Well it is over. I never thought I would be around to bury my younger brother, Mark, but on Saturday, February 21, 2010, we did.
My sister, April, who had discovered Mark's body, mentioned when she found him, he looked really peaceful. Mark had really struggled with his demons the last couple of years, and it showed on his face this last year of his life. When his casket was open, and I went up to view the body, I thought he looked really peaceful, too.
After they closed the casket, Mark's preacher conducted the service, and he mentioned how he knew Mark during his (Mark's) better times, and he talked about how Mark struggled with his problems the last couple of years. As preachers tend to do, he said there was a lesson or a message in how Mark died. When he finished, I stood up and spoke:
I mentioned how various people talked about knowing Mark at different times in his life. "But, I knew him my whole life... his whole life," I said. There were ten of us in our family. I was the fifth one, and Mark was the sixth one. We had shared a single mattress together, which we had to sleep sideways on up in the attic of our log cabin. We ate oatmeal, cheese... commodities together. I talked about how we had the same sense of humor, how we read the same books; we liked the same food... People would come up to me and mistake me for Mark all the time. "I am not Mark," I would say. "I am not 6'3" and I don't weigh 300 pounds. Maybe, it is because we share the same Spirit or our Spirits are so close that people think we look alike," I said. I mentioned how he helped me out when my son, Joel, passed away several years ago. He would let me talk for hours on the phone with him during that time. He was very generous with his time. I mentioned his generosity toward my son, Marshall. Right after Joel died, he gave my son, Marshall, two to three hundred dollars when Marshall had to go on a trip (Today, Marshall's mother, Leona, reminded me that Mark gave each of us $200 when our son, Joel, passed away. "He must have been one of those quiet ones who never tell anyone when they help someone," she said.). Finally I said, "People have talked about the circumstances of his death, and at first it bothered me, too. But, you know what? One morning, I woke up and realized it didn't matter, not knowing how he died (or why) because knowing would not lessen or increase my grief for him. It doesn't matter to me anymore," I said.
After I spoke, my nephew came to the mike and spoke. He recalled how Mark went all the way to Carlsbad, New Mexico, to pick him up -- just like that -- when he needed a ride to North Dakota. Next, a lady stood up and spoke fondly about Mark. Then, two members of the drum group (one who is our relative) came up and sang a beautiful prayer song in front of his casket. Then, Mark's sister-in-law spoke about how Mark came into their family. Then, the mother of a man who Mark pulled from a burning car at the risk of his own life came up and said a prayer. Finally, a Marine who is a member of the local VFW club said a prayer for Mark in Dakota.
Several of Mark's wife's family drove from Bozeman, Montana, and a couple of them came from Minnesota, which I thought was very nice.
During the Giveaway, we made sure all his wife's family who came down received a gift. We actually had enough gifts for everyone. After we had given away all the gifts, we had a round dance, and almost everyone participated in it, even the White relatives from Minnesota and Montana. It helped lighten everyone's mood. I have to say, us brothers and sisters put aside our petty differences, and we worked together planning Mark's wake and funeral. We showed each other a lot of mutual respect and love, which helped us cope with the hurt of losing Mark. And, I was so proud of my children (especially my daughter, Angie), and my nieces and nephews. For those of you who have not attended a Native American wake and funeral, there is a lot of work that needs to be done prior to the services. Our children are all young adults, now, and their help in getting ready for the wake and funeral was invaluable. They did a lot of the legwork for us older ones. I have to say, they respectfully listened to us elders and did what we asked them to without complaint. In spite of burying my beloved younger brother, Mark, it was a good weekend in some ways.
Now on the first of every month, when I pick up a rose and go out to my son's grave, Joel's grave, I will be taking two roses with me -- the second one will go on my younger brother's grave.If you are in a leadership position, whether on a tribal council, serving on a tribal board, or a CEO, you always have to be aware of liars and the lies they will tell you. It is very easy to be fooled by their cowardly lying tactics because they are so good at them.
In tribal politics, liars have an advantage over honest tribal members. Liars are better politicians because they have no shame or pride as opposed to honest tribal members. Liars are able to schmooze tribal leaders (CEOs, tribal board members, and tribal council members or members of their family) without batting an eye; even though they may not like the tribal leaders they are schmoozing. On the other hand, honest tribal members have a hard time schmoozing anyone - well, because they are honest. They can't bring themselves to act insincerely.
Is it a form of lying when a liar schmooze's a tribal leader? I think so. First, he or she is not sincere when they are schmoozing a tribal leader. Insincerity is a form of lying. A schmoozer will probably make a lot of flattering comments that they don't mean to a tribal leader. They will laugh at jokes that they don't think are funny and give the impression they really admire the person, when they really don't. In addition to lying, this type of behavior is also called deceitfulness, false pretenses, and hypocrisy.
Ask any former tribal council member or former tribal board member and they will tell you, they don't have as many friends (schmoozers) and not nearly as many people coming up to them and telling them how terrific they are as they did when they were elected/appointed to a tribal official position.
So let's say you are a tribal leader, and there is a big fight in one of the tribal organizations. At a social event, one of the individuals (let's call her Ann) who is on the losing side of the fight, makes it a point to say hi to you and your spouse. Ann has never made any attempt to talk to you or your spouse before.
At first you may think it is no big deal because this has happened many times ever since you became a leader. However, half way through the event, Ann walks over to your table and strikes up a lively conversation with you. She is very animated. She hangs on your every word. She laughs at all your bad jokes. She constantly praises you, and she agrees with everything you say. During the course of the conversation, she hints at the problem she and her cronies are having with other tribal members. When you remain noncommittal, she moves on to your spouse and visits at length with her. When you and your spouse return home that night, your spouse immediately begins to tell you about Ann and the problems she is having with some no good, crooked, mean tribal members who she works with and could you help her out?
What would you do? After all, Ann is your constituent, and she has every right to come to you for help.
Before you answer the question, let me tell you a true story. A few years ago, a friend of mine told me Duke (not his real name) told her that I was not as good of a politician as I thought I was. Duke was referring to a couple of issues that did not go the way I wanted them to. Unknown to Duke, I was pleased that he viewed me as an unskilled politician. Here is why...
Although the correct definition of a politician or political leader (from Greek "polis") is an individual who is involved in influencing public decision, in Indian Country, the title of politician immediately conjures up an image of someone like my fictional characters, Joe, The Tribal Worker, or John, the Tribal Board member. Both Joe and John are unethical, cowardly, and have no loyalty to anyone except to themselves, and they will make up any lie to get their way. This is how many tribal members view their politicians. So, I was glad I was not identified as a good politician.
Let me get back to my question: What would you do if a tribal member who had never made any attempt to make small talk or to socialize with you in any way all of a sudden treated you like you were his or her long lost friend, simply because you were in a leadership position and he or she wanted your help?
Here is what I would do - nothing. Why? Because I do not like to be taken for a fool! If that person thought I was dumb enough or gullible enough to fall for insincere flattery, than they do not know me very well.
On the other hand, if a person came into my office or approached me in a sincere, honest respectful manner and told me of his or her concerns, I would take the time to listen closely to his or her concerns.
Unfortunately, many tribal leaders are too cowardly and/or unethical to worry about doing the right thing when a liar comes to them and tells them nothing but lies. Instead, they weigh the liar's political clout against the political clout of the individual(s) the liar is complaining about. If the liar has more clout, tribal leaders often audaciously promise to support the liar without regards to fairness or worry that they might be taking action against someone who is innocent, or that a leader's support for a liar might not be what is best for the organization and/or tribe.
So tell me, are you the kind of leader who will listen to and support a liar?
What happened to pride, honor, and the ability to stand up for one another for the sake of just simply being Indian?
I was against the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo before I attended the University of North Dakota. While a student there, I observed it didn't take long for Indians indifferent to the nickname to realize what I already knew, that there is no sincerity behind the honor and respect the nickname and logo are supposed to represent.
As a doctoral student at UND, I tried very hard not to be drawn into discussions about the Fighting Sioux issue. I learned early on those types of discussions didn't resolve anything, so I usually kept quiet when the subject came up. However, occasionally a comment would be made where I just had to respond.
I remember vividly a class where a couple of Native Americans were arguing with several non-Indians about the logo. One non-Indian scornfully asked, "Why do you guys always blame us for something that has happened 150 years ago?" Interrupting him, I replied, "Because you are doing the same things to us today that was done to our ancestors 150 years ago."
One of the "things" I was talking about is the divide and conquer tactic that works so well with some Native Americans. In 1887, the Dawes Act was passed because of this tactic. Many of our ancestors were against the Act, but unscrupulous officials promised more annuities, education, etc., to gain support. This divided our ancestors. The Act passed resulting in over 80 percent of reservation land being "sold" to non-Indians. The promises made were forgotten, and many of our ancestors starved.
The same old divide and conquer tactics that have historically worked so well against Indian people are now being used on Standing Rock. It is my understanding that six of the eight districts on the reservation have overwhelmingly voted against the logo and nickname. Now Tom Iron, who is known to represent the Ralph Engelstad Arena (REA), and his followers are attempting to divide the tribe by collecting signatures to override the people's wishes.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council's official position has been against the nickname since 1992. It reaffirmed that stance in 1997, 2001, and 2005. Ironically, Tom voted against the name in 1997 and 2001 when he was on the council.
One aspect bothers me most with divisive strategy. Tribal members have to know full well that they are being patronized; yet, they choose to cooperate with the REA.
It is amazing how people can disguise their perception of the truth. What do they expect to gain? Paid tuition for their spouses, children, and grandchildren? Free Fighting Sioux shiny leather jackets? A chance to stay in nice hotel rooms and receive a significant travel allowance? Is this why they fail to see - or worse, choose to ignore -- how the issue is dividing people from and within respective tribes?
This isn't even politics anymore. It is just plain old, "Take advantage of the Indian." It is a matter of a few trying to exploit our weaknesses with bribes of freebies and promising the spotlight. Gifts and freebies are not always opportunities! Apparently, non-Indian logo advocates believe if you give an Indian gifts and freebies, he will eat out of your hand, do anything, sign anything.
The old "divide and conquer" mentality is as active today as it was 150 years ago.
Why doesn't Tom Iron and his band of followers get a petition that has some significance and real-life meaning for tribal members? It would be nice if they fought so hard for and carried around a petition for more jobs for tribal members, more housing, better health care.
This vote is about a name that will not improve the quality of life for even one tribal member.
I am not against this issue simply because I am Indian. I am against this issue because exploiting my tribe, my people, and my culture for the sake of a collegiate hockey team is simply wrong.
Our ancestors could not have survived without courage. They needed courage in battle, courage in hunting, courage in enforcing tribal laws and customs, courage in facing the elements, and courage when making decisions that would impact the well-being of the entire tribe.
A man could not be a successful hunter, scout, warrior, and leader if he did not have courage. Courage was important in the roles women played in tribal society as well. Although an enemy war party might strike at any time, the women would leave the shelter of the village and go pick berries and other vegetables, haul water, and do other tasks. They had to have the courage to turn their sons over to an older relative as they became of age to become a warrior. Finally, they had to have the courage to stand quietly as their young sons went on the warpath for the first time.
In all Native tribes, courage, whether it was moral or physical, was essential. Native American Indians honor courage/bravery. Here is an excerpt from Dorreen Yellow Bird's column in the Grand Forks Herald titled, Tradition, ritual at a solder's funeral.
In the 1870s, a Hidatsa man called Scar Face went up north with six warriors and ran into a larger group of enemy Crees. The Crees were behind a wagon and shooting at them. The Hidatsa man knew it was death for them all. So he ran low, zig zagging toward the Crees. This gave the rest of the band a chance to find cover. He was killed, but he Crees, who usually scalped their enemy, didn't scalp him. Instead, they brought out a white Hudson Bay blanket - prized during that time - and laid him on it. They honored him because he was brave, Mandan said. That is true of all Indian people: "We honor bravery."
Another example of bravery, here is a story about a father who was willing not to plead for his son's innocence, but to take the punishment meant for his son:
TICHOU MINGO, an Acolapissa Indian of the Osage nation, and their most expert hunter, killed a Choctaw, 1756. The French demanded his death. His father arose in council and offered himself in his son's place, in a touching plea, at once accepted. My son is dying valiantly, but since he is young and vigorous, he is more capable than I to feed his mother, his wife, and four small children. He must live in order to take care of them. I am at the end of my life. I have lived enough. I wish that my son may live to be as old as I am so he can raise my grandchildren properly. I am no longer good for anything. A few years more or less will make no difference. I have lived like a man; I want to die the same way. That is why I am going to take the place of my son.
Is fear a new Indian tradition?
How could I propose such a thing when this Tribal Leaders Institute is based on my tribe's proud tradition of courage?
Here's why ... One of our favorite tactics to accomplish our goals is to use fear rather than fairness and decency. We organize family, friends, and attack anyone who disagrees with us to frighten them into giving in to our demands. We use fear to the extent that most tribal employees do not speak up when they see someone committing a wrongful act, because of fear.
Everywhere we look, we see the results of fear. Policies and procedures are ignored. Nepotism and favoritism is rampant throughout our work places. People are fired without due process. We have a high unemployment rate, yet a huge number of our jobs are filled with non-Indians, and/or non-tribal members. Tribal members and tribal leaders alike are afraid to speak up due to fear.
Gus Lee and Diane Elliott-Lee view courage as so essential to leadership, they wrote a book entitled, Courage: The Backbone of Leadership. They found that we tolerate unethical acts at work and look the other way when we observe character failings because of our lack of courage. The Lees also say courageous leaders inspire ethical behavior from their workers because they first require it from themselves. Great leaders from Aristotle to Sir Winston Churchill deemed courage "the first of all human qualities."
Our ancestors were prideful people. They would give up their life to prove their courage. Little Crow, at the beginning of the Great Sioux Uprising, told his warriors, although he believed going to war would mean the death of all of them, he would join them on the warpath because he was no coward.
We need tribal workers and leaders who are proud to be known for their moral courage as opposed to known for their ability to ride the fence. Which reminds me, I remember a tribal member who served on the councils for many years, yet I never heard him/her say "yes" or "no". He/she always avoided a direct answer. I don't know, maybe that individual is proud of avoiding giving a direct answer. How about you?
I was so mad yesterday (January 27, 2010) when I left the North Dakota High School Activities Association meeting, I was beside myself. There were several reasons why I was mad with the first being our school just lost a close vote to have the ban on post-season play lifted on our high school's basketball team. Now our student athletes will be denied an experience of a lifetime - competing in a district tournament with the possibility of competing in the regional and state basketball tournaments as well. This made me so angry, I decided to sit down and write this blog.
Our superintendent, our principal, our tribal council secretary, and I presented testimony. Our rational for lifting the ban on our basketball's post-season play was our students didn't do any wrong, so why should they be the ones who pay the penalty.
A lively discussion ensued, and after the comment session was over, a motion was made by the superintendent from Devils Lake to lift the ban. When the vote was called for five NDHSAA board members voted to lift the sanction, and six voted against lifting it.
As I sat and listened to the discussion by NDHSAA board members as they decided our fate, one thing became clear. They were disgusted with the unethical acts of our former athletic director, and their contempt for him came through via several veiled comments. It is my opinion that is what turned the tide against us and caused us to lose the vote by one board member.
As I said, I was mad when I left the meeting, but I wasn't mad at the NDHSAA board members who voted against us. I was mad at the one person who put our school, our students, in this predicament in the first place - our former athletic director. "There is only one person (former athletic director) responsible for this," I told no one in particular after the meeting. "It is because of him, and no one else, that our basketball team cannot play post season," I said as I continued to vent. "He cheated not once, but twice, and that is why we lost the vote," I said.
Those who are familiar with my blog, and/or my courses, will probably say, "There he goes again..." when they read this sentence: "Among the Dakotas lying and stealing from other tribal members was a capital offense. A person who was capable of lying was believed to be capable of committing other cowardly crimes against the tribe and was put to death to prevent the evil from doing more harm. If a person stole from another tribal member he was forever after called Wamanon (thief) and this distinction followed him for the rest of his life. " - Charles Eastman, Dakota 1858 - 1939
The more I research and write about ethics, the more I see the profound wisdom in Charles Eastman's words. Let's apply his wisdom to our former athletic director's actions and see if it fits:
Athletic director admits to tampering with documents to change student eligibility -- after he is caught he resigns leaving others to clean up his mess and face the consequences of his unethical acts -- his supporters attempt to blame others, which leads to arguing and fighting among tribal members -- school forfeits district, regional, and state trophies won two years ago -- fighting and arguing among tribal members and school employees continues -- school's reputation is tarnished to a point where the appeal to lift the ban on post season play is denied -- our student athletes will be denied a chance to participate in the district and possibly regional and state tournaments which could have been the experience of a life time for them.
Yup, I would say it fits.
As usual it is the young and innocent who suffer the consequences. Hmmm, I see now why Charles Eastman said, "A person who was capable of lying was believed to be capable of committing other cowardly crimes against the tribe and was put to death to prevent the evil from doing more harm."
Now I am sure there will be some individuals who still idolize our former athletic director and will stand by him... and that's fine with me as long as they do not try to put the blame on any one else. His unethical behavior has brought enough anger, sorrow, sadness, disappointment, and fighting to our community. We don't need anymore.
"I grew up believing white people were stingy and greedy. They didn't care for their relatives -- putting their elderly in nursing homes and letting family members and other relatives go homeless. Here were people who I thought incapable of feeling compassion and love toward their fellow man, grieving for my son as much as his own relatives were. They obviously loved him very, very much. Their love for my son along with their kindness and compassion toward me made me reexamine my feeling toward them and I made this promise: 'I will never make a racist comment about the people, or the town, of Devils Lake again' -- a promise that I have kept to this day."
-
This past Thursday, I attended a State Board of Higher Education (SBHE) meeting because I had heard rumors that they were going to retire the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. I wanted to be there to witness history. Although the name was not retired, I heard several board members and two UND administrators say the same things we anti-nickname Indians have been saying for years, that the use of the nickname and logo is hurtful and harmful toward Indians. SBHE board member Haugen concluded his argument for retiring the nickname and logo with this statement: "Even if we get an agreement with Standing Rock, that is not going to change the divisive nature of this logo and that is a bigger issue with respect for individuals, for harmony in the state. We see tribal members, family members, divided over this issue." For the board members and the two top UND administrators to state their view publicly, a view that was similar to our (Indians against the nickname) view, took a huge amount of moral courage. I left the meeting feeling pretty good toward my non-Indian fellow North Dakotans.
- I then went to meet with my CPA. After that meeting, I went to pick up my Pomegranate (POM) Juice at the health store. Medical research has shown Pomegranate Juice inhibits the growth of prostate cancer. Although it is expensive, I make sure I drink 8 oz. of it every day. Anyway, as I was getting out of my car at the health store, a non-Indian lady pulled up several parking spaces down. When I got to the door of the health store, the lady had stepped out of her car and appeared to be heading to the health store, also. I looked at her and reading my look she said, "You don't have to wait for me." I replied, "I'm so slow today by the time I get moving, you will be here." So, I waited at the door and held it open for her as she walked into the store. Once in the store, the clerk recognized me and went to get my case of POM juice while the lady and I continued to talk. The clerk returned, and just before she was going to ring up my POM juice, the lady told her, "Put that on my bill. I will pay for it" (my POM juice). I was surprised to say the least. Why would a non-Indian lady, who I never met before I held the door open for her a few minutes ago, want to pay for my juice? "Holding a door open for a lady is not that big of a deal," I thought. So I asked her, "Now why would you want to do that?" "Because I want to and because I can," she replied. Without hesitating, I told her, "One of our (Dakota) core values is generosity, so I will accept your offer." I then went on to tell her how my non-Indian friends had a hard time accepting my generosity because they do not understand our concept of generosity. When I finished explaining, she said, "You will honor me if you accept mine." So I walked over to her, thanked her, shook her hand and left with my $80 case of POM juice.
I have been on one type of governing board or another ever since 1988 when I was appointed to Little Hoop's College Board of Regents (now known as Cankdeska Cikanna Community College). Over the years, I served on many different governing boards alongside many tribal members.
Each board I served on was unique as each was made up of individuals from all walks of life. Some board members were elders, others were college educated, some were unemployed and others had a long history of work.
Currently, I am serving on the Fort Totten Public School District #30 School Board. I was elected to this board six years ago, and re-elected three years ago. For the past six years, the make-up of this board pretty much resembled the other boards that I served on. This changed at our January 2010 regular school board meeting. A change that I would call historic.
Due to a resignation by a school board member last month, we (the school board) appointed another tribal member to serve in his place. This tribal member was Dr. Russ McDonald. Russ showed up for his first meeting on December 6, 2010. As the meeting progressed, the realization dawned on me that for the first time in the history of our reservation, three individuals with doctorate degrees were on the same board, two were regular board members (Russ and I), and the other one was Dr. Wayne Trottier, our superintendent. The superintendant serves as an ex-officio of the board. Wayne Trottier, although enrolled in Standing Rock, was born and raised on Spirit Lake Nation.
An ex officio member is a member of a body (a board, committee, council, etc.) who is part of it by virtue of holding another office.
I am currently writing a course on Tribal Governing Boards, and one of the things I point out in my course is that we Indians have become familiar with governing boards only within the last 30 - 40 years or so.
As I sat looking around the room as the meeting progressed, I realized how far we have come in a short time. Thirty - forty years ago, many of us Indian people never sat or maybe never heard about a board. Now, 30 "short" years later, we have two tribal members who have doctorate degrees on the same board along with a third board member from a different reservation holding a doctorate.
It is not my intent to downplay the importance of board members who don't have a college degree. On the contrary, I strongly believe that governing boards need members from all walks of life, especially those board members who have a rich life experience in areas other than education. In my opinion, a good board of education has a mix of educators, parents, grandparents, and members from the working force, from entry level-positions to CEO positions.
I am a strong believer in education, that we need more tribal members with college degrees, and I also believe that the majority of the administrative positions on the reservation should be filled with tribal members who have obtained a college degree. Therefore, I am hoping the composition of our board sends a message to our students that obtaining a doctorate degree is not out of their reach. And once they obtain a doctorate degree, I hope they decide to come back home and give back to our community by electing to serve on one of the many governing boards here on the rez.
Granted, there have probably been many times a person has told a lie and nothing really bad happened to them. This is probably why many people who take my course greet this comment with skepticism. This blog will attempt to explain what our ancestors meant when they said lying is evil and a person who lied too much was put to death. I will start with a form of a lie that is most common on the reservation and one that is the cause of the majority of the problems on Indian reservations. This lie is called "addiction."
Addiction
It is not my intent to sound like a person from Alcoholics Anonymous, but if you really examine the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous closely, you will realize that each step requires a huge amount of self-honesty to complete. The first step an alcoholic has to take is to admit he or she is powerless over alcohol and that his or her life has become unmanageable. Many alcoholics do not have the self-honesty to admit they are powerless over alcohol, and this is true for abusers of other substances as well - so they continue using. The harm caused by this inability to be honest is tremendous, abuse of all kinds, missing work, low quality of work, etc.... It is understandable that alcohol was/is considered "demon rum" by some folks.
Gossip
Gossip is 99% lies. Ask anybody what they hate about working for a particular tribal organization, and they will say "gossip." Gossip has ruined good people's reputations. Many people have been unfairly fired because of gossip. Gossip has prevented good people from getting jobs. Gossip has caused a lot of unhappiness on Indian Reservations and elsewhere.
Cheating
Everyone hates a cheater, and cheating is a form of lying. If you have ever been cheated out of anything, you know what I am talking about. Now when a whole program cheats, when an organization cheats, or an entire tribe cheats, think of the harm it can cause (This type of cheating is usually called non
compliance
Hypocrite
"Oh, how I hate a hypocrite" is a very common saying. A hypocrite is someone who feigns to be something they are not, usually a liar condemning other liars, or a person with poor work habits condemning other people with poor work habits, or a politician who says, "I'm here for the people," when they are not. Because hypocrites do not see their own dishonesty, they keep on living a "life of a lie" and continue to hurt those close to them.
These are just a few examples of how lying manifests itself in many different forms. And our ancestors understood this, hence they put a person who lied to death.
I know many people will say, "there are times when you have to lie." So, I googled, "Is there a time when it is okay to lie?" and there are many good reasons to lie out there -- if you want to see excuses to lie.
However, the most interesting and helpful comments I read were these two, "most lies are lies of convenience," and another person wrote, "if you do not want to lie, then don't say anything."
So even if you think the "little" white lies you tell do not cause you any trouble, think of how proud you will be of yourself if you can HONESTLY say, "I do not lie" and not lie when you say it.
Considering I am talking about our ancestors' hatred of lying, here is an interesting and ironic story I came across that I just had to share with you. I also added a reader's comment about how duty takes priority over lying.
If your family, with the exception of one child who managed to escape to the woods, was captured by Indians and the Indians asked you if you had any other children, having already killed the others, would it be wrong to tell them that you didn't have any others, thus lying? One group broke from the main church to start their own church, because they felt like you shouldn't have to tell them about your other child, knowing they were just going to kill them. Thus they earned the nickname the Lying Baptists. This was called Flat Rock Baptist Church, and later became Pleasant Grove.
Reader's comment -- Tricky one, but I feel if you have to lie for a broader betterment and good, then it should be okay. For instance, I think it was okay for the family to lie and say they had no other kids just to save the one that ran away in the woods. In Indian culture, we have dharma (duties) associated with each relationship that you portray, and your dharma calls for fulfilling of that duty. So here, the parents were fulfilling the duty of saving their child's life and actually saving the INDIANs from committing one less sin.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977127087
So... does doing one's duty make lying okay?
I am in the middle of writing my third course, Courageous and Honest Governing Boards, and I decided to take a couple of hours break and write a blog about tribal governing boards.
I have served on one tribal board or another for the past 20 plus years, and I have worked for boards for 15 plus years. I have many friends from other reservations who were board members or worked for boards on their reservations. I have seen and heard of many types of tribal board members, but the most common type is the one who wants power, who loves power, who uses power without thinking about the consequences, who uses power just because they can, etc.
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, (1834-1902) who was a historian and moralist, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
Another English politician, William Pitt (also known as the Elder), the Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, said something similar in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770, "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it." (Retrieved from the Phrase Finder Web site: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html).
Unless a tribal member has a strong moral foundation or there is a system in place to control tribal members who love power, they will misuse their power while on a governing board. Unfortunately, the societal conditions on the reservations makes it very easy for tribal board members to abuse power. This abuse of power is what stops tribal organizations from reaching their potential.
In 1959 two social psychologists, John French and Bertam Raven, conducted a study of power. They divided the concept of power into five separate and distinct forms that they labeled: Coercive, Reward, Legitimate, Referent, and Expert.
Coercive Power - This is the power to force someone to do something against his or her will. It is the most common type of power used by tribal board members. Tribal board members who rely on this type of power often use threats (firings or demotions) in their leadership style. "It is the power of dictators, despots, and bullies." This source of power can often create more problems than it resolves. In many circumstances, it involves abuse (including verbal abuse). Mindtools.com states, "Coercive power can cause unhealthy behavior and dissatisfaction in the workplace."
Reward Power -- This power is the ability to give other people what they want, and hence ask them to do things for you in exchange. "This type of power in based on the idea that we as a society are more prone to do things and to do them well when we are getting something out of it." Raises, promotions, and trips are often used as rewards. Unfortunately, tribal boards often give the wrong people rewards. Legitimate Power -- is power that comes from a position such as a policeman, a manager, or a board position (when they are in session). Legitimate power often lasts only as long as a person is in the position. Many tribal members with legitimate power forget that people are obeying the position, not them. They are often shocked when people treat them differently once they lose this power. I once knew a board member who bragged to me how a certain administrator would call and ask for advice all the time. The board member was convinced the administrator was calling because of his knowledge and character. Knowing that was not the case, I said something to the effect, "_________ is just calling you because you are a board member -- no more, no less." The board member vehemently disagreed. The board member did not have to leave the board for the administrator to stop calling. Due to new members coming on board, the "power" shifted, and this board member found out what happens when a person loses power. No one calls them. Referent Power -- This power is often called charisma. A charismatic tribal board member is well liked by those around him/her. This type of power is strong enough that the power-holder is often looked up to as a role model (Raven, 1988). This power is often looked at and admired as a power-holder's charm. Unfortunately, those tribal members with referent (charismatic) power often use it for coercion by excluding individuals from their "circle." Expert Power - is having knowledge and skill that someone else requires. This is the most common form of power and is what makes the world go around. "Leaders who possess this type of power have high intelligence and rely on their ability to perform various organizational tasks and functions." Unfortunately, this type of power is a liability in some tribal organizations. Especially if this power clashes with a board member who has legitimate power but no expert power.
Compare the above concepts of power with our ancestors' concept of power. Here is an except from Joseph M. Marshall III's book, Walking with Grandfather: the Wisdom of Lakota Elders.
In the Lakota encampments of old, the biggest and tallest lodge stood in the very center of the encampment. There, the elders met. The oldest men in the village formed the council of elders. There was one basic requirement: Obviously, one had to be old.Try to imagine the number of years of experience represented by the village council. Depending on the size of the village, this could vary from hundreds to thousands of years. Yet, the council had no authority. As a matter of fact, there really is no word for authority in the Lakota language. So, how did the council of elders fulfill its responsibility?
The council of elders fulfilled its responsibility through the power of the influence of their wisdom.
Various matters of concern and importance were brought to the council - from everyday life issues to matters of war. Every issue was discussed at length, sometimes for several days and nights. At the end, the council didn't issue ultimatums or edicts. They simply informed the people what they thought. That opinion, or opinions, was the basis for action because of the depth of the council's wisdom.
The Lakota consider fortitude, generosity, bravery, and wisdom to be the four greatest virtues. In any discussion or mention of these virtues, wisdom is invariably the last to be named. However intentional or unintentional that may be, it is entirely appropriate because wisdom is not only the greatest of the four greatest, it is also the most difficult to achieve.
Furthermore, wisdom is associated with old age, and that, too, is entirely appropriate because wisdom cannot be had in ten easy lessons. One has to live a long life to gain wisdom, and it is regarded as life's gift by some who finally achieve it. It is, many also realize, a gift they cannot keep to themselves. It must be given back to life.
The dilemma facing tribal governing boards today is how do tribal board members acquire the necessary wisdom to make decisions that will impact administration, teachers, students, and the community without becoming an elder?
---------------------------------
French, J. P. R. Jr., and Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 607-623). New York: Harper and Row.
Raven, B. H. (1988). Social power and compliance in health care. In S. Maes, C. D. Spielberger, P. B. Defares, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Topics in health care. London/New York: Wiley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28philosophy%29
In 1876, Sitting Bull (Hunkpapa Lakota), along with many other bands of the Great Sioux Nation and their Cheyenne Indian allies, defeated Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Many descendents of Sitting Bull and the Sioux bands who fought at the Little Bighorn still live on the Standing Rock Reservation. Now they are finding themselves in a fight to protect and defend their culture - only this time the battle is being played out on the reservations, the State Board of Higher Education, and the state court.
Just as their ancestors before them won a great victory at the Battle of The Little Big Horn, the Standing Rock tribal members opposed to the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo used by the University of North Dakota have been victorious. In spite of overwhelming odds, these men and women have stood fast and stopped an outside organization from overthrowing the Standing Rock Tribal Constitution and replacing it with one more favorable to their interests.
These courageous efforts have brought the movement to have the Standing Rock Nation endorse the Fighting Sioux nickname to a standstill. Motivated by pride in their heritage, people spent their own money and went door-to-door in almost every community on the reservation to explain to their neighbors why use of the Fighting Sioux logo and nickname should cease. They argued that this commercial caricature of our culture is hostile and abusive to Indian students at the University of North Dakota and Indian people in general. The majority of these tribal members, after listening and reading the documentation they were presented with, apparently agreed. Had they felt otherwise, Standing Rock's tribal constitution would have been changed to accommodate outside interests.
Following their victory at the Little Big Horn, Sitting Bull and his people eventually surrendered and were forced to live on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. However, Sitting Bull did not lose any of his influence with his people as the non-Indians had hoped he would. Instead, he fought to preserve his way of life, which endeared him to many of his people. His continued influence frightened the non-Indians in charge of the reservation and their attempts to silence him and discredit him eventually caused his death, a death that came not at the hands of a white man, but by his own people.
Similarly, the greatest enemy of tribal members who oppose the nickname has turned out to be some of their own people. Non-Indians supplied tribal police who were responsible for Sitting Bull's death with guns and ammunition. Today, the Ralph Engelstad Foundation supports tribal members who are in favor of the Sioux nickname and logo.
Sadly, in spite of this recent victory, the fight over the Fighting Sioux logo is far from over. Tribal members have chosen to collaborate with their non-Indian handlers in their misguided attempts to keep the disgraceful image and have went as far as to misinterpret the Standing Rock Tribal Constitution - giving more power to the state of North Dakota in tribal affairs. And, I truly believe such efforts are misguided. Only a non-Indian would truly believe that retiring the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo would, as supporters maintain, "cause isolation and a diminishing of public interest, knowledge and respect for Sioux history and culture and will be detrimental and not in the best interest of their [Sioux] people." The rest of us Sioux - us freedom-loving, equality-seeking, high-self-esteem, fried-bread-eating, commodity cheese-loving Indians - know we do not need to depend on a controversial, racist nickname and logo to survive.
Our future is not dependent on such frivolity. We are among the most well known of all tribal nations. Books are written about us, movies are made about us, people from all nationalities embrace our culture. We are one of the fastest growing populations in the country. If anything, the nickname hurts our perception of the world. In fact, arguably the most recognized North Dakotan, Phil Jackson, has spoken out against the name.
If retained, the nickname will continue to pit tribal members against tribal members, North Dakotans against North Dakotans, and North Dakotans against Native Americans. How can a positive state and tribal relationship flourish under such a hostile and abusive environment?
