[L-I] REPORT PLUS NATIVES, ISSUES, AND RADICALS [BY HUNTER GRAY]

TO OUR MANY. MANY FRIENDS AND COMRADES:

This stewpot Report covers -- fairly quickly --  several matters and then
deals with the excellent question posed very recently to me by a Canadian
Marxist on why many Natives and [non-Indian] Marxists generally do not
relate well to one another.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

Record heavy snow in Idaho is coming regularly -- right now.  We are 'way
high up on the far western edge of Pocatello.  Things are closing in.  We do
have two Jeep Cherokees [mine and that of Thomas] with 4WD.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------

Even though my Canyon of Life is presently somewhat narrowed, we do keep
busy:

Our Pocatello Anti-Racism Committee is rejuvenating fast, meeting at our
home, and a regional conference and subsequent action are being planned.

I am gathering Mine Mill data and classifying material.

Doing much radical writing and planning for a possible new book.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------

Current reading:

Robin Kelley: Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists
During The Great Depression [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1990]

Maurice B Better:  Contract Bargaining Handbook For Local Union Leaders
[Washington:  The Bureau of National Affairs, 1993.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
We deeply appreciate all of your support and good wishes. I wrote this to a
good friend a couple of days ago -- H:

"We do not know -- nor do the physicians [12 at this point;  a
rheumatologist
has just been added] -- what is going to happen on the medical front from
one day to the next.  It's the very. very worst form of Lupus -- predatory,
carnivorous, voracious, absolutely unpredictable -- and it certainly can be
lethal..  It's messed up -- badly -- my
cardiovascular system, gave me very serious pneumonia, attacked liver and
kidneys [beat that off] and damaged some other things.  Its early December
contribution -- full fledged diabetes [suddenly my blood sugar count hit
almost a
thousand! -- often has me hungry, despite Eldri's best efforts.] No known
diabetes
in my family lines.  The doctors' latest interest is my heart -- which
actually
seems strong.  I have no intention of folding up, believe me.

Family and friends have come through magnificently.  [BTW, it's always very
good to hear from you.]

Bill Mandel has been pushing very hard and commendably, as you know, for me
to do some kind of
autobiography. We
are now moving on this. Beba --
and, to some extent Peter -- will represent me on procedural and other
business matters. We may have a good agent.  Of course, it is always
understood that I always --- from
the baby crib ail the way through -- do my own thinking, speak my own piece,
and do all of my own writing."
--------------------------------------------

Very recently out, my article,  "Community Organizing Principles," has been
very well received and is now being reprinted in a number of places.  And
early this morning, this came from Thailand:
Hunter:

I really appreciate your list of principles. I will incorporate it to my
work with the Akha.

I printed your article in The Akha Journal of the Golden Triangle which I
printed 3,000 copies of.  The journal is doing well and is reviewed now by
the Thailand Human Rights Commission Journal itself, which I hope to see a
copy of as well.

When I can, I will get a copy in the mail to you.

Matthew  The Akha Heritage Foundation



Likewise, "Ghosts"  [My own strange kind of NDE -- also testimonials] is
being extremely well received.

Their links on our website:

http://www.hunterbear.org/communityorganizing.htm [Based on my 50 years of
organizing]

http://www.hunterbear.org/ghosts.htm  [My own strange kind of NDE -- also
testimonials]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

And, if interested:

http://www.hunterbear.org/ [new photo of me  on our website 12/28/03 -- I'm
still on Earth]

http://www.hunterbear.org/directory.htm [new photo etc[

http://www.hunterbear.org/narrative.htm [new photo etc[

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

D., from Vancouver, has asked an excellent question of me [12/26/03] -- and
I've now responded:

>From D.:

"Overall I am still of the opinion that Marxism is
valuable and necessary:

I have also had a long and personal involvement with Native people.This has
helped me to understand and appreciate Native culture. I am convinced that
Native culture is vital and necessary to the struggle.But as I investigated
farther and thru personal exp I find few Native activists that are
Marxist.The left seems just as capable as alienating Native folk as
mainstream society.This I find troubling. Marxism to me seems so compatible
and sympathetic with Native culture,once you get past Euro-centric mindsets.

 If you have the time and are well enough could you perhaps suggest how I
might go about understanding this divide.  [DO]

NATIVES, ISSUES, AND RADICALS    [BY HUNTER GRAY]

DO. -  Your question is excellent.
This piece of mine was published in 2002 in Dialogue and Initiative under
the title, "Native Peoples and the Left" by the Committees of Correspondence
for Democracy and Socialism.  It should be helpful to you.  Please get back
to me anytime with any specific questions.  Take care. amigo, and all best.

Hunter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

>From Hunter Gray [Hunterbear]:  NATIVES, ISSUES AND RADICALS  [NATIVE
PEOPLES AND THE LEFT]

My father was an essentially full-blooded Native American [Micmac, St.
Francis Abenaki, and St. Regis Mohawk] and my mother an Anglo from old
Western American stock. I grew up in a rough and racist quasi-frontier
setting in Northern Arizona. Our identity lies on the Indian side of our
family -- which has been closely involved with many Native nations -- and
 I've been privileged to work congenially, as a grassroots social justice
organizer and college/university teacher, with people from a wide range of
ethnic backgrounds in many parts of this country. I was in my teens when I
began to read radical literature -- ranging from the I.W.W. Preamble to the
Communist Manifesto and Granville Hicks' John Reed: The Making of a
Revolutionary. Aware from the outset that this all meshed congenially with
that ethos of communalism and mutual responsibility inherent in every Native
tribal culture, I became a life-long socialist.

I vigorously believe that Native Americans are certainly part of that great
world which needs bona fide socialist democracy -- something that offers
Humanity much, much more of the good things of life than capitalism ever
could or would. But only a relatively few Native Americans in the United
States are avowed people of the Left. Why? Let me give some thoughts -- and
let me make some suggestions.

I'm the first to concede that Indian people are often too reluctant to
listen to worthwhile ideas if they come from non-Indians and are frequently
too wary of entering into association with them. Many Native people fear
that alien ideas and associations could somehow threaten one's aboriginal
identity. But there are grounds for optimism: slowly growing numbers of
Native people are becoming aware that that essential of tribalism -- "an
injury to one is an injury to all" -- has to be extended to the dispossessed
of all humanity and that loss of socio-cultural identity will not occur in
the framework of healthy political association and coalition [e.g., the
anti-nuclear struggle or the fight for Leonard Peltier's life and liberty.]

And non-Native radicals ought to be aware by now that it takes much more
than mechanical arrangements and presumably altruistic politicians to build
and maintain genuine humanistic socio-economic democracy -- especially in a
predominately urban/industrial context. They can learn much from the First
People about faithful commitment to economic communalism, to equalitarian
democracy and classless societies, and to a practical recognition of the
spiritual foundations and interdependence of every component of the
Creation.

The U.S. census of 2000 indicates that 2.4 million people identified
themselves as Native Americans: up 25% since 1990. This is a clear and
unequivocal statement of basic Indian identity -- although almost all of
these would be of some mixed [ Native and non-Native] ancestry, a very
common situation throughout Indian country in this day and age. [In
addition, slightly over four million other people indicated some Indian
ancestry -- but this category is not accepted by many Native people as
indicative of basic Native identity.]

There are almost 600 tribal societies in the United States, each perceived
by its people [though not by Federal and state governments] as a sovereign
entity; more than two-thirds of Native people are from
 "Federally-recognized" tribes, covered by treaties or other Federal ties,
and hold about 55 million acres of reservation land. [An additional 40
million acres have been set aside for Alaskan Natives.] If physically
resident on their Indian lands, Federal Indians are eligible for Indian
trust services [such as they are]: health, education, socio-economic
development. Non-Federal Indians, mostly in the East, receive no Federal
Indian services and often have little or no reservation land base. In a few
instances, they may receive minimal Indian services from the state in which
they reside. Urban Indians, and Native people in off-reservation rural
settings -- and these are now much more than one-half the total Native
population in the United States -- receive no Federal Indian services, even
if they are from Federally-recognized tribes.

The Native American population in the United States may be changing --
indeed, is growing with rapidity -- but some other things are certainly not
changing. Indian people are at the bottom when it comes to education and
income and housing and life-expectancy -- and they're at the top in
unemployment, sub-employment, and suicide.

The development of casinos -- over three hundred of them -- in Indian
country is often seen by outsiders as much more of a positive and beneficent
economic phenomenon than they are; the cold reality is that, while the
casinos have helped the economic picture of the tribes involved to some
extent -- but not all that much -- they have also engendered no small amount
of corruption, skim-offs from outsiders, and much venomous intra-tribal
factionalism. In addition, since tribes are not covered by Federal labor
laws, it's been very difficult for almost all tribal casino employees to
unionize -- and pay and conditions are often extremely poor. And, further,
however slowly, the states themselves are beginning their own legalization
of non-Indian casino gambling.

Something else that has certainly not changed is the fact that, despite
transitory periods of faint sunlight, the enduring common denominator of
United States [and Canadian] Native policy is -- however veiled -- to get
rid of Native people via socio-cultural assimilation; end all treaty
obligations; and secure remaining Native land, water, and other natural
resources.

And again, there is another unchanging dimension: that mountain of Native
commitment -- of all Native people, whoever and wherever -- to a cohesive
family and clan, to one's tribal nation [essentially one big family] and to
its inherent sovereignty and self-determination; and to the critical values
so deeply rooted in the tribal cultures: strongly religious, a pervasive
identification with the whole Creation, no coincidence or happen-chance in
the Universe, an essentially communalistic view of land use, democracy,
egalitarianism, classlessness. And all of this is in the context of the
fundamental principle of tribal [mutual] responsibility: i.e., the society
has an obligation to the individual and the individual has an obligation to
the society; if these conflict, the position of the society prevails -- but
there are certain clearly defined areas of individual and family autonomy
into which the society -- the tribe -- cannot intrude.

And from Native American perspectives, these basic issues stand very much to
the fore -- issue/goals which warrant the full support of every person of
good will and certainly every person of the Left:

Federal adherence to treaty and related obligations. Treaties between the
United States and the Indian nations are, however occasionally mangled by
the Federal government, part of "the Supreme Law of the Land" -- completely
in the context of Article 6, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Although
Congress ended treaty making with the tribal nations in 1871, the hundreds
of treaties then in existence continue with full legal validity.

Federal protection of Native land, water, and other natural resources -- and
substantial Federal funding to build back the badly shrunken reservation
land base.

Federal recognition of the non-Federal tribes. This was supposed to have
been effected by the 1921 Snyder Act which guaranteed Federal Indian
services to all Native Americans in the U.S. -- but the Act's coverage and
Indian services were restricted immediately to only those
Federally-recognized Indian people resident on reservations.

Removal of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Department of Interior
[perennially dominated by the corporations] and its elevation to cabinet
status. The B.I.A. is presently under very heavy fire from the tribes and
their advocates for massive mismanagement of Native trust funds and the
mishandling of other trust responsibilities.

Substantial Federal funds for Indian-controlled and Indian-directed
programs -- in the areas of health, welfare and education, among others --
on reservations, in non-reservation rural settings, and in urban areas. The
1975 Indian Self-Determination Act involving Federal reservations is a
promising first step.

Substantial Federal funding for tribally-owned and tribally-controlled
development of natural resources and other economic programs.

Correction and reinterpretation of the 1988 Indian Gaming Act in such a
fashion as to allow tribes to operate their casinos without non-tribal --
e.g., state -- interference. As it stands, the Act and a subsequent 1996
Supreme Court decision [Seminole], force tribes to reach agreements with
states, thus undercutting Worcester v. Georgia [1832], the key [Cherokee
Nation] case blocking state jurisdiction over Indian tribes.

Establishment of full tribal civil and criminal jurisdiction on Indian
lands. Most of this is now held by the Federal government.

Cessation of Federal and state attacks on Native activists and immediate
freedom for persons such as Leonard Peltier.

Elimination of racism and cultural ethnocentrism wherever they may exist.
These are critical issues for Native people in any setting but are
frequently -- and often brutally -- to the fore in police, employment,
housing, and education situations involving urban Indians.

Where do radicals -- the Left -- come into all of this?

First, a revealing little story: Some years ago, in a very tough and very
big-city urban context, a situation developed where racist Anglo youth gangs
were attacking Native American kids -- and the predominately white police in
that particular district were doing virtually nothing about it. We called a
public mass meeting and demanded, successfully, that police representatives
be present. A large number of people -- Native and non-Native -- came to the
basement of a Catholic Church. I chaired the meeting. However turbulently,
it moved along through grievances and demands -- and then, suddenly! Two
non-Indian radicals arose to harangue -- not the deserving cops -- but each
other: over conflicting mini-visions and perceptions of peripheral socialist
ideology. With some difficulty and banging of my fist, I ended the
escalating oratory and returned the discussion to the matter at hand. And,
in due course, we arrived at a functional resolution of the situation --
which the police, however reluctantly, effectively honored. As we were
leaving the meeting, a young Native activist asked me, "What were those guys
yelling at each other about? Some religious thing?"

And I could only answer, "Pretty much."

And, indeed, the behavior of some non-Indian radicals -- certainly not all
by any means -- can easily lend toward a religiously fundamentalist
interpretation!

Past relationships between Native Americans and American radical
organizations and movements, although not antagonistic, have generally not
been close. In the pre-World War I and post-war period, the Industrial
Workers of the World, with minimal ideological rigidity and very substantial
democracy; and its close relative, the Socialist Party [especially in
heavily Native American Oklahoma], did have very meaningful Indian
membership and support. [Always remember Frank H. Little, Cherokee Indian,
metal miner, Wobbly organizer and chairman of the I.W.W. General Executive
Board, mutilated and lynched at Butte on August 1, 1917, by thugs employed
by Anaconda Copper.]

And, especially in the Rocky Mountains after World War II, the International
Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers [another relative of the old
I.W.W.], radical and militant, the epitome of democracy, and thoroughly
committed to full racial equality, reached out and attracted many Native
metal miners -- who always functioned very comfortably and loyally within
Mine-Mill.

But, at the present , there are, sadly, too few Indian people in American
radical organizations. The Peltier case has brought some Native activists
and non-Indian radicals into quite congenial and determined association.
Although hard specific data are almost impossible to come by, local reports
from around the United States -- including many coming to me personally,
often from former Indian students of mine -- certainly indicate that the
Nader/LaDuke campaign stimulated an unusual amount of Native voting
activism. I should add that the "two old parties" each have token Indian
figures of sometime conspicuous presence -- the Democrats more than the
Republicans -- but neither has attracted a consistently loyal Native
American following. Most Indians who actually vote in mainline elections --
not a pervasive pattern at all, but a slowly growing one -- are Democratic.
But that party's position on Native issues is only tepidly better than the
Republicans. [The Canadian situation is in many respects different than the
one in the 'States. In the central provinces, many decades ago indeed,
activists of the well-organized and radical Metis [ off-reserve mixed-blood
category] and on-reserve tribal people were much involved in the initial
formation of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation which eventually, in
1961, became the New Democratic Party --of somewhat socialist perspective
but presently faltering.]

Even when interested in active participation in U.S. Left organizations,
Native people often encounter a kind of indifference. In a recent and
probably not atypical situation, younger Anglo radicals became interested in
placing a Native activist -- and member -- on that particular socialist
organization's national political commission. But other commission members,
with profuse apologies, were reluctant to agree to even consider approving
compensation for a small part of the Native person's [not an individual of
means] transportation from the "remote" hinterland to New York City -- site
of almost all of that group's occasional political commission gatherings.
Partial travel compensation for other persons, geographically closer, has
always been the general rule. The Native person was never named to the
political body.

But I reiterate: We all need each other. And big things usually start with
small steps on a strange trail. I think non-Indian radicals need to reach
out, in personally affirmative ways, to make contact with Native American
people. Without limiting the initial arena exclusively to the urban
settings, the cities -- often with Indian people of many tribes represented,
and generally characterized by a somewhat greater degree of acculturation --
offer some of the most promising possibilities for mutually productive
involvements: urban Indian centers, protest meetings around racial and
ethnocentric prejudice and discrimination issues, Native public pow-wows,
Native speakers. Opportunities to assist Indian people in good causes will
always present themselves -- and, furthermore, well written articles on
Native issues are always helpful.

Here now is some very friendly -- comradely -- advice to non-Indian
radicals:

Don't see Native Americans as one monolithic group. Although there certainly
is a basic Native racial togetherness, remember that there are literally
hundreds of distinct tribal nations -- each with its own unique culture and
ethos. Recognize, too, that there are many degrees of acculturation [but not
assimilation.] Be aware, also, that there are many different factions in any
tribe.

And: "Not all Indians these days look like Indians." The generally
mixed-blood situation has produced many Native people who don't fit the
grand old face in the old American nickel. But it certainly doesn't mean
they are any less committed to tribe, culture, and race -- and, frequently,
militant activism.

Genuinely accept and respect the socio-cultural validity of the tribal
societies and cultures. Each has its own origin, vision, history and
destiny. Avoid ethnocentric terms like "primitive" and "civilized,"
recognizing that almost all Native people do not think in traditional
"western" linear terms [are much more "circlic/cyclic."] But, although
change comes slowly in the Indian cultures, it does come in its own way and,
in the last analysis, on the terms of the people. [A pickup truck, used by
the Navajo for purely Navajo purposes, is called a "Navajo Cadillac."]

Religion pervades -- usually in a non-pretentious and almost always
non-sanctimonious fashion -- every Native American culture. Regardless of
one's view of "religion," it -- or the lack of it -- should be up to the
individual. As a life-long working organizer and teacher, I can't think of
anything more counter-productive in any setting -- Native or otherwise --
than cutting at someone's religious beliefs.

Go rather easy on the intricacies of radical ideology -- especially at the
outset of a relationship. Native Americans are going to be much more
impressed with a person's individual commitment to people and demonstrated
service than they are in one's ability to quote the great socialists. I've
talked socialism to all of my students, Native and non-Native, over many,
many years indeed -- and likewise to my organizing constituents -- but I
always take it in at a deliberate and steady pace. And this approach builds
an understanding in a step-by-step fashion. With Native people, the basic
communalism -- the mutual responsibility -- of the tribal cultures is the
obvious context in which to discuss socialist vision and practice. And, in
due course, there'll certainly be many Native people who'll join Left
organizations and participate vigorously and effectively within them.

Recognize that Native Americans, like all people, are very much committed to
making the decisions that affect them. Self-determination is something
Indians hold as critically important.

Don't stereotype. Most sensitive non-Indians are certainly not going to
demean Native people. But, on the other hand, don't exalt us, either. People
are very much people indeed.

Be a good listener. [The art of listening, to which we all pay lip service,
is of course 'way too rare -- but it's within the reach of everyone!]
Recognizing that there is a lot of downright hokey stuff floating about,
learn all you can about Native Americans: histories and visions, centuries
of Euro-American genocide and attempted genocide, massive Anglo theft of
land and resources, frequently totalitarian Federally-imposed "educational"
systems visited upon Indian youth, the vicious governmental and corporate
efforts to "terminate" treaties and tribes and people, the great and
enduring Native persistence and commitment through all of these blood-dimmed
centuries.

Here are a few helpful books:

Ward Churchill, ed., Marxism and Native Americans [Boston: South End Press,
1989.]

Barbara Graymont, ed., Fighting Tuscarora: The Autobiography of Chief
Clinton Rickard [Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1984.]

Hazel W. Hertzberg, The Search for an American Indian Identity: Modern
Pan-Indian Movements [Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1971.]

Laurence M. Hauptman, The Iroquois Struggle for Survival: World War II to
Red Power [Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1986.]

James S. Olson, ed., The Encyclopedia of American Indian Civil Rights
[Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1997.]

Susan Power, The Grass Dancer [New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1994.]
[Fiction]

Paul Chaat Smith and Robert Allen Warrior, Like a Hurricane: The Indian
Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee [New York: The New Press, 1996.]

Steve Talbot, Roots of Oppression [New York: International Publishers, 1981
and 1985.]

We all need each other. And we can all learn from each other. We all need
socialist democracy and a world in which -- to state that essential ideal of
Native tribalism -- we develop people who serve their communities rather
than simply serve themselves. All of this is as inextricably bound together
in our human destiny as fused copper wires.

HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR]
www.hunterbear.org

It's critical to always keep fighting -- and to always remember that, if one
lives with grace, he/she should be prepared to die with grace.



_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international