage between Cherokee women and the male explorers and mountain men who ventured into the Smokey and Appalachian Mountain region in the decades before the American Revolution and after.
The ancient Cherokee culture was matriarchal, female-oriented and allowed significant social and sexual freedom to women.
In some ways, the ancient Cherokee culture was comparable to the Polynesian societies of the Pacific region. This freedom, the reported warmth of the Cherokee people and lonely hunters, trappers and explorers resulted in many mixed-race children.
Through the 1700s and the "Trail of Tears" forced migration in the late 1830s, and beyond, many generations of mixed-race Cherokees were born.
Often, but not exclusively, these were people of Cherokee and English or Scottish backgrounds. By the time of the Trail of Tears, there were already several generations of this kind.
These mixed-race people then went on to marry others of the same background, or other backgrounds. They spread into the surrounding regions, and later, the "states" of the new nation, whether in the eastern traditional Cherokee mountains or in Oklahoma and elsewhere after they were forced out.
Many people claim Cherokee background because the Cherokee intermarried with Europeans more widely than many other tribes. And those intermarriages were further back in history, allowing a wider dissemination into many family trees.
It was before the more widespread efforts at genocide of native people. Before the isolation of militarily-defeated tribes on reservations.
Some full-blood Native Americans may look down on these mixed-race people. Do Deloria, Alexie and others feel they are better than mixed-race Americans? Does Page?
If your great-great grandmother was Cherokee or some other tribe, is that OK? What if it was your great-great-great grandfather? Does that make you a wannabe phony.
Here's something else to consider. Our DNA within each cell of our bodies acts in ways we do not fully understand.
The genetic history of our ancestors is passed down over the centuries and comes together in a child in certain ways, creating certain physical features, and, we suspect, possibly psychological and emotional tendencies.
A certain genetic background does not affect a person strictly by percentages, though native tribes use this criteria to allow official membership.
If you are one-quarter, one-sixteenth, one-thirty-second, one-sixty-fourth, does that mean the genetic history within you, which goes back into the ancient past, is not valid? Does it affect a person by these concrete percentages?
Does having a great-great-great grandmother or grandfather who was Native American, instead of being one-half, make you less prone to a certain way of thinking, feeling?
Is your spirituality less affected? Is the way you view Nature, the Earth, animals not part of that deep DNA with you?
The Native American DNA within people who seem "white," "black," "brown" or whatever is something very significant. In some people, it is "sleeping." For others, they have always known there was something in them connected to the ancient times in the Americas.
They may even have slightly darker skin, a certain facial or body structure or other genetic traits. This background may manifest itself a little or a lot.
Despite what Page writes, many people don't claim their Native American background. Many don't know about it because that side of the family may not have detailed written records, or the family didn't talk about it. The family may prefer to self-identify as "black," "brown" or "white."
But more families are finding out. The interest in researching family trees in recent years has revealed to many Americans that their background includes not only Africans and Europeans, but also Native Americans.
This is something to explore further, to understand what it means. To understand what is within us and what its importance is. This should be encouraged and valued, not disrespected.
There was a prophesy by a Native American wise man -- maybe it was in the book "Black Elk Speaks." That the time would come in North America, when new generations, who have a different color skin, would recognize their Native American nature, and the people of this land would once again embrace the love of Earth, Nature and spirituality of the native peoples.
This time is emerging now.
AUTHOR NOTE TO READERS: Please visit my Joint Recon Study Group blog.
