Editorial and Opinion Page
Editorially Sneaking
Little Change Noticed in Daily Newspaper's Treatment of
Native Americans Since Changes in Leadership There
The article reprinted oclow cnti'lcd "'Junk About Indians." appeared in
the daih, newspaper, the Robesonian Mans people have called us and
commented on the content of the article We agree with those who have
contacted us It was absolutely the worse piece of journalism relative to
Indians we've ever read We will not at this time try to correct JefTrcy Hart,
the syndicated columnist who wrote the article Sometimes people arc just so
ignorant that the best thing to do is to acknow ledge their ignorance and move
on Obviously. Hart's article will not change the course of history, nor will
lies become truth just because they arc published Other than those few
comments, we feel that Hart has been adequately addressed by the letters to
the editor written by Chancellor of UNCP. Dr Joseph Oxcndinc. and Dr Stan
-Knick. Director of the Native American Resource Center on the UNCP
'campus We have taken the liberty of reproducing the original article by Hart
as well as t!?e two letters to the editor by Dr Oxcndinc and Dr Knick
We will confine our comments at this time, editorially speaking, to the
seeming anti-Indian mentality of the Robesonian. We certainly believe in
the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech We have noqualms with Hart's
Writing the article If he's ignorant, and he is. let him publicly say so which
7 he did
However, we had hoped that the changes in management and editors at
the Robesonian would bring about some positive changes in the coverage of
news in the county. We read the editor's editorial response to the article. He
reminded us. again, that he was bound to print the article because of a
contract with King's Syndicates. He spoke again of the First Amendment
We will not debate that issue with him. We thought it interesting, as vou
notice that the original article had no name. The next day the Robesonian.
after having been contacted by several irate readers, we understand, put a
small correction in that listed the author, Jeffrey Hart and made sure those
w ho noticed the correction understood he was a s\ ndicatcd columnist. Okay!
For as long as some of us can remember and even before that, according
to the records, the Robesonian has failed to be fair and unbiased towards
Indian people That is a matter of public record At one time, Indians made
up more than 50% of their subscription list. We understand that recently
those numbers have declined Wc expect that they will continue to decrease
The editor of a newspaper can use common sense and discretion in
deciding which articles he will run. Considering that Indians are the majority
of the population in this county, the editor could have chosen not to run the
article, syndicated or otherwise If he chose to run it. he could have cleared
the leadership of the newspaper by a simple disclaimer Since he chose not
to offer a disclaimer and only editorially tried to explain it after the fact, and
because he chose to run it without the author's name, we can only assume that
there were some subtleties and nuances implied Wc were not surprised either
by the article or by the decision of the editor to run it.
The Carolina Indian Voice has said for many years that the Robesonian is
biased against Indians and thev continue to give us reason to substantiate that
belief.
For instance Mike Mclntyrc, newly elected Congressman for the seventh
Congressional District has dominated the front page of the daily newspaper
on several occasions. Yes. we admit it is newsworthy to have the Congressman
be a resident of the county , and his moving to Washington, D.C. is
decidedly a big deal. We have told Indian people time and time again that
wc should not spend out money with the Robesonian because they do not treat
us fairly. The recent coverage of Senior Resident Superior Court Judge
Dexter Brooks' swearing in was only one more indication of bias, in our
opinion, against Indians More coverage was given to Judge Floyd who was
also recently sworn in as a Superior Court Judge. There is a great deal of
difference in the two.
Recently, as one more example. Ronald Revels of St Pauls was arrested
for possession of stolen vehicles. He made the front page and a lengthy and
detailed article was written. Again, we do not argue with the fact that the story
should have been covered. But always the negative new s concerning Indians
rates more prominent placement and detailed coverage than any of the
positive news. This is proven in the pages of the daily new spaper.
When the county commissioners passed a resolution not to advertise with
the daily newspaper, immediate changes were made. John Bauer came in
from out of town to keep the newspaper, we assume, from losing any more
money. They had no problem telling the radical O H. Lewis that he could no
longer write his "Reality Check" column. But at the same time, they say, they
had no choice but to publish Hart's article. Did freedom of speech not apply
to Lewis? Or is that right restricted to those writers who denigrate Indians?
Anyway, we call on Bauer editorially to appropriately apologize to Indians
for the lack of respect shown to them in the daily newspaper. We can see
no reason for the publication of the article and especially no reason not to print
the culprit's name. The perception is there no matter what the correction says.
I am sure that newspaper would not consider printing a letter from an Indian
that was derogatory to whites in this county with out a name. We ask them
publicly when the staff of the daily newspaper will more adequately reflect
the racial make up of the county. To our knowledge, there is still only one
Indian employed at the Robesonian, other than those who distribute the ,
daily to news stands and boxes. Until those things change, biased news
coverage, lack of minority employment, and fair coverage of all three races
in the county, we publicly again say to Our readers: do not spend your money
with the daily newspaper. They do not appreciate, apparently, your patronage
and the article by Hart, in our opinion, is a reflection of their true feelings
about Indian people. They obviously do no like us.
Junk thought about Indians
...I only say that I can see no way in which your
race is to become as numerous and prosperous
as the white race except by living as they do. by
the cultivation of the earth."
Abraham Lincoln
The schmaltzy idealization of the
American Indian has become an industry.
The actual American Indian of
..history has been lost in an orgy of
civilization-bashing.
We have "Native American student"
courses in the universities.
commercial movies such as "Pocahontas"
and notably now Ken
. Burns' nine-pan PBS series. "The
- West."
. American culture has long idealized
the Indian in harmless ways.
In the Boy Scouts. I entered as a
'Tenderfoot" and thought about Indians
moving silently over dried
leaves and paddling birch-bark ca noes.
:
' I tried to make a fire with flint
. and twigs.
> . The Indian has adorned our currency
and given his name to cities
.. and athletic teams.
But what we are qqw seeing is
different.
" Those "Native American studies"
oourses are almost always anti-Eurbpean
and also anti-historical.
! Often, as in the Ken Bums documentary,
the wish is explicit that the
Indians had not been defeated and
Otat America would revert to preColonial
times.
* It amounts to a bogus wish that
modern civilization did not exist.
* Of course that cannot be brought
^ about. Pol Pot tried, and look at
what happened.
" For centuries before the Indians
ever saw a white man, they slaughtered
one another in bloody tribal
Warfare.
* When the Europeans arrived,
fliere commenced a long war oi
about 150 years. The Indians lost de
^isively.
? The Indians were by no mean!
Tiative" to America.
" At the end of the Ice Age, the}
crossed from Siberia on a lane
bridge that existed between the con
tinents.
The Indians are Asians.
Then they worked their waj
down from what would becomt
Alaska and encountered a residen
people now known as "Mount
Builders" because of the large eartl
structures they left.
1 The nomadic warriors fron
Siberia extinguished the Mount
Builders, and then fought each othe
for centuries.
The reasons why the Indians lost
the long war against the European
settlers were not mainly technological.
-Soon the Indian^ had muskets
and horses,, arid liyer^fttj rifles.
They we/e eitcelj^fit riders and
fighters.
They could have formed a united
army of some sbrt to do battle, but
that was far beyond them.
They were a Stone Age tribal
people, the tribes hating one another
as much or more than they hated the
whites. (Look at Africa today.)
In fact, the most warlike tribes,
such as the Sioux, the Comanches
and the Apaches, were so savage
that other tribes often joined the
whites against them.
Among the young braves of the
warlike tribes, fighting was the most
honored activity, and the only route
to honor, booty and captured women.
Any Indian chief with an impulse
toward peace would have been regarded
as an old woman and replaced.
Similarly any chief who tried to
form a coalition with other tribes.
; The whites did not win because
of rifles and horses, but through better
organization and steadiness of
i purpose.
The frontier advanced steadily
, against the nomads, farms were es1
tablished and forts built to protect
the settlers.
The Indians lost the long war because
their overall culture and Stone
i Age tribal organization were inferior
: and could not prevail,
t That is the consensus of serious
1 historians, and it is reiterated in the
i December issue of Commentary
magazine, in a fine article by Walter
l A. McDougal.
1 As McDougal indicates, the Indir
ans had another position besides
fighting.
They could have rejected tribalism
and its ethos and assimilated to
19th century Western civilization.
Indeed many of them did. and their
descendants today live among the
rest of the Americans.
[o McDougal has come up with a rerharkable
quotation I had not seen
before.
Writing to the Cheyenne chief
Lean Bear, Abraham Lincoln put the
matter with his characteristic grace
and realism:
"I really am not capable of advis*ng
you whether, in the providence
of the Great Spirit, who is the Father
of us all. it is for you to maintain the
habits and customs of your race, or
adopt a new n^odel of life.
I only say that I can see no way in
which your race is to become as numerous
and prosperous as the white
race expept by living as they do, by
the cultivation of the earth."
So. the Indians lost the war.
The Scottish- Highlanders were
destroyed after the Battle of Culloden
in 1745 for the same reasons.
It is utterly frivolous to wish that
the Indians had won.
One may blanch at the barbarities
committed by both sides in what
was usually guerrilla warfare, but
that is the nature of guerrilla warfare.
History is not a videotape.
There is no "reverse" button.
Rome was overrun.
The Aztecs lost. The Highlanders
lost. The Indians lost.
The Confederacy lost.
I doubt that Ken Burns would go
to a witch doctor instead of a modern
physician.
The Indians had no written language
and had not invented the
wheel.
There comes a time when historical
realism has to break in and
when the kidding has to stop.
Racism still alive?
and well
-tutor,
At a time when public portrayals
af the American Indian are finally
assuming a more balanced approach,
along comes Jeffrey Hart to
put an end to all of this. Mr. Hart's
"Junk thought about Indians"
'Robesonian 12-28-96) revives the
negative characterization of Ameri:an
Indians with a list of stinging reDukes
seemingly designed to put the
Indian back in his place.
Mr. Hart is particularly critical of
he positive images of the American
Indian, as presented by Ken-Bums'
PBS series The West, the mpvie
Pocahontas and "Native Amerj^n"
iourses being taught in universities
today.
In fact, he is troubled by the mere
term Native American, staling that
"the Indians are Asians."
While professing admiration for
Indian images in what he refers to as
"harmless ways," i.e. Boy Scout adventures
such as canoeing, primitive
fire-making and pretend stalking ?
and even in the naming of today's
athletic teams, Mr. Hart is troubled
by more serious depictions of Indians
as real people in today's world.
He characterizes serious discussions
of American Indians as "antiEuropean"
and "civilization bashing."
Native American studies in
universities are described as "almost
always anti-European and anti-historical."
It is not clear that Mr. Hart has
ever taken such a course.
Mr. Hart states repeatedly that
"the Indians lost the war." Further,
he is compelled to add that the reason
the Indians lost the war was "because
their overall culture and Stone
Age tribal organization were inferior."
Even so, where is it written that
military victory over a people on
their homeland renders justice and
humanitarianism irrelevant?
Mr. Hart is compelled to demean
the character of the American Indian
by stating that they could have united
to fight the European settlers,
"but that was far beyond them."
This reflects not' only the arrogance
and mean-spiritedness of Mr.
Hart, but a lack of understanding
that there were more than 500 distinct
tribes on this continent and not
simply "a group of Indians."
It may surprise Mr. Hart to consider
that the indigenous people of
this continent werc;so naive in early
contacts with non -Indians as not to
imagine that they!should organize
themselves for a military onslaught
by other human beings.
In fact, their approach was to
reach out to early settlers, including
the Pilgrims, to teach them how to
survive on this continent.
In a further criticism, Mr. Hart
blamed the Indians for engaging in
"bloody tribal warfare" prior to the
Europeans' arrival.
It would be comforting to think
that non-Indians did, not:engage in
sucfthostilities. ,
Unfortunately bloody warfare
seems to have been commonplace
among humans through the years,
dating back to Cain and Abel.
Further, there is no evidence that
American Indians were any more
warlike than other cultures.
Mr. Hart has a clear concept of
what the Indians should have done
earlier and what they should do today:
"They could have rejected tribalism
and its ethos and assimilated
to 19th centuty Western civilization."
O
Obviously, it follows that immigrants
from Africa, Mexico, Israel
and Japan should likewise rid themselves
of their cultural values and
traditions and blend into the European
ethos.
Such standardization of cultural
behaviors would certainly bring
comfort to Mr. Hart and others who
yearn for a society of sameness.
But, what of the freedoms of individuals
and groups and what of
the beauty that cultural diversity
brings to the whole of American so- 1
ciety? v It my
view, it is unthinkable to encourage
a race of people to reject their cultural
heritage.
Today's American society is
moving toward a greater interest in
sharing cultures.and celebrating diversity
as a means of unifying (aj)d
strengthening without complete assimilation
or separation.
Assimilation itself can create unhealthy
power differentials through
the implication that the assimilators
are king and the assimilated subjects,
laggards forever in the business
of full citizenship.
"Junk thought about Indians' '
seems to have no purpose other than
to create animosity where none exists
and to exacerbate hostilities
which may be prevalent.
This is a 1950's style racist diatribe
which we can well do without
. in 1997.
Joseph B. Oxendine
Chancellor, The University
of North Carolina at
Pembroke
Article filled with inaccuracies
Editor,
An item on your editorial pope
(Dee 28. with the caption "Junk
Thought About Indians") claims to
support "historical realism." but is
full of inaccuracy.
The conspicuously uncreditcrf
author (did he not wish to have his
name published?) could benefit
from taking the Native American
studies courses he so glibly denigrates.
There arc more historical inaccuracies
in his article than can possibly
be treated in the brief format allow
able in (his newspaper, but here arc
responses to a few of his more outrageous
assertions.
While certain popular segments
of American society have idcali/cd
Native American culture, most
scholars take a more holistic view si
Native American studies coutses at
t(ic Utiivetsily of North Carolina at
Pembroke (and elsewhere) arc not.
as the author claims, "anti-European"
and "anti-historical."
I
Is i( "anti-European" to analy/.e
multiple perspectives of history?
Is it "anti historical" to challenge
popular misconceptions and qucs
lion the intent of writers who were
bound by the prejudices of their
times?
'Ihc nameless writer says Indians
were not "native" to America.
This is like saying Europeans
were not "native" to Europe because
their ancestors came out of Africa
From an anthropological perspective,
genus Homo could be seen
as only "native" to Africa, and/to
have migrated everywhere else.
Ihc fact remains that Native
Americans have been on this continent
at least 15,000 years longer
than anyone else, and thus it dticsn't
scent such a misnomer to speak of
them in relative terms as "native."
The nameless writer says Indians
came to America and "encountered
a resident people now known as
"Mound Rttildcrs" and subsequently
"extinguished" them.
The erroneous notion that the
moundbuildcrs were not themselves
Indians was dismissed hy serious
scientists many decades ago
Mounds of various types and pur
poses were built by Native Americans
during the last 3 to 4,000 years
of their^ pre-Eurnpcan habitation of
the cqntinlitat.
Btit oq* of the most egregious
historical (misunderstandings is reflected
in'his assertion that Europeans
were able to conquer the continent
"through better organization
and steadiness of purpose."
The writer fails to mention that a
great portion of the damage was
done by European diseases which
decimated Native populations.
Here in the East, where Eur<y>e
made its earliest colonial footholds,
diseases such as smallpox ahd
measles reduced the Native Arderi
can population hy 75 to 90 percent,
making it relatively easy for the
colonies to contjdue their expansion
westward.
It may be true, as the nameless
writer stales, that Indians "had not
invented the wheel."
'Hicy had also not invented a way
to kill hundreds of thousands of people
in an instant.
But they had worked out a cultural
harmony which allowed litem to
live successfully without doing any
serious damage to the environment.
To say that the "overall culture" was
"inferior" to that of the Ruropeans
reaches to the heights of cthnocentrism,
which is another word for ignorance.
^
Stanley Knick
Rowland
Editor's note: Ihe omission of
Jeffrey Hart's hyline v\tlh his column
thai ran on Saturday was the
mistake of The Rohesonian. Mr.
Knick, when informed of this, was
asked if he wished to amend his letter
He declined.
*
V -
(Say you read it in Carolina Indian |
J
Ask your pharmacist ihubimbiih I
what he recommends wii'iwi'iiniiapiW
- . . f. - , SOOTHING REUEF Of
for painful mouth sores. Canker Sores
, , . Gum Irritalions
More pharmacists / I
recommend T4N4G TJOM
than any other liquid. HosnMcuauol , J,
Use as directed. OI996 Del Pharmaceuticals, Inc., n subsidiary of Del Laboratories, Inc.
Deborah & Fred ChasonRf
Beit BBQ Around! w
rethly cooked' chopped and reasoned daily. A
Straight off the pit! AH detcertt/ bireuitr<
} eornbread and huthpuppier made
from rerateh! We offer all kindt of W
broiled & fried teafocd! ||
\chilisll &?, I
^ Kwchao^ | If
yrirdn^ l^n"*"BUrfet "^V-99|jj|
4/