I just came back from the new National Museum of the American Indian. What an experience! I had been to the museum when it was in New York--there the tone was that of a salvaging what was left of a vanishing people. The new center is all about Indian people still being here in the 21st century. It was refreshing to see multi-media presentations with Indians speaking about their culture and their history. Multi-media at an Indian museum is almost entirely unheard of. At the NMAI, the Indians aren't stuck in the past, their not noble "creatures" we should emulate, and their not terrible savages to be feared. Rather, the peoples presented in the most beautiful and respectful manner are just that--people. Thanks to the folks at the Smithsonian for their dedication to presenting history in its fullest form, both the good and the bad.
The way the history of Indian America is presented at the new museum is incredibly powerful. Combine this with a trip to the Holocaust museum and their is no way the avaerage American citizen could ever forget what this country is built upon and what the perils of forgetting (or never knowing) the history of this nation. The Smithsonian (and especially this new museum) are models for historians to look at for how the public should confront history that is less than the ideal and doesn't play into the national myths. Truly, a moving expereince, at times I wanted to cry, but when I left, I felt that it was good and was glad that the museum was so full on this day.
On another note, have you ever noticed that there are some places that just seem to inspire writing? New Orleans helped me write a great short story. Pierre, South Dakota helped me conceptualize life of the people in my Canton manuscript, and DC seems to force some creativity out of me. However, Las Vegas I find too many distractions and Hays, maybe I just haven't found the inspiration there. Just an odd observation.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Baseball in D.C.
I had some extra time on my hands this evening and I decided to take in a Washington Nationals vs. Cincinnati Reds games. Hey, baseball is a bit of a passion for me and what else are history conferences for?? Anyway, I noticed a few things about America's Pastime in the nation's capital that I feel are worth mentioning.
1. How the hell can anyone live in this humidity?? Hey, I'm from 2 hours north of this hell-hole and have no idea how I ever lived with this much humidty. At game time (7:05) the humidty was a soupy 84%. That's just disgusting if you ask me. I was literally sitting still and sweating. Everybody in this towns looks greasy because all they do is sweat when they're outside. It's strange how I adapted to living in the west--those of you who think Hays is humid, or even Austin (Dave) should spend a year here one afternoon. ICK!
2. I would watch blind mice play baseball!! OK, I always thought I was a baseball fan, but I'm not, I'm a freak. I literally sat and watched two of the worst teams in the MLB pretend to play baseball tonight. My reasoning: how's this for crazy--Bronson Arroyo pitches for the Reds, he used to pitch for the Red Sox and so I should go see him if I have a chance. Second, Ken Griffey Jr. (future hall of fame shoe-in) plays for the Reds--had to go! Like a said, FREAK!
Now for some observations about baseball in D.C.
1. These dudes play in the Grand Canyon! RFK isn't a stadium, it's an affront to all things holy. Never have a seen a bigger piece of shit. Thank god they're destroying the thing next year and building a new park. It's huge and there are so many obstructed views (I was behind the right field foul pole) that I don't really think there's a good seat in the house.
2. I've been to a lot of parks and never in my life did I see more Dockers and blue Oxford shirts! Is this really the wardrobe of the DC baseball fan. In front of me tonight, much to my pleasure, were four government employees who acted more like frat boys and one lone girl who just kept looking at her companions with the saddest brown eyes I've seen this side of Bambi. This is the future of our nation and baseball! I may actually be more concerned about the latter as the former is already circling the drain of the cosmic shitter!
3. Suit should never be worn to a baseball game! On the lower level of the staduim--where tickets cost a whopping $45, mine was $5 by the way--sat some "important" government types--Congressmen ready for summer break, etc in their suits. If khakis and button-ups are bad, 3 piece suits are awful (see point 1 in the first section).
4. The fans here are very politie. It may be that the Nats suck, it may be that it's more about being seen at the game than really seeing the game, or it could be that the people here are just overly nice. hell, I went to games in Philly growing up, I may be biased. But, these people gave a standing ovation to Ken Griffey Jr. and actually didn't heckle Arroyo when he gave up 4 damn runs in the first inning. Isn't this city supposed to be the birth place of the ugly American? Or is it solely the guy who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? Either way, as baseball fans go, these folks in DC are pretty damn nice.
Well, that's it from here. Baseball in the national capital is unlike baseball anywhere else I've ever been. Some time tomorrow I have to get over to the new National Museum of the American Indian. If I do, you will know.
1. How the hell can anyone live in this humidity?? Hey, I'm from 2 hours north of this hell-hole and have no idea how I ever lived with this much humidty. At game time (7:05) the humidty was a soupy 84%. That's just disgusting if you ask me. I was literally sitting still and sweating. Everybody in this towns looks greasy because all they do is sweat when they're outside. It's strange how I adapted to living in the west--those of you who think Hays is humid, or even Austin (Dave) should spend a year here one afternoon. ICK!
2. I would watch blind mice play baseball!! OK, I always thought I was a baseball fan, but I'm not, I'm a freak. I literally sat and watched two of the worst teams in the MLB pretend to play baseball tonight. My reasoning: how's this for crazy--Bronson Arroyo pitches for the Reds, he used to pitch for the Red Sox and so I should go see him if I have a chance. Second, Ken Griffey Jr. (future hall of fame shoe-in) plays for the Reds--had to go! Like a said, FREAK!
Now for some observations about baseball in D.C.
1. These dudes play in the Grand Canyon! RFK isn't a stadium, it's an affront to all things holy. Never have a seen a bigger piece of shit. Thank god they're destroying the thing next year and building a new park. It's huge and there are so many obstructed views (I was behind the right field foul pole) that I don't really think there's a good seat in the house.
2. I've been to a lot of parks and never in my life did I see more Dockers and blue Oxford shirts! Is this really the wardrobe of the DC baseball fan. In front of me tonight, much to my pleasure, were four government employees who acted more like frat boys and one lone girl who just kept looking at her companions with the saddest brown eyes I've seen this side of Bambi. This is the future of our nation and baseball! I may actually be more concerned about the latter as the former is already circling the drain of the cosmic shitter!
3. Suit should never be worn to a baseball game! On the lower level of the staduim--where tickets cost a whopping $45, mine was $5 by the way--sat some "important" government types--Congressmen ready for summer break, etc in their suits. If khakis and button-ups are bad, 3 piece suits are awful (see point 1 in the first section).
4. The fans here are very politie. It may be that the Nats suck, it may be that it's more about being seen at the game than really seeing the game, or it could be that the people here are just overly nice. hell, I went to games in Philly growing up, I may be biased. But, these people gave a standing ovation to Ken Griffey Jr. and actually didn't heckle Arroyo when he gave up 4 damn runs in the first inning. Isn't this city supposed to be the birth place of the ugly American? Or is it solely the guy who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? Either way, as baseball fans go, these folks in DC are pretty damn nice.
Well, that's it from here. Baseball in the national capital is unlike baseball anywhere else I've ever been. Some time tomorrow I have to get over to the new National Museum of the American Indian. If I do, you will know.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
My Political Candidates and the Problem of Viability
Ok, take a deep breath Dave, I'm back. Today I am on my way to Washington DC for an American Historical Association Workshop and all I can think about is politics. One of the issues I always look for from my candidates is Indian Policy. I get tired of the same old "I support tribal self-determination" bullshit. Any politician who can't come up with something more than that for an Indian policy (holy Ronald Reagan, Batman!) doesn't get my vote. I must admit right away to being a Democrat and as such, no Republican really ever measures up to my standards. When it comes to the candidates running this year, my sympathies--right now at least--lie with Bill Richardson, former Gov. of New Mexico. This comes as no real surprise to me, since I've been old enough to pay attention to politics, my "favorite" cadidates are those with the least likely chance to be elected. It's a damn disease or something. So, since I was obsessed with politics today I went looking for all of the Democratic candidates statements of Indian policy. Surprise, surprise, those that actually took the time to post one on their website gave me the "support self-determination" line that politicians have been passing around since the Nixon days (aren't we there again?? Didn't the President just tell Congress to "go fuck itself" one more time). One thing that I did find was this editorial in Indian Coutnry Today. Below is the full text:
If the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates were as one-dimensional as the popular media portray, American Indians might be hard-pressed to decide which candidate best reflects the values of Indian country. Is it Hillary Clinton, an experienced woman leader? Or maybe it is Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, whose brown skin underscores each audacious speech on paradigm change. John Edwards sheds light on poverty and inequality. The front-runners are evident; their actions in improving the federal-tribal relationship are not. At least their campaign materials boast a basic knowledge of the significance of tribal sovereignty, an improvement from 2004 when George W. Bush famously stumbled through a simple question regarding its meaning. Whether these candidates believe tribal sovereignty is good for Americans is another matter altogether. As they begin to develop Indian policy proposals, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's strong record on government-to-government relations with tribal nations stands as a beacon. Shortly after declaring his candidacy, Richardson told Indian Country Today that if elected president, he would install a cabinet-level secretary of Indian Affairs. Given his record, this is less lip service than intention. In 2005 he appointed Jemez Pueblo native Benny Shendo Jr. as New Mexico's first secretary of Indian Affairs. It is the only state in the country that has a cabinet secretary and a department of Indian Affairs. Spoken commitment followed by action is the key to winning the increasingly critical Native vote. Obama has begun courting the Native vote, circulating a well-versed letter to tribal leaders stating his support for tribal nations. Referring to his somewhat limited legislative record on Indian issues, Obama boldly concluded, ''Only with the benefit of your ideas will we usher in a new era of federal Indian policy - an era of tribal nation-building when tribes, not bureaucrats, determine how to best govern themselves.'' It is campaign rhetoric for sure, but coming from the sincere and charismatic Obama, the words could not be more welcome. He might share aspects of his ''foundational policy for First Americans'' with Indian country through its various media to ensure his bold ideas actually reach Native voters, as news cameras are unlikely to follow him (or any candidate) out to the rez. Taking notice of the strategic advantage of campaigning in Indian country - securing a critical swing vote - Clinton's campaign has formed the Nevada Native American Leadership Council, a group of Nevada tribal leaders united in support of the New York senator's bid for the presidency. The council will serve as an advisory body in Nevada's Indian areas. According to the release, the council will ''play an active role in reaching out and organizing Native American communities.'' Several Indian leaders from throughout Nevada comprise the council. This is a wonderful development for Clinton's campaign and Indian tribes in Nevada; but in New York, where she has served as junior senator since 2000, her record shows little discernable support among tribes. She is, along with Obama, a co-sponsor of a bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Edwards may have the advantage of experience over his first- and second-place rivals. The North Carolina senior senator joined fellow Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., in representing the Lumbee Tribe in its quest for federal recognition. While his opponent for the 2004 Democratic nomination, John Kerry, avoided the issue, Edwards endorsed Indian gaming and expressed support for revenue sharing conflict resolution based on respect and consultation. His national economic plan included investing in Indian country and increasing the funding for community development financial institutions, a program supported by the Department of the Treasury to channel micro-loans to reservations. Edwards would be wise to build upon his past policy proposals for Indian country in order to gain footing in states with small but key Indian constituencies. It is important to note that while the leading candidates are reaching out to Indian country as campaign strategy, they will not appear at what may be the only forum focused solely on Indian issues. Prez on the Rez, an event sponsored by the Indigenous Democratic Network (INDN's List), is slated for Aug. 23 at the Morongo reservation in southern California. The forum places Democratic candidates squarely before Indian people to address their concerns. It is the first such forum to be held in Indian country, and leaders of all federally recognized tribes have been invited. The chance afforded to nearly every other group in America has finally materialized for Indian people. Not surprisingly, Richardson was the first to accept the invitation. Unfortunately, the ''Big Three'' won't attend due to scheduling conflicts. It is too bad. Each could benefit from the example set by Richardson, and by experiencing firsthand the strength of Indian leadership and the challenges they face in their communities.
So Indian Coutnry Today feels the same way I do. However, the vast majority of the population could care less about Indian issues (once again, the issue of "Indian-blindness" rears its head). So what are your thoughts? Does anyone really vote the issues anymore or is it all just one big popularity contest? If we sat down, informed ourselves (the way Thomas Jefferson implored Americans to), and actually voted the issues, would the outcomes of our elections be different?
If the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates were as one-dimensional as the popular media portray, American Indians might be hard-pressed to decide which candidate best reflects the values of Indian country. Is it Hillary Clinton, an experienced woman leader? Or maybe it is Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, whose brown skin underscores each audacious speech on paradigm change. John Edwards sheds light on poverty and inequality. The front-runners are evident; their actions in improving the federal-tribal relationship are not. At least their campaign materials boast a basic knowledge of the significance of tribal sovereignty, an improvement from 2004 when George W. Bush famously stumbled through a simple question regarding its meaning. Whether these candidates believe tribal sovereignty is good for Americans is another matter altogether. As they begin to develop Indian policy proposals, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's strong record on government-to-government relations with tribal nations stands as a beacon. Shortly after declaring his candidacy, Richardson told Indian Country Today that if elected president, he would install a cabinet-level secretary of Indian Affairs. Given his record, this is less lip service than intention. In 2005 he appointed Jemez Pueblo native Benny Shendo Jr. as New Mexico's first secretary of Indian Affairs. It is the only state in the country that has a cabinet secretary and a department of Indian Affairs. Spoken commitment followed by action is the key to winning the increasingly critical Native vote. Obama has begun courting the Native vote, circulating a well-versed letter to tribal leaders stating his support for tribal nations. Referring to his somewhat limited legislative record on Indian issues, Obama boldly concluded, ''Only with the benefit of your ideas will we usher in a new era of federal Indian policy - an era of tribal nation-building when tribes, not bureaucrats, determine how to best govern themselves.'' It is campaign rhetoric for sure, but coming from the sincere and charismatic Obama, the words could not be more welcome. He might share aspects of his ''foundational policy for First Americans'' with Indian country through its various media to ensure his bold ideas actually reach Native voters, as news cameras are unlikely to follow him (or any candidate) out to the rez. Taking notice of the strategic advantage of campaigning in Indian country - securing a critical swing vote - Clinton's campaign has formed the Nevada Native American Leadership Council, a group of Nevada tribal leaders united in support of the New York senator's bid for the presidency. The council will serve as an advisory body in Nevada's Indian areas. According to the release, the council will ''play an active role in reaching out and organizing Native American communities.'' Several Indian leaders from throughout Nevada comprise the council. This is a wonderful development for Clinton's campaign and Indian tribes in Nevada; but in New York, where she has served as junior senator since 2000, her record shows little discernable support among tribes. She is, along with Obama, a co-sponsor of a bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Edwards may have the advantage of experience over his first- and second-place rivals. The North Carolina senior senator joined fellow Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., in representing the Lumbee Tribe in its quest for federal recognition. While his opponent for the 2004 Democratic nomination, John Kerry, avoided the issue, Edwards endorsed Indian gaming and expressed support for revenue sharing conflict resolution based on respect and consultation. His national economic plan included investing in Indian country and increasing the funding for community development financial institutions, a program supported by the Department of the Treasury to channel micro-loans to reservations. Edwards would be wise to build upon his past policy proposals for Indian country in order to gain footing in states with small but key Indian constituencies. It is important to note that while the leading candidates are reaching out to Indian country as campaign strategy, they will not appear at what may be the only forum focused solely on Indian issues. Prez on the Rez, an event sponsored by the Indigenous Democratic Network (INDN's List), is slated for Aug. 23 at the Morongo reservation in southern California. The forum places Democratic candidates squarely before Indian people to address their concerns. It is the first such forum to be held in Indian country, and leaders of all federally recognized tribes have been invited. The chance afforded to nearly every other group in America has finally materialized for Indian people. Not surprisingly, Richardson was the first to accept the invitation. Unfortunately, the ''Big Three'' won't attend due to scheduling conflicts. It is too bad. Each could benefit from the example set by Richardson, and by experiencing firsthand the strength of Indian leadership and the challenges they face in their communities.
So Indian Coutnry Today feels the same way I do. However, the vast majority of the population could care less about Indian issues (once again, the issue of "Indian-blindness" rears its head). So what are your thoughts? Does anyone really vote the issues anymore or is it all just one big popularity contest? If we sat down, informed ourselves (the way Thomas Jefferson implored Americans to), and actually voted the issues, would the outcomes of our elections be different?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)