Divide and Conquer: Why is Newspaper Rock Trying to Create Animosity Between Native Writers?

21.4.09

Editorial by TheAngryindian

It seems that Rob Schmidt, the non-Indian editor of the supposedly "American Indian" blog ’Newspaper Rock’ wants to stir up a pissing contest amongst Natives in the blogosphere. At the centre of the firestorm is Prof. Ward Churchill, Indigenist activist and intellectual thorn in the side of assimilationist Native America as well as the current poster boy accused of illustrating the existence of the “fake” Indian. Why Mr. Schmidt seems to care about this to the point of placing himself at the middle of what is really an internal Indian issue is beyond me. His flippant and unduly personalised scribblings against this writer only serve to validate the basis of my observation that pro-establishment reportage is simply that, pro-establishment. “Let’s focus on attacking idiosyncrasies rather than focus on the issues at hand” raised by the individuals so targeted. And when the charge is levied by a White man with an “Indian blog”, well, it simply sounds like ‘divide and conquer’ to me blog-style.

The title of his Indian-against-Indian egging is called “Angryindian vs. Melvin Martin”, a decidedly antagonistic beginning to a conflict that only exists in the minds of those seeking to create a contentious situation. I find it pedantic to qualify this but I will do so anyway: this is not a personal issue. I did not insult either Ms. Rave or Mr. Martin, I stated my opinion on what I, and many others without computers or the necessary knowledge to utilise one if they had access to one, see as a serious problem in Indian Country. In fact, it is a condition which exists and has existed in every population that has had to endure foreign and colonial occupation. There is always a distinct sector of any oppressed population who buy into the inevitability and “rightness” of assimilation with one’s oppressor and act in accordance with this belief in principle. This is what I accused them of. I did not insult their writing style, their persons nor did I question their ethnicity, but what I did do was show my utter contempt for their written politics. Apparently this is verboten and is perceived as a personal insult to the gatekeepers of the “official” Native position concerning all matters Churchill and Native liberation struggles in general.

Mr. Martin’s vociferously toned open-letter of protest to me on Mr Schmidt’s Newspaper Rock is testimony to the wildly reactionary response Indian conservatives employ when faced with a deconstructionist analysis of their assimilationist politic. Putting aside its flight to fantasy in accusing me of implying that I expressed that Mr. Martin has “done nothing” in his “life for Indian Country other than to "stab his own people in the back in defense of the Great White Father who he thiks [sic] respects his white-collar job title", neither Mr. Martin nor the blog owner felt obligated to critique the original basis of my commentary, that when Native journalists employ personality and ethnic-purity attacks to bad-jacket Indigenist activists it destroys the necessary visible bonds of Indian solidarity in the face of colonial Euro-settler repression. You do not use the racist methods of the racist system to defeat someone for speaking on behalf on anti-Indian racism and Indigenous rights, period.

The commentary by both Ms. Rave in her article and by Mr. Schmidt on his post of her piece were chock full of the very same bigoted anti-Indian remarks I had to hear as a child in school. When Ms Rave wrote in her article of her impression of Mr. Churchill, was it entirely necessary for her to sink to such Europocentric lows by qupping, “I took his class, joining mostly white students. I can still see Churchill walking into the room to teach one day wearing sunglasses and no shoes. I wondered: What kind of Indian skips putting on his moccasins?” And how appropriate is it for a White man who could be accused of having an Indian cultural fetish to remark: “Comment: I'd say Churchill's long hair is evidence enough that he's trying to persuade us of his Indian-ness.” Really? Is one to understand from this that Mr. Schmidt, a White man, is “in good” enough with Indians that he is qualified to make such an outlandish remark? This is no different from the White conservative-republican talking point that Churchill’s Indian persona is a fiction and that their anti-Indian racial snipes were justified since Churchill, “Isn’t really Indian” anyway. Not one Indian in the mainstream press mentioned this dynamic, instead they picked up the ball and ran with it.

In regards to Mr. Martin’s knee-jerk response to my suggestion that he is not honest about the reasons behind his bashing of the Churchill urban-Indian legend, I stand by what I said. And I still hold that opinion even after reading his entire resume which he felt indebted to present as a license empowering him to tell me off. I have yet to debate an Indian conservative politruk who did not claim to spend every waking hour in dutiful service to “the people” and was not directly or in-directly involved in nearly every important Native political or community action of the last century. I too can list a series of actions, movements and events I was connected to but that isn’t the point, the point is that this singling out of this particular possible Grey Owl over all the other fake Indians out here hosting sweat lodges in health club steam-rooms or hawking Japanese manufactured beadwork at Pow-Wows makes absolutely no sense when you take the time to see who does more damage to Native credibility.

If this amount of righteous and vitriolic attention was paid to Senator John McCain and his war against the Navajo people at Big Mountain before, during and after the election they would have more of an argument. At present they don’t. Proof of that is this, if they were to write stories and report news from an Indigenous perspective they would be under the very same establishment pressure Mr. Churchill is under and most likely would not be syndicated in mainstream colonial press. It is a jounalistic fact that when investigative reporters do their jobs and present copy that may be embarrassing to the socio-political status quo those stories are tabled and often the journalist in question is sacked or at best sent to a minor desk. If these Native journalists were really doing their jobs, the Native news would look a great deal different. It would reflect what real Indian people are saying and discussing in the street, at homeless shelters, on line at the food bank and in the drug rehabs across the claimed borders of the United States. The Native journalists I am talking about of course mention these issues, just as Oprah Winfey does and within the very same Europocentric-tinged parameters. Keep hope alive.

This is the same Native intelligentsia that told us Obama was and is good for Indian Country. How can that be? He just boycotted the international conference on racism at Durban in defence of U.S. Sponsored colonialism and genocide at home and in the State of Israel, so how can a politician like that be a friend of the Indian? If this world leader of colour cannot support justice for African and Palestinian peoples, what makes them think that he gives a damn about Aboriginals in his own political state? Sure, he’ll give the Indian political establishment some money and a pat on the back but the big question is, will he give you your freedom? And more to the point, does the Indian even remember what freedom looked like?

This is my question, do these Native commentators remember the idea of being a free people? I do not think so and I fully expect them to raise hell about this suggestion but one need only read their written opinions on the state of Indian today and their apparent willingness to avoid discussing the true scope of Indigenous genocide in the Americas. It isn’t enough to mention the results of Indian disenfranchisement, the workings and history of how these things have happened must be discussed as well and those responsible for maintaining said conditions. Mr Churchill tackles these issues on uncompromisingly analytical terms, the Indian protectors of the state rarely do so. They offer an Indian complaint, not a structural Indigenist analysis focused on liberating Indian people from their oppressors. Thus, they receive admittance and adulation from the system and those who do not understand or care about the dynamics behind how colonial psychological class-oppression operates, while the more progressive political elements of Indian Country are marginalised. To insist that this is not the extant state of journalistic affairs not just in Native media but all mainstream media is at best stupidity but most likely a conscious compliance and defence of the Euro-colonialist system. Whether it is Churchill, Haunani-Kay Trask or the late Malcolm X, when you challenge the system on its nationalist mythologies your reach is limited by the very nature of that system, the glass ceiling the “system” and its supporters must as a matter of survival deny exists. And if Mr. Churchill has done anything over the years with his activism he has clearly brought to light the presence of state-sponsored pedagogical and extra-legal colonialism and the varieties of censorship employed to silence pro-Indian, thought-effective dissent.

The needlessly personalised semantic posturing of the individuals opposed to my analysis displays unambiguously that they are not at all interested in discussing the central points of these issues chiefly because to do so would conflict with their personal political views. When individuals have personally resigned themselves to making out the best way they can in post-Colombian America, they don’t want to hear about any form of nationalist Indian independence not under the economic and cultural direction of the United States. It violates their background assumptions of what and where they should focus their loyalties, a classic symptom of the colonial subject. Historically, this is no different than the attitudes of the pro-Nazi French Vichy supporters when contrasted against the perspectives of the supporters of the Free French. Standing on podiums next to Nazi military-governors, Vichy officials proclaimed that they were the "real French people” and that they stood with the power structure against their own people who stood up and struggled for their people’s liberation. Comparing matched examples are relatively simple, Lakota Tribal Chairman Dick Wilson told the mainstream press during the 1970’s reservation Indian civil war the very same thing. Assimilationist Indians hail Wilson as a hero. The survivors and the relatives of those terrorised by his GOON Squad have an entirely different opinion. And when was the last time the Native press asked these people how they view America’s treatment of the Indian? They don’t, but the Arabic language news agency Al Jazeera does and no one in the Native media seems to be embarrassed by this. And I seriously doubt that they bother demanding that folks present copies of their U.S. Government-Issue A.K.C. pedigree card before they interview them.

And again I ask, how does any of this concern Mr. Schmidt? As another person asked on his blog some time back in, “Rob the presumptuous white man?”, Mr. Schmidt is not Indian, so what right does he claim to say anything about who is or isn’t Native, or for that matter, anything else that concerns Native people? As far as his personal snipes towards me and the apparently irritating presence of typos which have nothing to do with the subject at hand, such childishness shall be accepted for what is it, a blatant diversion from what is really at issue, the question of where Indian people are in relation to our oppressors and in relation to him. Of course Mr. Schmidt is of the oppressing class and is defensive on questions asking why the Indian should not do for themselves what say the State of Israel has done for itself sans the terrorism and the genocide.

His coverage of the Lakota Freedom Delegation’s press releases and their factual presentation on why they would make such a move was openly ridiculed by Mr. Schmidt. He made it clear that he is opposed to Indian independence and on that basis alone Indians would do well to take his commentary on Indian issues with all seriousness one accords Rush Limbaugh. Especially after his pointless ad hominem against this writer for pointing out Ms. Rave’s and Mr. Martin’s ad hominem against Prof. Churchill while selectively skipping-over why he in particular offends them so greatly politically, because that is the real reason behind their hostility and apparently Mr Schmidt wants to see an argument ensue and get bigger. And the individuals this blogger is trying to involve in a conflict would be fools to give this White racist game any traction.

So it is obvious that his animosity towards opinions that do not put the welfare of Euro-settler society in the mix is par for the course, so is his intentional whipping up of a shouting match between Indian writers. Mr. Schmidt is not Indian, so anything he has to say on Churchill should be viewed in that light. In fact when one really looks at it, the only fundamental difference between what Mr. Schmidt is accusing Ward Churchill of and his own actions is the fact that Mr. Schmidt does not claim to be Indian. Meaning, he accuses Churchill of being a non-Indian purporting to speak on behalf of all Indians, (which he to my knowledge has never claimed) while Mr. Schmidt certainly makes it sound as if ‘he’ is speaking on the behalf of all Indians when he isn’t Indian either and one can suppose that this paradox does not matter to Mr. Schmidt. Odd, ennit, and highly questionable being that by fiat he is violating his own assertion that Churchill is wrong to speak on Indian issues since he supposedly isn’t Native, neither is Mr Schmidt who makes a great effort with his various web-journals to do just that.

And this is another element where I question in Mr. Schmidt’s journalism, at what point did I ever say that Mr. Churchill is not Indian? I said and have repeatedly said that Churchill does not seem any less “Indian” than any other White Indian I have ever met. Right-wing pundit Chuck Norris claims to be Indian, so does Heather Locklear, I take them at their word since by any visible definition they flatly defy the common physiotype of a American Indian. I can care less about Mr. Churchill’s genealogy and have stated that if someone wants to present to this writer a copy of a document or other such evidence that Churchill is not Native at all that I would run the story. Indian and White naysayers have disparaged this pledge with various blatherings that all boil down to the same thing, an acceptance of American racial classification and the comfortable ideal of the "Noble Savage". The only people who seemed to understand where I was going with this were American Africans who know all too well the “One-Drop rule”, an issue at the centre of our status within Indian society and the greater colonial whole. So to claim that this writer is “backing away” from believing that Churchill is Indian, I never at any time unlike my critics stooped so low as to question his ethnicity. I leave that to White racists, the Indian journalistic bourgeois and the self-proclaimed “friends of the American Indian” to make such Naziquese observations. I do not operate under such rules, clearly however there is a distinct element of the Native press that does.

So it is obvious to me and any other sound mind that happens across this collection of non-sequiturs instigated by a non-Indian that the problem is not really with Mr. Churchill, is it? It is the unwillingness of the United States and many of its victims to intellectually face how we got from first invasion to today. I call it the “Oprah Effect”, the invisible barriers manned by non-White protectors blinded by the illusion that submission to Europocentric domination is here and that there is nothing we can do about it but try to make it work for us. A philosophy illustrated by the conservative French during the last European tribal wars of the 1940’s and in conservative Indian Country during the 1970’s in which FBI-supplied terrorists ran roughshod over traditional Indian people with barely a peep heard from the "Responsible" leaders of the community. This debate has nothing at all to do with Ward Churchill, it is however about the intellectual cowardice Native journalists show when it comes to defending their people and our concerns, not just the tribal leaders and their capitalist interests in the mainstream press.

If they were truly doing their jobs, White folks would not ask the same stupid questions about Indians the new PBS American Indian special mini-series is suposedly designed to address. So if I’m wrong, so is the Public Broadcasting System, since they are promoting this production on the argument that Americans know very little, if anything, about Indian people, our lives and our pre, as well as our post-Colombian history. The world does not begin and it will not end with White people and their paradigms, no matter what Indian conservatives assert and in direct contradiction to what many European Indian hobbyists wish to believe. This revisionist paradigm is so deeply ingrained within the colonial social-consciousness that is is nearly impossible for many people to see a world beyond it. It openly discriminates against dissenting ideas and analysis and takes its cues directly from the marginalising patterns of the corporate sponsored political “discourse” by shutting out or attempting to debase nonconformist ideological protest while professing the “rightness” of their often illogical and off-subject commentaries.

Like Fox News, many Indian journalists present propaganda as opinion and avoid the facts that challenge their propaganda. And since it seems that Native publications like Indian Country Today “need” ad revenue from the U.S. Intelligence sector, (take a look at their website’s index page flash ad) we are not likely to see truly independent media in Indian Country anytime soon. This Indian plutocracy will go on until we all are ready to examine the deeper issues without regard for how Indian materialists and White Indian hobbyists may interpret such deconstructions. It is simply not their decision to make.

- The Angryindian

Labels: american racism, bloggers, editorial, Indigenous, John McCain, native americans, Prof. Ward Churchill