I said:
> > First, it is NOT the issue you are describing. It is the abrogation of
> > legal contracts that were ignored by
> > looters and brigands who found their way into the
> > government. Many of those people's children today
> > are living off of the fruits of that theft.
>
Brad replied: Opening up Pandora's box.... (snip)
> The issues here seem to me complex, but simply
> punishing Nazis' children or people who bought
> houses on putative former Indian territory,
> thinking they had clear title,
> doesn't seem to me to be the answer.
Nor do I. But the Germans evidently disagree since
they have paid reparations to survivors families. They
obviously agree with Kant or maybe he was just clearly
within the best ideals of their culture. But the best we
get from the Christians is an "Oops, it was bad and we're
sorry about that." I believe the answer to be found in
Governments protecting their citizens by paying their
debts. In the case of the Black Hills which is more
to the Lakota than Jerusalem is to the Jews, I think
there is only one answer and that is to become Hitler or
to get out and let them have their sacred lands. They
are just as stubborn as the Spanish. The Lakota
have the only Amnesty International recognized political
prisoner in American Prisons. And the government is
turning him into a poet and a Mandela. Self destructive.
They one the only war against the U.S. then the
government took the Lakota General Red Cloud to the
East Coast and showed him the masses of populations.
His response was like an American when China entered
the war in Korea. "They are like the leaves on the Trees."
It broke him but not the Nation's spirit. Poor they are but
not of spirit. It will ultimately be the American people
who lose that one. It always seems that the war is
hopeless.
Although when my Grandfather bought a
mountain top in Tennessee and started a Cherokee
community there, where the people spoke
Cherokee and functioned like a small corporation,
there was a lot of resistance from the locals.
It was
illegal to practice our religion until 1978 when Congress
wrote the Freedom of Religion Act for Native Americans,
but my Grandfather had found a way around it by forming
and incorporating a church called the "Temple of the
Great Spirit." From Tennessee he spread it out to the
seven surrounding states and made it possible for all
Indian people to use the structure as a legal protection
from the law. (What's in a name?)
But this is a much
longer story so let me just say that the family of a local
powerful Senator in Tennessee connected to the Railroad
"discovered" coal on that mountain and also discovered
an older title to the land that my Grandfather's legal
title search had not. Of course they simply strip
mined everything and my Grandfather lost his
community, his home and his business. He had
a store and restaurant along the local highway.
He was a Master Chef who had been one of the
chefs for the Shoreham Hotel in Washington. He
lost that too to the lawyers in the fight.
So my point here Brad is that the system is not
challenged when a White Man loses his land to
such a thing. They just say that the right to private
property and deeds is supreme. And it is too bad
for the individual. That was what they said also
about my Grandfather. But when it is an Indian
claiming an older deed that is different. You should
read the front page articles, I'm sure they are still
searchable on this year's NYTimes about the
mineral royalties owed to our people in Oklahoma.
They pay out five bucks a month for a working
oil well on Indian property because the oil companies
can lobby the government or they just drive their
trucks up to the spicket and steal it. So your
complaints ring more than a little hollow to me.
> Brad said:
> If one wishes to enlist the aid of the
> children of the exploiters in helping bring
> about conditions of more *universal* justice,
> it seems to me that they [the children of the
> exploiters] need to see themselves as benefitting
> from the solution, *as well as* helping the
> victims. And, again, I think the ultimately
> nihilistic notion of *blood feud* (and related
> consepts) is relevant here.
Blood feud is between individuals, families or clans
not governments. This is an issue of sovereign
governments. When in the government it is called
"rule of law."
> Brad said on jobs:
> It seems to me that the issue is how to
> minimize the cases of *anybody* losing a job to anybody
> else. The only problem I see here is similar to
> that of two [wo]men lusting after one [wo]man:
> In thos cases where a job can only be done by one
> person, then some people will necessarily be
> disappointed (astronomers may face this problem
> in "getting time" on the best telescopes, e.g.).
Corporate jobs are notoriously over-staffed and inefficient.
I have had people working for corporations spend many
hours on projects that they sold to me, using the
corporation's own technology, and were still able to
keep up with their job's requirements. I feel this has
more than a little to do with the widespread use of
"flexibles." There are good reasons for large corporations
but this is one of the negatives. People who work
for corporations take the down-sizing risk in favor of
perks. Flexibles take their life in their hands.
On the other hand the telescope time you used is the
model for my work. But if I give up a voice-over job
at Disney to a minority doing their own music, I am
perfectly willing to accept that. White's doing black-
face are the root of most of the negative stereo-types
propagated in the media against Blacks. There are
white gospel and white jazz traditions but the White
players steal the intellectual capital and leave the
original creators as homeless paupers and then
blame it on them as neer-do-wells. Eventually
what goes round comes round. Usually in the
form of an ambitious graduate student writing a
thesis trying to "break new ground." That is when
you discover that your wonderful artist grandfather
was really just a second rate derivative parasite on
the behind of the real creative personality or culture.
That can be a little hard to swallow
I said:
> > Over the years I have seen plenty of
> > incompetent majority folks getting jobs for no
> > reason other than their connections.
>
> Brad replied:
> Heartily agreed! Perhaps the solution is
> to help the rest of us to "get connected, too".
That is exactly what affirmative action does for those
groups who do not have the potential already within
their group due to prejudicial hiring by the majority.
> (snip)
> Brad said:
> Another [probably unpopular] point that interests
> me. It seems to me at least paradoxical that
> categories from the realm of necessity should
> infect the realm of persons' [logically] free
> cultural self-elaboration. Werner Herzog, with
> his obsession with getting the film right to the
> point of people being killed in the process
> seems to me one example here.
Why is a film with backers any different from a
bridge? Herzog would be sued and abandoned
no matter how talented or revolutionary his vision
if his film didn't work. The Brooklyn Bridge has
the bodies of workers encased in its concrete.
The question wasn't whether the bridge should
have been built if it cost lives but whether the
bodies weakened the structure. I think we are
dealing here with an underlying prejudice against
whether Herzog is doing something important
and significant enough for the society to be taken
seriously as a professional. That is something
that the Romans and Italians would call you
crazy for even asking. On the other hand if he
is reckless then he can and should be sued for
liability. Of course if it is dead Brazilian Indians
then nobody even asks the question. They shoot
them for cattle grazing land so we can have
McDonalds.
> (snip)
>
> > (snip)
> > I do remember a quote
> > from Kant that said something like "You can never
> > give a gift until you have paid your bills first, anything
> > else is theft."
> Brad replied:
> (Nice point for the "consumer [credit] society"!)
My point was about private property and capital
which is the basis for work here. I was not
speaking of Usury.
> (snip)Brad said:
> The whole issue of inheritance seems to me
> in need of being thought about. Why should
> person X have benefits just because their
> metabolic point of origin was associated with
> benefits (and vice versa)?
Well Brad there is a double-bind that minorities
get caught in. When it happens to us you speak
practicality but when it happens to the majority
then the system is questioned. The only answer
of course is to become the majority. And that is
what is happening in the U.S. with people of color.
They are working very hard towards that goal,
while the Whites call it teenage illegitimacy.
When that majority changes and power is situated
as it is in many inner cities, in the external few, then
you have South Africa all over again. I think
anyone who encourages such a thing to happen
through short term thinking and action is
so stupid that I doubt they can survive without
being in the majority. Did you ever read "The
Upstairs of the Downstairs"? (I think that was
the title, they made a TV series of it also.)
> (snip)
I said: > The contracts
> > with Indian people in the
> > U.S. said as long as the water flows and the
> > grass grows.
>
Brad replied:
> Sounds to me like material for (what, this morning,
> I am somewhat tiresomely calling:) *blood feud* -->
> especially! if the terms have not been enforced for
> a long time, so that the principle of compound
> interest compounds(sic) the trouble.
Blood feud means a balancing of the books. It is
at heart the physical principle of balance applied to
human relationships just as in economics you apply
it to money. The anthropologist Claude Kluckholn
makes the point that this principle of balance is
(one of) the meanings of the sacred circle and the
four directions in traditional religion and so permeates
Native consciousness as to constitute identity. It
certainly helps those Mohawks doing high steel work.
With the current American civil contract we do not
hold the children liable for the sins of the father, but
with the current bankruptcy "reform" passed by Congress
that has been breached for the sake of banks. I feel the
pendulum is swinging on that and not because of Indian
settlements. If the banks can get their money from the
servitude of the bankrupt then an extension of the principle
would not work for your ideal but exactly the opposite.
> Brad said:
> For instance: If Europeans had never been allowed to
> build on Pequot land, the land would still be
> in its more-or-less original state, and it wouldn'd
> be worth much to anybody. But if *today*, the
> descendants of Pequots are to receive "justice"
> in the form of the built-up properties which
> now sit on the land, then a lot of people
> are going to lose a lot (the current tenants)
> and some other people are going to get a windfall (the
> Pequots).
Sorry Brad but at the very least your principle is
inaccurate and borders on something more sinister.
Francis Jennings make it very clear that the
Puritans were the ones gaining capital from dead
Indians who HAD developed the land. He also proves
conclusively that the Puritans did not have the
technology to break the wilderness as the Pequots
had.
The original issue with the Pequots was when they
raised a cry about the stealing of their agriculture
and killed trespassers, they were slaughtered
like animals. Even the Narragansetts who were
allies of the Puritans turned away. They kept saying
as the women and children burned without uttering
a sound "To what end?" They knew that the Creator
settled his books.
But as you say this was in the
past and I have documented on this list many times
the fact that the Cherokee nation had mansions,
more farms and orchards then the citizens of the
states around them. They also conducted trade due
to their existence on the border between four states.
Not unlike Switzerland. But no one made the Swiss
leave because they coveted the Mountains.
Joseph Brant of the Mohawks was a wealthy man with a
mansion, silver and servants but when depicted in TV
programs he is always living in a bark longhouse.
Perhaps because he was a full blood, on the other
hand the mixed blood traditional John Ross is always
seen in a suit. (don't you just love Hollywood?)
And then there was the Seneca engineer and
military aid to Grant and later the first head of the
Interior Dept. Elias Parker. Parker was an engineer and
a wealthy man. I'm afraid your images for Indian
people and land use is strictly Hollywood and dime
novel.
It should get your attention with the wisdom
that the former trailer Pequots are spending their
money. They have invested in the entire state of
Connecticut (individual communities ) and are
putting in world class research facilities to correct
the Hollywood histories with world class archeologists
doing the research. They are not digging up graves
to sell artifacts to tourists. Their sophistication is
far above the people that you say has prepared the
way for them. They were simply capital poor, not
poor in culture or spirit. And they certainly are not
dumb. Ever read a history of J. Paul Getty? I'm
not impressed yet with Gates either. But don't be
despondent. Even Denny MacAuliffe, the foreign
editor for the Washington Post and an Osage, didn't
know the history of his people. He was really shocked
to see the opera house where his relatives attended
while down the street Clark Gable and J. Paul caroused
in the local saloon. His relatives were multi-lingual,
schooled in Europe, sang opera and played both harp
and piano. That still didn't keep his grandmother from
being murdered for her oil money. See "The Death of
Sybil Boulton."
I said:
> > And you and I are both legally
> > responsible for those contracts whether we were
> > born or not.
>
Brad replied: Very interesting issue. I do not relate
> positively to being bound by any of the
> doings or not-doings of *my* [biological]
> ancestors, who, as far as I am concerned, might
> as well have been a different species (and
> maybe they were -- my maternal grandfather
> did have what I seem to rcall as "Neanderthal"
> "features").
>
> Insofar as the fathers and mothers can *bind*
> (foot binding, e.g.?) the sons and daughters,
> it seems to me that the latter's "lives"
> are in chains (etc.)....
The answer to that is simple. And the same is truein upstate New York where
the current suit has
endangered many white homes. It was only pushed
when the state would not deal with the smaller issues.
Salamanca citizens had a windfall in taxes for 99 years
and refused to deal with the Seneca Council for a
reasonable fair market value for rental of the land their
houses sat upon. Their greed eventually lost them
both. The same is true on the Quapaw reservation where
I lived. Too often the Whites are an occupying minority
simply taking advantage of the tax free status which the
Indians cannot control because of the federal role. And
if the Indians take advantage of that tax free status for
their businesses just as any state to state relationship
would allow, the local white businessmen lobby their
Congressman to dis allow it. The federal role became
necessary in the beginnings of this century because
Indians were being murdered and cheated out of very
large oil and mineral rights by the people who
later became the J. Paul G.s of the world. No Brad, big
art museums won't wash the blood off of the hands
anymore for him than lady MacBeth.
(snip) Brad said:
> For the sake of
> argument, let's assume Bill Gates is
> 50 billion divided by 5 thousand times more
> productive than some homeless wretch, not
> because of injustice but innate talent and
> "drive". Doea that mean Bill Gates should
> have 10 million times as much
> wealth as the talent-less person [who doesn't
> even have enough to eat]? (Gets back to
> socialism vs communism, perhaps: to each
> according to his {work | needs}....).
The problem here is more basic. Gates is justthe current Count Esterhazy
who is only remembered
not for his productivity which was considerable
but for having hired Haydn and Beethoven. Haydn
he treated like a farm hand while Beethoven was a
better businessman and scared Esterhazy with an
accurate account of their roles in history. Gates
will be known, not for doing business, innovating or
for his billions (Do you remember who MacIntosh
or Arkwright was?) It is not the Cherokee millionaire
Lewis Ross who is remembered but his brother John
who wrote the political history of the nation with his
peace treaties with all of the Indian nations and the
effect of the prosperity his brother helped bring to the
nation. The Hospitals, the magnificent schools, the
legal system that is the equal of anything currently
done today and the equality of opportunity for every
citizen of the old Cherokee Nation. It was so
successful they had to stop it in 1892 with the Curtis
Act which dissolved their self determination. It took
another 80 years to get it back.
You talk about not remembering the past or paying for
it but Brad, you have benefited immensely from the fact
that Columbus came here. Without him you would still
be trapped in the European class system being a waiter,
farmer or something. No Ed. D unless you were wealthy
or the family of a former knight. The only reason is the
Spanish and the only reason the Spanish funded him was
because they refused to give up their rights and inheritance
even though it took 700 years to get it back. By that time
they were pretty tough SOBs and convinced of their
superior brains and culture. I still find Spaniards like that.
They're bigots about Indians but I like them personally and
admire their art.
(snip)
> I said: > I could see the European Union
> > forming around the "U.S. as the enemy" with proof
> > of the hypocrisy and betrayal of the Constitution
> > placed in the treatment of a Black minority that has
> > advanced and grown more since 1954 in Little Rock
> > than any non-black minority grew either here 43
> > years after the revolution or in Russia or any other
> > revolution. They are all over the performing arts,
> > sports, CEOs in companies and all in spite of a
> > bully resistance in the non-black ranks.
>
Brad replied:
> (The above paragraph seems not quite clear to me.)
Forgive me. 1. The Ugly American is a European termand although we are
related to Europe, we have never
been very far from being their enemies. 2. They could
use our hypocrisy and betrayal of the principles that we
have marketed incessantly for the last two hundred years
all over the world as an excuse to declare a self-serving
financial war on American businesses all over the world
as well as even a military one. 3. that "betrayal" could
even serve as a rallying point to draw the disparate parts
of the European Union together to protect them from the
outside enemy. US. 4. We would be shooting ourselves
in the foot to not develop the tremendous talent in the
Black community as well as removing the social tension.
It would prove that in this instance we were giving up the
hypocrisy and developing the human capital in a creative
mature manner. That we had given up the role of the
walking wounded and finally entered into the community
of nations with some intelligence.
Thanks for the dialogue,
it's always a pleasure
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble of New York Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
