Events and individuals have have always been focal points-something to rally behind to address larger more inclusive issues. Such was the case with Nadia in Iran last year, such has been the case with Wounded Knee, and that has been the case for such divergent groups as those who advocate for Annie Mae or Leonard Peltier-the wind who chases himself.
The events on the Rol discussion about Jesus are taking the expected turn-the common denial statements of why speak for Annie as she is only one person is the preferred, if not the only, defense that can be made. That accompanied by the predictable accusations and misdirection.
In that is the convenience of denial and ignoring that in speaking for her one speaks for all women-it fails to take into account that in any venue where you find such an advocacy you will also find multiple references to indigenous “women”-that is a plural, an inclusive position, a speaking for all victims.
If this dismissal of Annie being only one woman has any validity then why would any advocate for Peltier? And if any do how are they able to validate it by this standard? He’s only one man, and unlike Annie he is no victim. Stand on a the internet podium with a bullhorn for decades and support Peltier, and now Graham, but dismiss Annie as one woman, and in doing so dismiss all women.
Russell has travelled far and wide to speak, mostly for himself, but also for Peltier-has he done the same for Annie Mae, indigenous women, or the issues we speak of?
A completely ridiculous logic is offered for this in the discussion in stating that the real issues of alcohol, drugs, gangs, the rape and abuse of women and children and apparently any other pressing issue are taboo. Not to be spoken of-and it follows then not to be remediated.
Should this same logic be applied to the events of Wounded Knee? Should it be dismissed as only an event that involved a lesser number in comparison to the “hundred of thousands” of other indigenous people who suffered a similiar fate? Should the same question of “what is it you people want” be asked of those who use it as a focal point, a rallying call?
Should this contorted logic be applied to those who speak for Jancita Eagle Deer or Buddy Lamont? If this is the way of it by what right, and for what purpose did any march for John Wesley Bad Heart Bull at Custer-weren’t these all just one person?
I don’t think any would take that position, but those patriarchs secure in the bulwark of the RoL are singular in their dismissals, and all are the prime examples of patriarchy and the oppression of women.
There was a time when it was common to see what were referred to as cigar story Indians carved of wood and duly adorned with paint and feathers-wooden, rigid, with a fixed expression, and immovable.
Their sole purpose was to pander to a certain perception, a mental image of a real live noble redman- I submit the Rol is over run with it’s on version of these duly adorned cigar store Indians that are equally as rigid and fixed in their positions, and impervious to the elements that are in this instance truth and reality.
They like the wooden Indians can only see in the direction they are pointed, the one they face, and these wooden redmen who frequent the Rol nurture each other and the perpetuation of the status quo in their exchanges among themselves of being not only red, but noble in their positions, and above all else warriors.
If men want to complain about being blamed for creating the circumstances women face and being “insulted” for them they need to consider they are the very ones responsible for the creation, and allowing them to continue due to what they would refer to as the “taboo'” off limits nature in discussion, and the lack of taking a visible and communal stand -in the best possible light , and the least “insulting”, it can only be said that in doing so a tacit permission is given.
It isn’t the women who have created this environment and deserve to be insulted for it-it is the men, and they deserve every insult that can be directed at them, and doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what color they are, how much Indianese, Taiwanese, Americanese , or any other manner of speech they resort to.
One person stands in opposition to this RoL discussion and I would think an advocate for Annie Mae and indigenous women would offer some word of support there…. even if only in passing. One advocate, who if nothing else could gather a few statements by other advocates and post them jointly, something like lostwhitebrother has done . Question is, is he lost or abandoned?
It is an easy thing to be an advocate when surrounded by the comfort of like thinkers-another to go where you won’t receive a pat on the back and speak against the grain.