Jacques Derrida
More at wood s lot
The Smithsonian launched it’s prize jewel, the National Museum of the American Indian last month in Washington. Joy Harjo was there:
Sitting outside the National Museum of the American Indian after a reception and viewing of the museum, the day before the opening, I run into Carlos Nakai, one of Indian country�s finest musicians. We admire the lily-filled pond, the grounds rich with native plants. It�s idyllic. We both agree that what�s missing are the junked cars, chickens, skinny rez dogs, kids running around, dried meat racks�.and so on.
Yeah!
But I will say one thing for that museum. They have their language right. It’s no mere anthropological curiosity. It treats living indigenous cultures as living cultures.
I back from a week in Orange County, California. The hotel I stayed at, the Ayres Country Inn and Suites featured a room that opened on to a French country-style courtyard on one side and a California suburban parking lot on the other. Every ten minutes a plane streaked 100 feet overhead on it’s approach to John Wayne Airport, which lay across the street.
Within the hotel itself, were photos of Newport beach and environs in the 1920s. One telling shot showed the Pacific Coast Highway in 1920. It was four lanes even then packed bumper to bumper with Model T Fords. The title of the shot was “Traffic Jam, Newport Beach, 1920.” That’s a long time for a community to have lived with the worst of the car. And it appears as if no one has learned anything. In the 1930s for example, GM bought up the popular interurban streetcar service called the Redcar, fearing that if public transit caught on it would ruin their market. It was probably the best business decision they ever made. With that one acquisition, car culture was entrenched in southern California and as the archetypical California suburb exported its design across North America, the car followed suit.
It’s good to be home in the rainy embrace of Howe Sound.
In reflecting on some thoughts by Steven Biko, Brian Alger has this to say about the role of language in learning:
“Language is often a tool leveraged in cultural warfare, but it also represents a battle for the mind. The preservation of a language is frequently viewed as a means to preserve both cultural and individual identity. By imposing a language on people that is not native to their intelligence they are disadvantaged. But this is not to say that they are not intelligent, it is merely a way of placing them at a disadvantage. Language and learning are intimately connected in ways that extend far beyond traditional notions of literacy [i.e. – learning to read and write as as end unto itself]. Biko’s point is clear and present; if a group of people are forced to use a language that is not idiomatic to them they are placed at a distinct disadvantage. And if that imposition is autocratic then those people can be made to feel inferior.”
This is a fundamental point to note in the journey to understand how deeply colonization has affected indigenous communities, societies and organizations. For those of you who are not First Nations, you can graps the magnitude of what Brian is saying by reflecting on the fact that almost every reference you see to First Nations people is couched in the past tense, even if the author is referring to contemporary situations.
Take this for example:
There were six principal tribes of Pacific Coast First Nations. The most northerly tribe was the Haida, who occupied the Queen Charlotte Islands. They were the only member of the language family called Haida.
The Tsimshian, who lived on the mainland coast directly across from the Queen Charlottes, were divided into three groups, all of whom spoke languages belonging to the Tsimshian language family. The Tsimshian lived at the mouth of the Skeena River, the Gitksan lived farther inland along the Skeena, and the Nisga’a at the basin of the Nass River.
The southernmost Pacific Coast tribes were the Nootka and the Coast Salish. Occupying the west coast of Vancouver Island, the Nootka spoke a language belonging to the Wakashan language family. The Coast Salish were found on the eastern coast of Vancouver Island and on the mainland just opposite, from Bute Inlet to the mouth of the Columbia River. They spoke languages belonging to the Salishan language family.
Between the northern and southern tribes were found the Kwakiutl and the Bella Coola. Like the Nootka, the Kwakiutl spoke a language belonging to the Wakashan language family. They lived on the northern end of Vancouver Island and on the nearby mainland. The Bella Coola lived on the banks of the Dean and Bella Coola rivers and on the fjords into which these rivers flowed. They belonged to the Salishan language family.
Everything in that passage is true right now, as of this very moment. The ARE six principal tribes of the Pacific Coast (actually that’s a simplistic statement in itself, but nevermind), and the Kwakiutl (Kwa’kwa’awakw) STILL live at the northen end of Vancouver Island. And if you scroll down in the article, you will see discussion of the spiritual lives of these people placed in the past tense like it’s extinct. It’s not. There are ceremonies happening everywhere every day. Soon the Coast Salish communities will begin preparing for the winter ceremonies which still go on. If you live in Vancouver for instance and you cross the Lion’s Gate bridge, you can look down to the east on the Squamish First Nation lands and often see smoke coming out of the longhouse. Come winter, the smoke will be there everyday.
This is by no means uncommon. First Nations people are usually found in chapter one of the history books, having had the whole place to ourselves from time immemorial, and then dropping off the map somehow. In fact literally, as most Canadian road maps and general atlases won’t show First Nations communities.
Anyway, we’re still here. And we still do some things in very traditional ways, meaning that these are actually contemporary ways of expressing identity and community.
So look at the narrative about Aboriginal peoples with new eyes. Once you start to notice how it’s all couched in the past, ask yourself who wants us to be written out of the contemporary world. And if you have kids that you teach and work with, try to be accurate in your descriptions of us. We’re still here although we might not be what you expect. Our languages are still spoken, and our lands are still occupied and our ceremonies still go on.
And YAY for that.
From Jim Lehrer’s comments at the opening of the presidential debate:
Tonight?s will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to enforce their rules on them.
The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security, but the specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions were composed by me, the candidates have not been told what they are, nor has anyone else.
For each question there can only be a two-minute response, a 90- second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute.
A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at 15, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means time?s up. There is also a backup buzzer system if needed.
Candidates may not direct a question to each other. There will be two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.
There is an audience here in the hall, but they will remain absolutely silent for the next 90 minutes, except for now, when they join me in welcoming President Bush and Senator Kerry.
If the essence of democracy is dialogue, then something very strange is going on down in the USA.
Matthew Baldwin has a humorous take on the “rules of engagement.”
So, how can we do this better? Democracy, it seems to me, needs to be enlivened at all levels by dialogue and conversation. Debates between people running for office at the highest levels both here in Canada and in the USA have taken on the character of candidate window dressing. Shoppers are encouraged to choose an item based on how it looks in the window.
What if the candidates sat down together on a stage in a circle with eight randomly selected citizens and were given two hours to hash out ideas together about how to move forward? What if they were given the task of coming to an AGREEMENT after two hours on a specific question relating to the future and well being of the country? Everyone could contribute and the only rules of engagement would be David Bohm’s rules of dialogue.
That would really be something, eh?