I've heard from quite a few people (some of whom I hold in considerable respect) that Dan Linsalata's editorial in the Restless Natives issue of the Review was actually very good. I have to agree in some measure—Dan did present a reasoned argument which is certainly undermined by the sensationalism of the cover and the senselessly provocative title (NADs on the Warpath).
However, in order to accept Dan's argument, you have to basically ignore the fact that Native Americans here might have a different "Dartmouth experience" from the one(s) that whites typically have. You have to basically deny the fact that most minorities can't act white enough for differences like race not to matter here—and they shouldn't have to. Ever.
Dan starts out from the premise that the NADs chose this term to "start being angry again."
Guess what, on a campus where people use your race as a code for their defiance toward the liberal politics of diversity, pluralism, and multiculturalism, you don't really get to choose when to start being angry. When over-entitled assholes repeatedly tell you that you should be honored for being represented as a caricature of your heritage, a caricature whose attributes—fierceness and bellicosity—were the same tropes used to justify mass slaughters of your race, you might not feel like you have a choice whether to be angry or not.
What you can choose is whether to suffer in silence or to act against this kind of behavior, and how you can act against it. Of course, Dan not only asserts that the NADs have a choice in when to start being angry, he also maintains that the way they acted on their anger was wrong.
First, to the charge that the NADs have been deficient in attempting to dialogue with The Review about this issue—seriously, it's no secret that many NADs on campus are not fans of the Indian symbol and that they do not feel honored by it in the slightest. It's not their job to come begging you to stop it until you graciously relent. You say the NADs have ducked discourse; I say you make discourse impossible.
Second, to the charge that the NADs have gotten the administrators tucked away in their pockets, you must be kidding me. The Review has been complaining for years how the administration is too sensitive to minority issues, and now you pull this out as if it's a shocking new development? OMG, administrators agree with the NADs that they shouldn't be commodified and humiliated! Quelle surprise! as Malchow might say. To assert that because the administration is overwhelmingly in sympathy with the NADs means that administrators are in fact being manipulated by them is ludicrous. Swap "NADs" with "Jews" and you have a custom-built anti-semitic diatribe—the minority that secretly pulls all the strings.
Third, to the charge that the NADs' statement which asserted their exclusive right to determine what offends them is a demand for the power to control people's actions and words, what the hell are you thinking? They are merely saying, you cannot tell me when and when not to be offended. They are not saying, we have the right to make you stop doing something whenever we decide we're offended. That is a ludicrous and entirely agenda-driven interpretation.
Fourth, to the charge (the most important one) that the NADs haven't even gotten their own ideas straight and shouldn't complain until they do, I have news for you. Despite what you may think, the NADs aren't a bunch of lockstep drones of political correctness. There is no reason for them to have a unified political platform or ideology. They are a community, not a political party. The fact that many of them feel extremely offended by the Indian symbol and some of them don't as much is not proof positive that the symbol shouldn't offend them, but evidence that the experiences of individuals are not going to be the same in every way.
But we are no less responsible for our actions toward Native Americans or blacks or Latinos or women or gay men or anyone else just because there is more than one opinion within that group about what constitutes appropriate behavior toward or against that group. Some women feel spousal abuse is just a part of traditional gender roles. That doesn't mean that all women the world over have to come to a consensus about spousal abuse before we can tell a wife-beater that he is the lowest scum of the earth and he should stop. Diversity of opinion doesn't absolve us of responsibility for our actions.
So, you asked for a proper refutation of The Review's arguments, and here it is. I'll be interested to see if The Review picks up its side of the debate.
A few thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. Much of what you say quibbles with Linsalata's choice of words. It's beside the point and similar to attacking the cover image and not the op-ed. Perhaps he deserves the criticism, but it's not really a response to the substance.
2. I'm not sure what your first point is, exactly. I don't think Linsalata has indicated that the Review are surprised or puzzled to learn that many people with Native American heritage are offended by the Dartmouth Indian logo, only that the way in which people have approached the problem is juvenile. He wants to debate; the NADs want to intimidate. He challenges them to say more than "I'm offended and you're a racist."
3. On your second point, I think Linsalata is fair to label the administration's speech in recent weeks as strange and "pandering." Maybe not shocking, exactly, but so what?
4. On your third point, I guess I just disagree. The NAD folks aren't just claiming that their feelings are hurt. They're claiming that they're entitled to a response from the administration and from the Review. Of course everyone has a right to their feelings. The question is what obligation those feelings produce in others. The administration has basically said that any claim of offense is entitled to validation and possibly to more. That's ridiculous.
5. On your fourth point, I think Linsalata's point is that if a group wants to object to something, it should have an articulated reason for it. NAD says "destroy the Hovey murals." College says "why?" NAD has a responsibility at that point to either answer or drop the complaint. Linsalata isn't saying that all Native Americans at Dartmouth have to reach a consensus on a platform before anyone will have a duty to act, only that if a group gets together to protest something, it should explain its reasons for the protest.
I think the most important parts of Linsalata's argument are at the beginning and the end. First, he says, most people who like the Indian symbol -- the football players who get tattoos, the alums who order canes, etc., are not embracing the symbol out of racism. Rather, it is the symbol of Dartmouth that means the most to them.
In the last two paragraphs, he says, make the arguments and tell me what you think the solution should be. Explain why you're offended and why people who express themselves with no racist intent should change the way in which they do so because it happens to offend you.
I don't think it's about hate. I think it's about symbolism. About things like whether Jay-Z should stop saying "nigga" because some black people are offended by the word no matter how it's used, whether people who fly the Confederate flag as a tribute to their heritage and notions of states' rights should take it down because many others will associate it with slavery, whether Columbus Day should be erased from the calendar even though those who celebrate it don't do it in the spirit of slaughtering Native Americans, etc.
A lot of the use of these symbols is tied to tradition. I know you're not a fan of tradition, but for many it's a part of their identities in a way not unlike race.
I completely agree with the post above. I am not a huge fan of the Review, and I think their cover was rascist, insensitive and purposely incendiary, but the meat of their argument has merit. It's a shame that this issue has continued to be so divisive.
ReplyDeleteA better solution would have been work with the Native American community to create an acceptable compromise when the controversy first arose. The Florida State Seminoles are a great example of how tribe and university worked together to strengthen a symbol of athletic tradition while honoring the local Native American culture. Unfortunately, it's probably too late at Dartmouth now.
Much of the uproar about Native American mascots has been instigated by a select group of vocal activists, many of whom hold minority views within the Native American community (as this Annenberg Public Policy Poll indicates:
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/
naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf)
Also, all these vague accusations of Dartmouth's historical mistreatment of Native Americans thrown about by ill-informed underclassmen in the D and elsewhere is ridiculous. Dartmouth has done more to support Native Americans than probably any other elite school. A few instances of ignorant, insensitive behavior shouldn't mar that legacy.
After reading over some of your other posts as well, I must say that for a "liberal" you sure are rather close-minded.
Anonymous 1, I disagree that the Review wants to debate while the NADs want to intimidate. I'd say (and I'd guess many people would agree with me) that the Review definitely wants to intimidate; or at least their recent actions (particularly choice of cover) are certainly open to that interpretation. And I don't understand why it's proper for the Review to feel entitled to a response from the NADs, but that the NADs ought not feel entitled to a response from the Review/the administration.
ReplyDeleteIf we are optimistic and imagine that we can "truly know" whether racism is what motivates people to embrace the Indian mascot, and that those people really do so purely out of attachment to the College, we should take equally good faith in believing people when they say they are offended by that same symbol. If we are holding blameless the pro-Indian mascot people - the alums and tattooed - then we should also not attribute an agenda to those who are anti-Indian mascot.
As for the administration's response: it perhaps could have been less "pandering". That doesn't take away from the merit of the NADs' claim that the Indian mascot and/or certain other recent events are offensive. In any case, I doubt your assertion that the administration's policy is that "any claim of offense is entitled to validation and possibly to more". This could be tested, of course, by that community at Dartmouth that was offended by the whole cowboy fiasco.
I assume that the Reviewers take the NAD folks at their word when they say that they're offended. They may not, but for the points I tried to make above, it doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteThe question is what offended people are entitled to demand in response.
You can't answer that question without getting into exactly how and why they're offended and what would make them happy, and also without getting into the question of what gives the offender the right to say or do that which offends.
Hence my point about symbols. Assuming that the Indian means "Dartmouth tradition" to me and "racial caricature" to you, it's not obvious to me that this gives you the right to tell me to stop using it when I express myself or to get the administration involved.
To throw another example on the pile, the prime minister of Japan's yearly visit to the Yasukuni shrine in Japan comes to mind. To many Japanese, it means honoring the soldiers who have sacrificed their lives for Japan and reflecting on the gravity of war. To many Chinese and Koreans, it's a slap in their faces and a tribute to Japanese militarism and the 14 war criminals whose names are included with the 2 million+ others who are honored there.
Every year, the prime minister contemplates visiting the shrine, and every year the Chinese and Koreans assert a moral claim to have the prime minister of Japan stop visiting the shrine.
What he should do in these situations is not obvious to me, but I tend to think that he's acted appropriately by visiting the shrine while making clear what his intent is in doing so and validating the concerns of China and Korea but refusing to allow those concerns to dictate what he does.
Of course, people don't wear the Indian symbol out of a deeply-felt obligation to honor a generic Indian, but I don't think that defeats my larger point.
The second anonymous post in this thread makes an important point in this whole discussion, namely that Dartmouth's administration never originally made an attempt to somehow reach a compromise on the mascot issue with the two opposing sides, and perhaps it is unfortunately too late to try.
ReplyDeleteI believe some recent actions taken against and depictions of Native Americans are offensive beyond reasonable doubt, and I don't think anyone rationally questions the suffering that the Native Americans endured throughout American History. Personally, "Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee" is one of the most heartbreaking books that I have ever read.
At the same time, there is a very strong connection with the original mascot among alumni, even among those like myself for which it was not the official one during our tenure at the College. I know that for other Alumni in my family, the image of the Native American beheld in their minds is an honorable one, just as I was inspired upon looking at the Native American statue in the Baker Tower Room.
It is a conflicting emotion that I have, and one I think that many other alumni share. We are sensitive towards the plight of the Native Americans, but at the same time hold an affinity to a symbol that we believe embodied the core of Dartmouth's personality and history. We ache for a comprimised solution.
I look at how FSU handled the issue successfully. As an avid rugby fan, I look at how the New Zealand All Blacks perform the Haka (a Maori warrior dance) before every match (as do other Pacific Islands, Tonga and Samoa). The players, whether of Maori descent or not, are always intent on giving the tradition the utmost respect (they have a Maori consultant that participates in their rehearsal), and as a result it is considered a defining rallying cry for the team and the whole nation of New Zealand. For rugby fans around the globe, it one of the most eagerly anticipated events of every NZ match.
The Dartmouth administration can never make everyone happy; there exists a range of opinions on all sides. But, democratic institutions attempt to satisfy the majority's desires after a prolonged discussion with all parties, culminating in a solution that is even-handed and multilateral. Maybe there is no potential middle ground, a sad contemplation, but I don't think that an attempt to find one ever occurred on this issue at Dartmouth, and that is one of the reasons the dilemma has not died after twenty five odd years post the decision.
first anonymous, the Japanese P.M. example is a good one, but it doesn't reflect favorably upon the Review. The Review did NOT make their intentions clear, nor did they validate their critics' concerns. Instead, they ridiculed them, and have made clear that they reject everything their concerns are based ("multiculturalism", in their words). It's not at all clear that what they want is dialogue (which is what the NAC requested in their ad, right?); rather, it seems they just want to demean -- their choice of inflammatory cover art, for example, suggests that they just want to provoke. Much of the language the Review is putting out is condescending and demeans the idea that anybody could ever be legitimately offended. Linsalata said that the NADs & co. were "out for blood" and wrote, "All signs point to the NADs' renewed thirst for anger and consequent taking aim at all aspects of the College that they can plausibly deem 'offensive.'" That doesn't sound to me like he's taking their concerns seriously or in good faith; it certainly doesn't sound like he's interested in engaging in a dialogue about what may or may not be offensive.
ReplyDeleteIt's a matter of civility, and the Reviewers are just not being civil. And for the record, to me, much more than a racial caricature, the "Dartmouth Indian" is a symbol of the Review's wrong-headed and uncivil crusade against the so-called political-correctness thought police.
First anonymous:
ReplyDelete1. Words create substance. Key ideas hang on word choices, and a real analysis does look for those points. (Cf. literary criticism since o, probably the 18th century.)
2. I agree with the commenter below—the NADs aren't looking to intimidate. For one thing, I'm not sure how what they've done is intimidating to anyone. If you're intimidated by people saying that racism is bad and it shouldn't be here at Dartmouth, well, you have your own problems. Sometimes that shit just needs to be said.
3. It's really nothing that Wright hasn't said before. I'm afraid I don't see how reiterating and perhaps reinforcing his position on diversity in light of some serious events on his campus is pandering. Also I don't feel Josie's letter was pandering—I'm not even sure that NADs contacted her office. I think her letter was entirely proactive.
4. You're right. They're not just claiming their feelings ar hurt. They're asking for three things: 1) an explanation from The Review as to why the hell someone would do something so overtly and pointlessly provocative as run that cover; 2) actual consideration of the fact that the symbol is offensive to some students and alums, a consideration which is automatically refused by many parties, including the Review; and 3) more vocalized support from others who reject the sort of callous arrogance and bigotry that can be found in these incidents.
5. I feel that you both didn't address what I was actually arguing about groups objecting to things and that I extended this in my post on Dan's "apology."
David Chamberlain,
ReplyDeleteThanks for using your name. I don't mind anonymous comments at all, but I think it is better to be upfront about these things.
I recognize that the dropping of the Native American symbol must have been very sudden and quite confusing for a lot of alums. I also think that, just as there would be some people (probably me) who would be unhappy with any compromise that kept the Indian around in some way, there would definitely be some alums who would be extremely pissed off about any effort to take away their Indian. So a compromise might have made the transition easier for many alums, but it would not have completely resolved the issue.
Additionally, I'm not sure how a compromise ever could have been achieved. Florida State worked things out with a specific tribe (the Seminoles); the New Zealand All Blacks clearly have done a lot, but again, they had a relatively well-defined group to work with. Who the hell do we talk to about asking if "Indians" is an okay name? The Abenaki, whose land this originally was? The Mohegans, the tribe of Samson Occom? All the tribes of the US? Just the Native Americans who have attended or are attending Dartmouth? Yeah, they tried that, in the 70s, and dropping the symbol is what resulted. Why should we revisit it now? Why not just move on, for real and for good?