Obama Announces “Final Solution” to “Indian Problem”
THE GENOCIDAL MOVEMENTS by imperialist colonialist powers against the indigenous all over the world—at least where they might be living in lands with rich resources or access to them—rolls on, and on, and on. A few words from Russell Means, Lakotah Indian.
MAYBE YOU REMEMBER Russell Means of the Lakotah from when I’ve written on him, or of course from reading online yourself. Either way, here is his reaction to Obama’s Inaugural Speech. First I’ll quote a friend of mine (Native American) Christine B.:
Hey Nez!
Here is a press release from the Republic of Lakotah from Russ Means on Obama and the American Indian. Right now many Native Americans and rejoicing in the President but not all and it’s with good reason. RM has a video that you can watch and then also below is another press release from another online newspaper.
And here is Russell Means’ press release:
The inaugural address is THE most important speech a President EVER makes. Billions of People look at it. The speech is written over a period of many weeks by a whole team of writers. It is edited and re-edited. Each word and each phrase is scrutinized so as to not offend anyone. Click to View the VIDEO.
“For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.” He has placed our successful AND peaceful way of life and Spirituality into the category of “Non-Believers!”
Then he uses the phrase “the lines of tribes shall soon dissolve.” What does he mean? Certainly, NOT the tribes of Israel. Who, but the American Indians are referred to as Tribes? We are the ONLY ones.
Obama’s “Final Solution” to the centuries-old “Indian Problem” is total dissolution.
(For any non-regulars stopping by who think Mr. Means is being “oversensitive” or any relation to that term, please come to the discussion after reading a bit.)
The genocidal movements by imperialist powers against the indigenous all over the world—at least where they might be living in lands with rich resources or access to them—rolls on, and on, and on. And the mighty presses keep rolling, ignorance rolling, lies a-rollin’, just like our mighty commerce machine rolls over those who power it at the bottom.
Tags: Gods, Lakotah, Obama, Religion, Russell Means, Tribes
Posted in Indigenous, The Long War on the Indigenous
That line listing religions and non-believers also stood out for me. I was wondering about my santero and my tia spiritualists, who believe in something pero not what people want them to.
I am seriosuly concerned about Obama and foreign policy, including (de)colonization inside and outside the U.S., pero I was worried about that before he was elected too
I don’t think Obama will do anything about this, either way. He is the reformer, giving the Empire a final boost before it completely collapses. People want to go back to the “happy times” and those that came First are not part of that picture.
I don’t think this is a “final solution” for the Native Americans, but they should expect wait for Washington to change the policy of cruel neglect. It ain’t going to happen.
I mean I wanted his first words to be “I declare the Monroe Doctrine dead!” but alas….
Vamos a ver:
For the first time, a US president acknowledges that you don’t have to believe in deities or magic carpenters or unicorns or whatever the fuck else people tend to rest their spirituality on to be considered a person in this country. In passing, he gives a nod to
a- Christians, the ample majority in the country
b- Muslims, whom the US empire has picked up as the new enemy and who we are in dire need of reapproachment
c- Jews, which cannot go unmentioned if discussing b
d- Hindus, another major religion with hundreds of millions of followers
All of these mentions are pretty standard stuff for a political speech, except the acknowledgment that some of us indeed don’t believe in gods or masters, and shouldn’t be isolated because of it. It is regrettable and deplorable he left out the first people’s religions, but to take that personally is not a very good use of one’s outrage.
Y qué es lo que más les caga a todos?
He didn’t mention ME! Goddamit, ME! He didn’t mention the First People’s religions (The Lakotah’s? Or which tribe should he have mentioned? It is a stupid essentialization to think there was only one monolithic religious creed in the pre-conquest Americas, or that there is only one in present day native American commmunities. There were/are many peoples, many paths. Should he mention all of them?) He didn’t mention santería, and candomblé and Wicca and anabaptists and quakers and the fucking Flying Spaghetti Monster by name, he is obviously shunning us!
No mames, neta, que pendejadas son esas?
As to the eliminationist fantasies of using the phrase “the lines of tribes shall soon dissolve.” Where to start? It is a disservice to the very real, very urgent situation that has been forced upon so many Native American peoples to cling to this as proof of some underlying Obama plot to finally finish the genocide started centuries ago. There have been progroms. There has been an explicit attempt to isolate, infect and eradicate the first inhabitants of these lands. It is a very real and very disgusting side of the US history and present. But it will NOT be fixed by such infantile accusations on THE VERY FIRST FUCKING ACT OBAMA DOES AS PRESIDENT. And a symbolic one, at that.
The meaning of the word tribe has grown to include members of specific political/social groups, regardless of ethnic or religious differences. The word goes beyond the traditional anthropological connotations to ethnic groups. I don’t want to put words in the man’s mouth, but i believe that he was using this definition of tribe, not the ethnic or historical one, as a call to go outside our cliques and factions, not to eradicate the Lakotah (or finish eradicating: I make no apologies for and have no illusions about US policy towards the original inhabitants of this land.)
Y bueno, perdón por las maldiciones y los gritos y todo, pero es que me da un chingo de coraje que le echen de madres a Obama por esas pendejadas. There will come a time when we will have to confront Obama and the Dems, on issues of existential importance: reparations for the original peoples, comprehensive immigration reform, nuclear disarmament: there’s plenty to choose from. A few words said or left unsaid in a public speech is not one of them.
is all your bluster and supposed logic supposed to distract me from the reality that he lumped ALL others into “non-believers”? do you think so little of the man that you feel he is incapable of uttering phrases like “and all other beliefs that are dear to people in this nation”? if so, it didn’t work.
oye, come here with capital letter curses again and i’ll block you. relax and get some decaf, amigo. otherwise, good points are in here. just dont distract from yourself please, and have some respect for the place or STFU. thanks.
I also saw Obama speak in a few places when I was working for MTV. And he made sure to mention Native Americans in those speeches (his litany of “white, black, latino” etc. I have them on tape. So this WAS a choice to exclude them. Draw your own inferences. But it’s no “standard stock” oversight. It was a choice. For the indigenous of this land to find that choice outrageous makes perfect sense to me. You’ll get it, keep thinkin.
rafael and mamita, i personally don’t think he meant it as a coded signal or anything. but for a president–any president–to be overlooking the feelings and place and pride of the indigenous of this land at this point, if it’s not devious, it’s just stupid and even if one disagrees with that, well, it sure ain’t no change® from how its been previously.
Primero que nada, las disculpas:
I apologize for the overcaffeinated offensiveness. My tone could have definitely been more civil; the cursing is a little leftover from the holidays back home. Perdón por lo majadero.
Nez, I share your sense of outrage towards the Obama’s “overlooking the feelings and place and pride of the indigenous of this land “. It was an unnecesary snub, or a stupid omission. It might have well been both devious AND stupid. The fact you saw him in the stump acknowledging the many peoples and resistances in the country should give him some slack, i think, but I understand if you were to take the opposite opinion.
I don’t think Native Americans are being “oversensitive” in having noticed and vocally demanded acknowledgment, or to be incredibly pissed off about, well, you know, being occupied, colonized, placed in pogroms and bantustans, and subjugated through drugs and disease. I share their sense of urgent outrage.
But between that and “What does he mean? Certainly, NOT the tribes of Israel. Who, but the American Indians are referred to as Tribes? We are the ONLY ones. Obama’s “Final Solution” to the centuries-old “Indian Problem” is total dissolution.” there is a huge mountain of a difference.
The ONLY ones, huh, Russell? Por favor! Do you share Russell’s accusation that Obama was actually using code for calling for the complete and methodical extermination of the original peoples of this land – you know, a FINAL SOLUTION? Russell isn’t offended because he was snubbed in a speech, he is accusing the President, a person of color himself, of being in on a white supremacist-zionist plot to um, well, whatever he is accusing him of in that rant, extermination or assimilation or dissolution or whatever.
As to my other points, the real fights, the real snubs, the policy betrayals and welfare “reforms” and overpolicing and militarizations and invasions and coups, what then? How are we going to be heard or worked with or respected if we are accusing them of having genocidal tendencies because of their opening speech?
I should at least acknowledge to begin with that I got mine, as a bona fide white lady non-believer.
But I am just not buying this announcing genocide by omission thing. “Final Solution” my foot. Power structures in Pakistan and Afghanistan are popularly referred to as “tribal,” so the inferred late but hostile name-check isn’t correctly applicable to the “ONLY” people who are referred to as being among tribes.
I did read the link about the sorry state of public health and poverty among the Lakotah, but I’ll be damned if that convinced me that Obama’s setting out on a Hitlerian crusade.
Rodrigo, thanks for coming down a bit.
If you read the comment thread, you see I don’t agree that it is “coded” speech per se. But I did want to give Russell’s voice a place here. Just as I wanted to make room in this blog at other times for other viewpoints.
And Sara, maybe there is a better way to make my own stance clear without getting caught up arguring semantics with people who are NOT indigenous so let me put it this way:
Have you ever ended up on a Feminist blog, and women are saying all kinds of shit about men and part of your brains wants to say “Wow, you’re crazy. You are troubled. You are paranoid!”?
Ever? Maybe not. You’re a woman. And here is part of my point.
My reaction when I dip into the culture/conversations of groups of people who have suffered horribly at the hands of the dominant culture, and been told for years upon years that they have no complaint by most mouths:
“wow. it must be hard to be in that group. i think i know what that feels like. where is this deep feeling/passion/anger/fear coming from? let me try to get in their shoes.”
That’s what I do.
And Rodrigo, as to your final question “How will we be heard if…”
Firstly, who is “We”? That needs to be sussed out first. Your “We” clearly excludes people with Russell Means’ complaints. I’m not sure mine does. But the point is, watch out for the “we.” Too often, its used in a way that says more than it means to without announcing itself.
And to answer it in another way? A valid point should always be heard. If one is invalid, and then next one is valid, there is no excuse not to “hear” it. No matter what was said before.
Los dos estamos code-switching, no? We are both mestizo, part-indigenous, bilingual, verdad? That’s the we right there: as a fellow unapologetic mexican, I also meant the we in a broader, anti imperialist, anticolonial, radical form, an assumption I am prepared to retract if I am mistaken. As far as me speaking for native american peoples; other than my solidarity and affinity towards their aims, their fight is most definitely not mine.
Nonetheless, this does not preclude me from critiquing Russell’s political strategy or rhetoric. Might there be an opposite to that “oversensitive” term, one in which the burden of oppression and victimization gives credence or validity to the most horrendous, slanderous accusations from the part of the oppressed?
Russell’s legitimate concerns and claims for the betterment of himself and his people are cheapened and turned ineffective when they are wrapped in such hateful and groundless and ignorant accusations.
I believe that Russell has every right to be pissed, skeptical, aggravated, threatened, and wary; i do not condemn his passion, vociferousness, resistance, only his methods. I do not feel compelled to silence because of the magnitude of the fight he faces: we all have our wars to fight, our masters to slay. But accusing Obama of plotting to exterminate the native american nations because of a take on one of his speeches, even if it is the inaugural address, is absurd.
I insist: accusing someone of genocidal tendencies because of an interpretation of his inaugural address does not seem, to me, a valid point.
Thanks for the conversation, and I apologize if I am coming across as too strong. And thanks for the forum to have these conversations.
Rodrigo.
Your insistence is noted! You may be more satisfied by talking with Russell yourself, tho…
And no, there is no “opposite” term in this case. Not unless the culture that Obama is now at the helm of was once nearly exterminated by invaders who invented laws and yet still get around them, and almost always in the service of that continued oppression. Which is what indigenous people are up against to my mind. I do get your point. Russell is “jumping the shark” you are saying. And you believe that hurts “sane” conversation which might “get us somewhere.” And I hope you hear my point: that the shark ate almost Russell’s entire family and is now working on the rest. So the man’s eye is very sharp as it watches the waves roll in.
Thanks, bro. Be well. Agreed, good conversation.
Jeje. “as a fellow unapologetic mexican.” i love it!
rodrigo, let me take my time for a moment to flesh this out, now that my computer has restarted and i’ve thought a little more.
i don’t want to play dumb to your passions. of course i see that by headlining what i did and putting my own synopsis on it, i endorsed it.
and i understand the resistance. “hyperbole weakens his own case and hurts our chances of being taken seriously.” that’s it, roughly? that’s what i’m getting. it’s a valid line of argument. and yes, your “we” sounds a whole lot like mine.
there are, of course, so many ways to look at everything.
my first point was basically intended as “rather than react becuz JEEZ this cat’s gonna mess up our new Democratic agenda with his crazytalk when we’re all being unified/using momentum/addressing sane concerns” i find it more useful to (also?) stop and say “okay. what is making this person jump up at a moment i find it unnecessary? or extreme? or “overboard?” (whatever word) what is their lived experience possibly telling them that i don’t see?”
i’ll also point to your use of the word “absurd.” i’m actually glad you used it. it helps me make the point.
see, until we go there, i’m with you. i can see the pragmatic concerns of getting extreme at a moment when everyone else is playin Kenny G. (pick a better metaphor if that is no good. Ozomatli? Huayucaltia?) i get strategy. and i agree it is most probable that Obama was giving a speech that had been crafted (by a few people) to be so non partisan that they were doing their best to eradicate any lines of distinction as far as national identification.
but can we stop THERE for a moment (just one) and think to ourselves that to some native americans/indians/first people/indigenous this might be a horribly offensive overall shape to even build an inaugural speech on? or any major political US speech? i mean lets just think of their history. their collective identity. the battle they fight is not over. as Means says, on the reservations, the sickness continues to seep into their bones and their children’s bones and brains and the speeches and laws do not protect or consider them adequately.
so i was saying if you and i hear no Genocide in there, fine. but someone does, if only by neglect to address a larger truth and thus buttress an ongoing oppression by means of unnecessary omission ESPECIALLY when you are, in fact, being so damn inclusive otherwise in your intent and phrasing.
“Absurd.”
but is it really? when you see what we are doing arm in arm with israel to the palestinians and what we’ve done in iraq and what we continue to do and given the justifications we continue to slide by with—is it really an “absurd” claim? surely we can find a lot of people to agree that it is an extreme one or even a harsh indictment or even a radical statement coming from a Native American.
from that source, labeling it “absurd” would indicate such lunacy that no grain of reason remains. and we are standing on ground soaked in the blood of generations of families. that’s how this ground was gained. this may be distant to some. but to some, it is Now. and ongoing. and unaddressed. and perhaps to those people, they wait every new speech, every new president, every new bill drawn up, for a justice that most know will never come. and maybe when someone like Obama makes it into office and inspires almost every single person paying attention and seems to offer the change theyve been thirsting for, when it doesnt come once again for this other group, it hurts on a deeper level than we can know. maybe.
so to classify Means’ overall complaints “absurd,” dismissing any reason that may be contained within is to further the same oppression he is reacting to. and to dismiss the overall topic by reducing it and focusing on the specific validity of a word or two or his timing so as to wave it away entirely is to be disengenuous about the reality that Means, and more than a few others, live in.
another way to see things, or rather, thus:
today’s traffic has spiked noticeably. i’ve not been here every day, lately, but even when posting videos that took 12 – 20 hours to make, traffic today has been greater/higher. by almost double? this was not planned, i was not intending to be sensational or hype anything for hits, i just went through my inbox trying to hit posts i had flagged for weeks and that had backed up and came to my friends’ fwd from her boyfriends’ father, Russell. when i wrote it this way, today and because of this post, look at all the notice and talk.
if an extreme headline and hardcore (“absurd”) angle is what it takes to get people these days—all of us with our own jampackedNspeedy information highways to cope with—to stop now and think a drawn-out moment about something, i say let it be about the genocide of indigenous people on this very continent.
in this way of looking at it, your comments and this back and forth have helped me add to the brief post what my thinking is on it, and so are directly responsible for helping to bring this awareness about, or to a more effective degree. and so thank you.
there has been a lot of critique of the opening: “My fellow citizens” resident aliens, undocumented individuals who keep our economy going, students and workers with visas… this nation and support for him is made up of more than “citizens” but perhaps some of us are over analyzing that speech…
lets face it that speech is going to be analyzed and ripped apart time and time again.
so true.
There is always way to much over analyzing of the speeches that any president gives yet it is the only thing the public at large has to go on and to decide what his true intentions really are but in the general light of him lumping together the believes of others in one sentence It seems to me that by naming the world’s 4 largest theist religions, primarily monotheistic, and by referring to “nonbelievers”, he is simply acknowledging as inclusive in our society, those without similar monotheistic beliefs whether atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, Native American, pagan or whatever, giving emphasis to the 1st Amendment non-establishment/free exercise of religion … to his and our credit.
I get how it can be inferred by omission that the steamrolling of Native American culture isn’t important to Obama.
Here’s hoping that’s not true, and that Obama hears what Means says. Whether you thought Means was crotchety or spot on with his reaction to Obama, you can’t argue with the truth of the history of Native Americans and how they currently feel. And Means is giving knowledge so that next time we react it will be with that knowledge, it’s a chance to learn and hear someone’s perspective.
And if Obama mentioned Native Americans outright in his speech, then a Native American wondering if the Obama administration is going to treat their issues wouldn’t have to look for clues elsewhere.
jaja! nicely put.
I think it’s important to clarify that Obama’s comment, “the lines of tribes shall soon dissolve,” is of course not a code, and nor is it referring to overt genocide. If anything, it’s a reminder that no matter how impresive or uplifting Obama may be, he is his nation’s president.
And the American government has always maintained a desire to politically extinguish Indigenous Nations, to “make us into nothing”. It’s the same thing in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They all desperately want us to forfeit our rights and identities, and become like any other citizen.
Yes, and that is the approach and treatment when the US GOV deals with just about any nation that has a struggle between indigenous and larger powers that want to exploit land or resources to a larger group’s detriment, or usurp traditions or harm the environment, etc. Which are examples I point out because it is generally these sticking points that bring struggles into the public eye regarding indigenous peoples and other encroaching forces…which too often, the US is allied with.