#41: Veterans Day (short story)

(NOTE: I am working on sorting my “military” and “counter-recruitment” stories and essays out so as to organize them into some sort of coherent collection (see entries #37 and #40). So I came across this short story I wrote a few years ago, and thought I would post this early draft of “Veterans Day” online. I plan to put a final draft of this story in the collection of military writings so let me know what you think. It is a piece of creative non-fiction. Available as a Word-document (5 pages) VETERANS DAY.)

Mom remarried, and her new husband brought to live with us his father and his three oldest children. The new family members were Absentee Shawnee, and their name was Starr. I was not around when mom married The Shawnee as I stayed much of that time with Susie, one of my sisters, in her tiny rented shotgun duplex located several blocks from mom’s house. One day, Susie hung up the telephone and told me that our mom had remarried.

I was a very shy kid and would speak only to other kids, my mom, and my brothers and sisters—all of whom I adored and would trail after in that imprinted ambling manner so characteristic of the youngest in families. The first time mom had brought her future husband to our house, I was playing by myself in the front yard. As soon as pick-up lights shone onto the lawn, I ran to hide behind the towering cedar tree where I did not budge despite mom’s calls for me to come over and meet her friend. Weeks later, I must have sensed that these were people that would be around for a while. I relaxed my guard and I allowed his teenagers and him to listen to me read aloud. In turn, they taught me different card games. One of the boys worked with me to learn to recognize the differences between the four directions.

#40. Whose Honor Guard? An Open Letter

NOTE: This is the 2nd in a planned series of 3 – 4 posts on a difficult topic in Indian Country: the relationships between U.S. militarization and our Tribal Nations and warriors societies.

In July 2006, a colleague asked me to assist him with writing, editing, and distributing an open letter that appealed to each Tribal Community to conduct a series of open dialogues and councils on the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I agreed, in great part, because it was my belief—it remains my belief—that each tribe ought to gather and assess all evidence and perspectives carefully and thoughtfully prior to asking our young people to enter into combat on behalf of the United States. I believe that, in keeping with our Sovereign status, the U.S. is obligated to share its intelligence with the Tribal Nations as it does with the Nation-States regarding military engagement. I believe that the NCAI could play a part in this sharing of intelligence to our chiefs and other representatives.

Reactions to this open letter were swift, and defensive. In my case, I received emails accusing me of being disrespectful to the combat veterans due to my encouragement of calling for open community dialogue on this issue. I remember one scholar in particular who repeatedly attacked my character (and not the open letter) on a listserv for my daring to ask our communities to challenge ourselves to not let the United States decide for us what is best for our own People. I remember him because he subsequently apologized to me in person when he came to Kansas; at the time of his attacks on me, my sense was that this man was unfamiliar with and perhaps threatened by the Peacemakers Societies (societies which many Tribes have temporarily put aside while maintaining War Societies). Perhaps he also was troubled by the fact that a woman was challenging his cherished beliefs about the military; he had been taught, perhaps, that it was an act of Indigenous honor for the Tribal Nations to participate in U.S. militarization.

Too often, with regards to U.S. militarization, it is assumed that our high rates of enlistment mean that there does not exist Native resistance and opposition to the U.S. military’s exploitation of our cherished cultural beliefs regarding war and peace. These posts are meant to offer documentation otherwise.

#39. Snap Analysis and Commentary: Week Ending 7 August 2009

(NOTE: This is an irregularly appearing weekly brief summation and analysis of a few selected tribal, national, and international events involving Indian Country.)

Quote of the week from Bolivian President Evo Morales: “Your president, your companion, your brother Evo Morales might make mistakes but will never betray the fight started by our ancestors and the fight of the Bolivian people.” (3 August 2009)

Department of the Interior and Indian Affairs

Is it possible for the Bureau to change its image in Indian Country? But more substantially, will the Bureau successfully make history on behalf of Native Peoples as promised by Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk during his 26 June 2009 official swearing-in? Indian Country is a gravy train for many individuals and organizations so which of them will attempt to block Echo Hawk’s attempt to transform the Bureau? And how much is there to repair after the previous eight years? Or, 16 years? 100 years and more?

There is so much to repair. Just as the U.S. has to reestablish “good neighbor” polices and practices with the international community, so too, it needs to establish these practices with the Tribal Nations. The U.S. government’s primary link to Indian Country, Indian Affairs (formerly the Bureau of Indian Affairs), finds its plate full of a multitude of anti-Native activities that all require immediate attention and intelligent solutions:

• The current Bureau and Department of the Interior administrations have inherited several lawsuits and rulings that require resolutions which honor Self-Determination (and in the case of, for example, the Cherokee Nation government’s resistance to the United Keetoowah Band’s claim to territory, a diplomatic solution). And a new lawsuit was recently filed by Navajo citizens. This Class Action Lawsuit against the BIA/BIE presents serious allegations that, if true, explain why Indian Country experiences ongoing frustration, cynicism and despair about the Bureau and its, if not scorched earth policies, then its long walk through wet cement-type-of-service to its constituents. The allegations made by the Navajo plaintiffs include unnecessary transfers, forced resignations, hostile work environment, lost training opportunities, unlawful hiring practices, and pay discrepancies. Reading the lawsuit provides helpful insight into the administrative and fiduciary structure of the Bureau.

• A hopeful sign that the new Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk is moving away from the culture of the past eight years: Echo Hawk has put together a team of advisors that are notable not only for their youth but also for their constructive record of service to Indian Country and understanding of “best-practices” in negotiating the hallways of federal power. With the recent selection of Donald “Del” Laverdure to the post of Deputy Assistant Secretary, and the prior appointments of Wizipan Garriott as Policy Advisor to the Assistant Secretary, Tracie Stevens as Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary, and Paul Tsosie as Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary, the immediate advisory team is now formally in place. As we all know, these young individuals have their work cut out for them and we hope to see them aggressively advocating for Indian Country.

#38. Checkpoint 3: Apartheid Walls

(Originally posted June 2008)

(Graffiti is one response to the Israel-constructed Apartheid Wall. This stenciled image is at a Ramallah checkpoint. Photo taken by J.Good Fox, June 2008.)

OCCUPIED WEST BANK—In “Checkpoint 2,” I briefly discussed the gate-keeping process at these sites without describing the Apartheid Wall of which the checkpoints are a component. Before I continue writing on checkpoints, I would like to offer a few facts about the wall.

Apartheid Wall Facts:

• The Apartheid Wall is sometimes is referred to as a “partition,” a “security fence,” and a “separation barrier.” These terms attempt to turn attention away from the reality of what the wall actually is: a wall designed to impose Apartheid on the Palestinian People.
• In 2004, The International Court of Justice at The Hague issued a resolution calling for Israel to halt construction of the wall, and to dismantle the sections that it already had built.

#37: Whose Honor Guard? Native Opposition to the War on Terror

NOTE: Over the next several weeks, I will publish 3 – 4 posts on a difficult topic in Indian Country: the relationships between U.S. militarization and our Tribal Nations and warriors societies.

Nearly 25% of Native Peoples have served in the U.S. military. Whose Honor Guard? is an exploration of what lies behind this statistic. These posts are neither critical of the individuals who have served in the U.S. military nor are they meant to serve as cheerleaders for the usual justifications given for such a high rate of Native participation in the military.

Instead, these posts attempt to provide a series of broad sketches that illustrate the  larger picture of military involvement and to ask ourselves what does it mean for our communities to encourage our young men (and now women) to participate in the U.S. military? These posts also serve to dismantle the hegemonic myth that all Indigenous Peoples uncritically support U.S. militarization.

This first post was written by Michael Yellow Bird who gave me permission to publish this on my website. The original, complete with 50 signatures, appeared in Indian Country Today in 2003:

We Oppose the Continuing U.S.-­Led War Against Iraq: A Statement from Native University and Tribal College Professors

We the undersigned Native professors, from many different tribal nations, educational institutions, and academic disciplines, unequivocally oppose the continuing U.S.­-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. As Indigenous academics, we believe that one of our major responsibilities is to contribute to  the intellectual conscience of our tribal nations, and the world community, by providing honest and intelligent assessments of what is truthful and just, and what is not.