I spent some time over New Years with a man named Dr. Erich Longie, a Dakota man from the Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota.  Erich is a tall man of basketball-player proportions, about 6 foot 2, (actually I'm 5'11" I just appear bigger to white people. EL) has long graying hair, and a very pronounced limp to his walk.  Erich runs a consulting firm in North Dakota.  His presence is very calming and he speaks softly and with Malcolm X-like logic.  He also speaks with the kind of honesty and disclosure that invites respect.  Even the very young relate to and listen to Dr. Longie.

My 5-year-old son was with us part of the time and later, apart from me; he whispered Erich's name and official title while going to sleep.  My wife heard our son say gently:  "Dr. Longie.  He's the coolest Doctor."  Erich's doctorate is in educational leadership so my son knew that he was not the kind of hated doctor who takes temperatures, tests reflexes and gives dreaded shots with long needles.

Myself being non-Native but being married to a Native woman, I relish chances to speak to Dr. Longie, as he is an elder in the Spirit Lake community.  Over the course of a few days, we covered a number of serious topics, very personal topics, some concerning my marriage into the Indian community.  I won't share all of these topics with you.  Some of Erik's opinions, about my marriage's chances of flourishing and surviving, were very tough for me to hear; some of them were indeed devastating pronouncements, predictions of great difficulty, or judgments based on a perspective of cultural knowledge that took time to digest for me.

You see, Erich met me some time before my marriage started, and as he knew me, I was a very typical, mainstream, so-called dominant culture college student of so-called middle-class Anglo origin.  I held myself in high regard.  Perhaps Erik saw the crippling arrogance, which I unconsciously showed in the way I had once held myself.  This arrogance was a trait far from the normal ways of the Chippewa Culture into which I was soon to marry.  This arrogance seemed to Erich typical of a young Non-Native, but very un-likely to exist in the persona of a youthful person able to successfully wend his ways towards a culture like an American Indian's. 

Arrogance must break many a marriage.  A white man is not going to last in a red culture if he is arrogant.  He will degrade himself, his family, and his new community.  Self-assurance, pride, and confidence in one's abilities are necessary.  But arrogance does not work well with a society where humility is a central, core virtue.

I knew this before Dr. Longie opened this to me.  It was evident in many conflicts I had had with my wife, in many situations where I felt uncomfortable, and in many private thoughts that I have had to hide across years of agonizing secret turmoil.  Arrogance has haunted me like a ghost.  It haunts me as you see me stand before you.

But after one revealing talk with Dr. Longie, I became reflective and drew strength from these reflective thoughts.  I reflected on a particular family member, a young man who is my wife's nephew, her brother Jeff's son.  This young man's name is Mike.  Mike is a young Chippewa man who has known some trouble in his life, but who has always remained humble through these tough times.  I have never known Mike to be arrogant.  Mike has taught me a lot just by being in his presence.  With kids, Mike's true genius is shown.  I see Mike's humble genius in the workings of his hands, the way he holds, lifts, cradles, plays, pushes and hugs kids.  Mike always has a funny comment to make in a timely way - but, again, I see his true humor, personality, grace and joy by watching his two hands.  It's hard to describe, but it's almost like his ancestors, especially his grandmother, my wife's mother who I never knew and who has gone to the Spirit World, is in the workings of Mike's hands when he holds kids.  Mike's ancestors must have been beautiful people.  Their ways are in Mike's hands' moves.

I find myself imitating Mike's abilities with kids, especially with my wife and my adopted son Hunter, the boy of all of our dreams, the spiritual presence, the beautiful brat, the gifted goof-ball:  a 5 year old boy.  He is my adopted son.  He is Mike's biological son.  Hunter, my adopted son, is, in actuality, Mike's son.  Hunter knows me as "da-da."  Mike is "Daddy Mike." 

It has taken humility for me to accept that we are all raising Hunter, that Hunter needs his relationship with all the adults in his life, and that I may not know best in all situations.  And as I grow within the beauty of an Indian community, my borrowed, unwanted arrogance will fade.

Dr. Longie's words humbled me.  Actually, they scared the crap out of me.  Why?  Because I knew they were true.  But I also know that I need to listen to Dr. Longie because he had a profound effect on my 5-year old.  "Mr. Longie," Hunter whispered as he fell to sleep.  "He's the best doctor," whispered my son.  It has to be true.

Entering or contacting a new culture is difficult.  Those virtues you have in one culture may be vices within another.  But, my advice is, listen to the words of some people and watch the hands of others.  You might find medicine in your observations, in your dreams of crossing over intact and in love.

From what I gather, there are enough of us Spirit Lake Tribal Members who want the Woodlake tribal council representative to step down due to his having been convicted of a sexual assault (misdemeanor).  As a result, a Special General Assembly is scheduled on Monday to bring the issue before the people for discussion.

 

There is nothing in our tribal Constitution that addresses misdemeanor sexual crimes and/or convictions. A councilman or woman has to be convicted of a felony while in office before they can be forced to step down.  This is probably why the Woodlake rep hasn't stepped down although he has been asked to. 

 

And, I'm sure this is the reason many of his friends, relatives and even some of his constituents feel that it is not anybody's business but theirs if they want him to continue to serve as their councilman even after his sexual assault conviction became public. After all, they probably reason, it's a misdemeanor not a felony.

 

However, there is a difference between what is morally right and what is legally right. And, as Dakota people we know that many times what is morally right is more important than what is legally right.

 

It is this knowledge of what is moral and immoral, that is putting us tribal members who are not from the Woodlake district in this (moral) dilemma: We do not want someone who was convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense to represent our tribe, yet we respect the fact that it should be up to the people of Woodlake District to have him resign.

 

Or, does our unease regarding the morality of the Wood Lake District rep's conviction of sexual assault allow us to trump the rights of the people who reside in Wood Lake?  They want to have who they want to represent them regardless of his conduct.  And we want to remove him from office.

 

My answer is yes.  I believe the Woodlake Representative's conduct that resulted in his conviction rises to a level of immorality that the decision whether or not he should remain in office should not be left just to Woodlake.  Instead I believe that all Districts should have a say in whether or not he stays if office or he steps down. Here are my reasons:

 

1.     Although we lose sight of it, one of the primary functions of political leaders is to be role models for the young people in our communities. It is my belief this representative has failed in this. We should not allow a man who hurt women and/or children lead our people because men in our culture hold women and children sacred.

 

2.     Is his misdemeanor a signpost as to who he really is?  This is a valid concern, as many people believe sex offenders have a different moral compass than the rest of us. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves these questions:  Has he performed his job in an exemplary manner? Has he earned the respect and trust of all tribal members, not just his friends and relatives from his district?

 

3.     We need to know the specifics of his conduct that led to his conviction.  Was his conduct morally revolting enough so that people who voted for him would not have done so had they known of his conviction?  At the minimum, he needs to come clean; at the upcoming meeting he should tell what happened that resulted in his conviction.

 

4.     In my opinion, he committed fraud to win the election. If my memory serves me right he won by an extremely narrow margin. How many voters would not have voted for him had they known of his sexual assault conviction? I would be willing to go out on a limb and say he would not have won the election had voters known about his conviction.

 

5.     He is bringing shame to the Spirit Lake Nation, as he is not only representing Woodlake District but all Spirit Lakers when he travels. Can you imagine what people will think of us when they learn one of our council members was convicted of sexual assault?  One SL elder winyan said to me "OMG, he needs to be out, it's embarrassing! Even stealing is better than sexual assault."

 

6.     Finally, what kind of message are we sending to our women when a man can abuse them and then be held in high esteem by holding office in the community?

 

I understand there will be individuals who will want him to remain in his position. However, I am sure those reasons are mainly of a selfish nature. They probably are expecting favors or some other preferential treatment from him, which is why they will continue to support him. However, it is time for the rest of us tribal members to hold our tribal council members to high standards. If we would hold them to high standards, we would be making one more step to better government. And, this is a good start.

 

In closing, one thing is certain this controversy will not go away if the Woodlake rep does not step down. It will continue to dog the Woodlake Rep and the Tribal Council diminishing their effectiveness and their reputation.  Therefore, I call on our Tribal Chairman and the rest of the tribal council members to join with the majority of us tribal members and publicly call for the Woodlake rep to resign.  Without this sordid incident hanging over their heads, the tribal council will be able to move for forward and conduct business with one less distraction.

Quoted from: The Hidden History of Massachusetts

Much of America's understanding of the early relationship between the Indian and the European is conveyed through the story of Thanksgiving. Proclaimed a holiday in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, this fairy tale of a feast was allowed to exist in the American imagination pretty much untouched until 1970, the 350th anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrims. That is when Frank B. James, president of the Federated Eastern Indian League, prepared a speech for a Plymouth banquet that exposed the Pilgrims for having committed, among other crimes, the robbery of the graves of the Wampanoags. He wrote:
 
"We welcomed you, the white man, with open arms, little knowing that it was the beginning of the end; that before 50 years were to pass, the Wampanoag would no longer be a free people."
 
But white Massachusetts officials told him he could not deliver such a speech and offered to write him another. Instead, James declined to speak, and on Thanksgiving Day hundreds of Indians from around the country came to protest. It was the first National Day of Mourning, a day to mark the losses Native Americans suffered as the early settlers prospered. This true story of "Thanksgiving" is what whites did not want Mr. James to tell.
 
What Really Happened in Plymouth in 1621?
According to a single-paragraph account in the writings of one Pilgrim, a harvest feast did take place in Plymouth in 1621, probably in mid-October, but the Indians who attended were not even invited. Though it later became known as "Thanksgiving," the Pilgrims never called it that. And amidst the imagery of a picnic of interracial harmony is some of the most terrifying bloodshed in New World history.
 
The Pilgrim crop had failed miserably that year, but the agricultural expertise of the Indians had produced twenty acres of corn, without which the Pilgrims would have surely perished. The Indians often brought food to the Pilgrims, who came from England ridiculously unprepared to survive and hence relied almost exclusively on handouts from the overly generous Indians-thus making the Pilgrims the western hemisphere's first class of welfare recipients. The Pilgrims invited the Indian sachem Massasoit to their feast, and it was Massasoit, engaging in the tribal tradition of equal sharing, who then invited ninety or more of his Indian brothers and sisters-to the annoyance of the 50 or so ungrateful Europeans. No turkey, cranberry sauce or pumpkin pie was served; they likely ate duck or geese and the venison from the 5 deer brought by Massasoit. In fact, most, if notall, of the food was most likely brought and prepared by the Indians, whose 10,000-year familiarity with the cuisine of the region had kept the whites alive up to that point.
 
The Pilgrims wore no black hats or buckled shoes-these were the silly inventions of artists hundreds of years since that time. These lower-class Englishmen wore brightly colored clothing, with one of their church leaders recording among his possessions "1 paire of greene drawers." Contrary to the fabricated lore of storytellers generations since, no Pilgrims prayed at the meal, and the supposed good cheer and fellowship must have dissipated quickly once the Pilgrims brandished their weaponry in a primitive display of intimidation. What's more, the Pilgrims consumed a good deal of home brew. In fact, each Pilgrim drank at least a half gallon of beer a day, which they preferred even to water. This daily inebriation led their governor, William Bradford, to comment on his people's "notorious sin," which included their "drunkenness and uncleanliness" and rampant "sodomy"...
 
The Pilgrims of Plymouth, The Original Scalpers
Contrary to popular mythology the Pilgrims were no friends to the local Indians. They were engaged in a ruthless war of extermination against their hosts, even as they falsely posed as friends. Just days before the alleged Thanksgiving love-fest, a company of Pilgrims led by Myles Standish actively sought to chop off the head of a local chief. They deliberately caused a rivalry between two friendly Indians, pitting one against the other in an attempt to obtain "better intelligence and make them both more diligent." An 11-foot-high wall was erected around the entire settlement for the purpose of keeping the Indians out.
 
Any Indian who came within the vicinity of the Pilgrim settlement was subject to robbery, enslavement, or even murder. The Pilgrims further advertised their evil intentions and white racial hostility, when they mounted five cannons on a hill around their settlement, constructed a platform for artillery, and then organized their soldiers into four companies-all in preparation for the military destruction of their friends the Indians.
Pilgrim Myles Standish eventually got his bloody prize. He went to the Indians, pretended to be a trader, then beheaded an Indian man named Wituwamat. He brought the head to Plymouth, where it was displayed on a wooden spike for many years, according to Gary B. Nash, "as a symbol of white power." Standish had the Indian man's young brother hanged from the rafters for good measure. From that time on, the whites were known to the Indians of Massachusetts by the name "Wotowquenange," which in their tongue meant cutthroats and stabbers.
 
Who Were the "Savages"?
The myth of the fierce, ruthless Indian savage lusting after the blood of innocent Europeans must be vigorously dispelled at this point. In actuality, the historical record shows that the very opposite was true.
 
Once the European settlements stabilized, the whites turned on their hosts in a brutal way. The once amicable relationship was breeched again and again by the whites, who lusted over the riches of Indian land. A combination of the Pilgrims' demonization of the Indians, the concocted mythology of Eurocentric historians, and standard Hollywood propaganda has served to paint the gentle Indian as a tomahawk-swinging savage endlessly on the warpath, lusting for the blood of the God-fearing whites.
 
But the Pilgrims' own testimony obliterates that fallacy. The Indians engaged each other in military contests from time to time, but the causes of "war," the methods, and the resulting damage differed profoundly from the European variety:
 
o Indian "wars" were largely symbolic and were about honor, not about territory or extermination.
 
o "Wars" were fought as domestic correction for a specific act and were ended when correction was achieved. Such action might better be described as internal policing. The conquest or destruction of whole territories was a European concept.
 
o Indian "wars" were often engaged in by family groups, not by whole tribal groups, and would involve only the family members.
 
o A lengthy negotiation was engaged in between the aggrieved parties before escalation to physical confrontation would be sanctioned. Surprise attacks were unknown to the Indians.
 
o It was regarded as evidence of bravery for a man to go into "battle" carrying no weapon that would do any harm at a distance-not even bows and arrows. The bravest act in war in some Indian cultures was to touch their adversary and escape before he could do physical harm.
 
o The targeting of non-combatants like women, children, and the elderly was never contemplated. Indians expressed shock and repugnance when the Europeans told, and then showed, them that they considered women and children fair game in their style of warfare.
 
o A major Indian "war" might end with less than a dozen casualties on both sides. Often, when the arrows had been expended the "war" would be halted. The European practice of wiping out whole nations in bloody massacres was incomprehensible to the Indian.
 
According to one scholar, "The most notable feature of Indian warfare was its relative innocuity." European observers of Indian wars often expressed surprise at how little harm they actually inflicted. "Their wars are far less bloody and devouring than the cruel wars of Europe," commented settler Roger Williams in 1643. Even Puritan warmonger and professional soldier Capt. John Mason scoffed at Indian warfare: "[Their] feeble manner...did hardly deserve the name of fighting." Fellow warmonger John Underhill spoke of the Narragansetts, after having spent a day "burning and spoiling" their country: "no Indians would come near us, but run from us, as the deer from the dogs." He concluded that the Indians might fight seven years and not kill seven men. Their fighting style, he wrote, "is more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies."
 
All this describes a people for whom war is a deeply regrettable last resort. An agrarian people, the American Indians had devised a civilization that provided dozens of options all designed to avoid conflict--the very opposite of Europeans, for whom all-out war, a ferocious bloodlust, and systematic genocide are their apparent life force. Thomas Jefferson--who himself advocated the physical extermination of the American Indian--said of Europe, "They [Europeans] are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of labor, property and lives of their people."
 
Puritan Holocaust
By the mid 1630s, a new group of 700 even holier Europeans calling themselves Puritans had arrived on 11 ships and settled in Boston-which only served to accelerate the brutality against the Indians.
 
In one incident around 1637, a force of whites trapped some seven hundred Pequot Indians, mostly women, children, and the elderly, near the mouth of the Mystic River. Englishman John Mason attacked the Indian camp with "fire, sword, blunderbuss, and tomahawk." Only a handful escaped and few prisoners were taken-to the apparent delight of the Europeans:
 
To see them frying in the fire, and the streams of their blood quenching the same, and the stench was horrible; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave praise thereof to God.
 
This event marked the first actual Thanksgiving. In just 10 years 12,000 whites had invaded New England, and as their numbers grew they pressed for all-out extermination of the Indian. Euro-diseases had reduced the population of the Massachusett nation from over 24,000 to less than 750; meanwhile, the number of European settlers in Massachusetts rose to more than 20,000 by 1646.
 
By 1675, the Massachusetts Englishmen were in a full-scale war with the great Indian chief of the Wampanoags, Metacomet. Renamed "King Philip" by the white man, Metacomet watched the steady erosion of the lifestyle and culture of his people as European-imposed laws and values engulfed them.
 
In 1671, the white man had ordered Metacomet to come to Plymouth to enforce upon him a new treaty, which included the humiliating rule that he could no longer sell his own land without prior approval from whites. They also demanded that he turn in his community's firearms. Marked for extermination by the merciless power of a distant king and his ruthless subjects, Metacomet retaliated in 1675 with raids on several isolated frontier towns. Eventually, the Indians attacked 52 of the 90 New England towns, destroying 13 of them. The Englishmen ultimately regrouped, and after much bloodletting defeated the great Indian nation, just half a century after their arrival on Massachusetts soil. Historian Douglas Edward Leach describes the bitter end:
 
The ruthless executions, the cruel sentences...were all aimed at the same goal-unchallengeable white supremacy in southern New England. That the program succeeded is convincingly demonstrated by the almost complete docility of the local native ever since.
 
When Captain Benjamin Church tracked down and murdered Metacomet in 1676, his body was quartered and parts were "left for the wolves." The great Indian chief's hands were cut off and sent to Boston and his head went to Plymouth, where it was set upon a pole on the real first "day of public Thanksgiving for the beginning of revenge upon the enemy." Metacomet's nine-year-old son was destined for execution because, the whites reasoned, the offspring of the devil must pay for the sins of their father. The child was instead shipped to the Caribbean to spend his life in slavery.
 
As the Holocaust continued, several official Thanksgiving Days were proclaimed. Governor Joseph Dudley declared in 1704 a "General Thanksgiving"-not in celebration of the brotherhood of man-but for [God's] infinite Goodness to extend His Favors...In defeating and disappointing... the Expeditions of the Enemy [Indians] against us, And the good Success given us against them, by delivering so many of them into our hands...
 
Just two years later one could reap a ££50 reward in Massachusetts for the scalp of an Indian-demonstrating that the practice of scalping was a European tradition. According to one scholar, "Hunting redskins became...a popular sport in New England, especially since prisoners were worth good money..."

Below is a letter written by a direct descendant of Myles Standish after he read The Real Thanksgiving:

Dear Dr. Paul:
 
Thank you for posting that article about the Real Thanksgiving, and the role of Myles Standish in early Plymouth. I am a descendent of Standish and it has been my goal to understand him and the events concerning him in a deeper way. I want to know ALL the history. I've read the WASP approved version and it's good to see the other versions coming to light.
 
I work very closely with my ancestors and live my life to redeem their blood. A better knowing of the results of their actions helps in two ways; it clears the propaganda and glamour from my eyes and it inspires me to be a better person in my daily decisions and living. It also teaches me history. Which I wasn't very good at in high school. Now it has a whole new meaning as I think about my ancestors living in those times and places. My nieces and nephews will learn the truth from me. And their children too.
 
For what its worth, I apologise for my grandfathers actions. Indeed all my ancestors.
 
Respectfully and sincerely,
Clarence Standish, IV
 

November 3, 2011

 

Spirit Lake Tribal Council

Spirit Lake Nation

Fort Totten, ND 58335

 

Honorable Spirit Lake Tribal Councilmembers,

 

Dakotas are pretty much a live and let live people. Although we had serious concerns when you granted unlimited, unsupervised authority to the Committee for Understanding Respect we didn't say much. Why? Because we knew the Committee had already lost their fight to keep the name in the ND Supreme court. And Standing Rock's refusal to let SBHE use our name pretty much ended our involvement in the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo fight.  We were content to let the SBHE and ND legislature fight over it.

 

However, the actions taken by the Committee since your decision to give them unlimited authority to raise and spend money on our behalf has been extreme and does not accurately reflect our culture, history and traditions of our tribe.

 

As a result we (tribal member) are taking around a petition that we hope will result in the people invoking the authority you have bestowed on the Committee.  We are well on the way to collecting the required number of signatures needed to force a referendum on the issue.

 

However, we would prefer not to have the tribe go through a very costly, very public referendum that will promote vicious infighting among tribal members.  This in turn will surely bring more shame and ridicule on our tribe.

 

Therefore, we respectfully request you (tribal council) take it upon your selves to rescind the resolution that gave the Committee unlimited authority. This would bring about an immediate resolution to this crisis. 

 

We have very good reasons for making this request. Reasons that were not made public before. But, now due to the circumstances, we are forced to air them:

 

1.     Representatives of the tribe in a ten million dollar lawsuit should have exemplary character:   At least two members of the Committee have been involved and/or convicted of stealing money from Spirit Lake tribe or, from the US government. At least one has served prison time. Another close supporter and speaker for the committee at public event have also been convicted of a crime regarding tribal funds.

2.     The tribal council is duly elected to represent us in local, state and federal issues. One of the qualifications to become a tribal council member is not to have been convicted of a felony. 

3.     How do we know the committee is not misusing funds that they have raised thus far?  With a history of fiscal irresponsibly by several of its member this is a real and grave concern among us tribal members. If some funds they raised are misappropriated it will be our tribe that will have to pay them back.

4.     The Committee appeared to take the authority to say and do whatever they want.  This arrogance has now been directed towards fellow tribal member. Tribal members were denied their rights to speak at press conference called by the Committee and tribal council. One person close to the committee accused a tribal member who spoke at the conference as "half breed".

5.     One member of the committee was not raised on the reservation.  He moved here approximately 15 years ago. He does not know the history of our tribe. Therefore, he is disingenuous when he speaks about our culture and history.  He does not speak for our ancestors. And he keeps repeating we "gave" UND the name as a gift. This is an outright falsehood. We who were born and raised here on Spirit Lake know our parents and grand parents never gave UND anything.

6.     NCAA's policies are not an attack on our culture or our way of life. We were here long before NCAA and we will be here long after NCAA.

7.     Both UND/SBHE have said repeatedly they want to retire the name. Why are we forcing something on them they no longer want? That is not the Dakota way.

8.     As a tribe, we don't even call our self "Sioux" anymore. In 1996 there was a referendum in which the people voted to change our name from the Devils Lake Sioux Indian Reservations to Spirit Lake Nation.

9.     We respect the Committee's dedication to keeping the name, but they do not have to drag the entire tribal membership into their fight.

 

To use the Committee's logic that we gave our name as a gift to UND, let me close with this story that demonstrates how foolish carrying on the fight over a logo has become:

 

Dear Committee for Understanding and Respect,

Years ago your people generously gave me a jacket; it was fashionable then and I thanked you for it. I wore it many times, but it is now worn out and stained. Moreover, times have changed, and it is no longer fashionable. You know, not everyone liked the jacket. I was often denigrated and ridiculed when I wore it. I realize you take pride in that jacket and that some of you felt honored when I wore it, but please understand I am not going to wear it any longer. I'm sorry if some of you feel hurt and angry with this, but really, it is my jacket, it is my choice, and you have no say in what I wear.

What? You've hired lawyers to try to make me wear that jacket! You got to be kidding! What judge would concede to wearing an outdated, outmoded jacket that even he will find offensive? Save your money! Thank you.

 

Respectfully,

 

 

Erich Longie,

(On behalf of Spirit Lake tribal members who are opposed to the Committee for understanding and Respect)

 

October 14, 2011

North Dakota University System
10th Floor, State Capitol
600 East Boulevard Ave, Dept. 215
Bismarck, ND 58505-0230

 Mr. Grant Shaft,

We, the signatories of this letter (Spirit Lake tribal members) speak on behalf of the three 300+ tribal members who want to see the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo retired.

Over 300 hundred Spirit Lake tribal members voted against UND's continued use of the Sioux name.  We believe that number has now grown, possibly doubled since the referendum on the name.

We do not agree with and we are embarrassed by the threats our fellow tribal members are making on behalf of the Spirit Lake Nation.  The Committee for Understanding and Respect's indiscriminate threats neither increase understanding or respect for our Dakota way of life nor do they speak for the hundreds of Spirit Lake tribal members who want to see the name retired.

Our (Sioux) traditional values are courage, honesty, generosity, respect, and perseverance. The value of generosity is most apparent in our traditional giveaways and ceremonies. Gifts are freely given with no strings attached with the understanding that the recipient will use the gift as needed.  For example, a person is gifted a horse and he/she can now use or even sell the horse without consulting the person who provided the gift.  After all, the horse now belongs to the new owner.  We have never witnessed or heard of a Sioux who follows our traditional values provide a gift to someone and then try to direct how they use their gift.  

We understand our (Sioux) way of giving may be different from another's way of giving and we respect cultural differences. For example, the Ralph Englestad Arena was "given" to UND, yet ownership and management are controlled by the Ralph Englestad Foundation rather than the University of North Dakota (UND).  We do not understand that type of giving, but if that's their way, that's their way.

For arguments sake, let us say there was a legitimate pipe ceremony by Standing Rock's ancestors giving the "Sioux" name to UND.  The ceremony and the "gift" of a name would fall under cultural norms as I have previously explained. This would mean that a Sioux who lives according to the above traditional values would NOT intercede if UND decided to retire or give the name away.  No true traditional Sioux would dream of not respecting the pipe that was used when the ceremony was conducted.

In closing, we can't think of a reason why the SBHE would need permission to retire the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo from anyone considering the ND Supreme court ruling in the SBHE's favor [Davidson v. State (2010)]. However, just in case, the SBHE is seeking permission to retire the name we say this: for what it's worth, on behalf of the hundreds of Spirit Lakers, on behalf of the thousands of Sioux, and on behalf of all the Sioux Nations that issued resolutions, stating their opposition to UND keeping the name, we hereby give you permission to retire the name.

 

As a Herald story noted Friday, the pro-logo individual(s) did not do well in the tribal elections. This debunks the claim by non-Indians and Indians who are not enrolled at the Rock that Standing Rock is strongly pro-logo.

By: Erich Longie,

By Erich Longie

FORT TOTTEN, N.D. -- A lot of attention has been given to the letters written to the Big Sky Conference by my fellow tribal members and their Committee for Understanding and Respect.

What got much less attention were the results of the tribal election held at Standing Rock on Oct. 6. But the outcome of that election had more potential to influence the outcome of the nickname and logo issue than the letters written by my fellow Spirit Lakers.

As a Herald story noted Friday, the pro-logo individual(s) did not do well in the tribal elections ("Nickname supporter loses bid for tribal seat," Page A1).

This debunks the claim by non-Indians and Indians who are not enrolled at the Rock that Standing Rock is strongly pro-logo.

Many pro-logo people were hoping the outcome of the election at Standing Rock would result in a vote on the Fighting Sioux nickname. (In my view, that's the real reason House Majority Leader Al Carlson went back on his word shortly after his meeting with NCAA.)

So, with the elections at Standing Rock now over, have we taken another step toward the retirement of a symbol of conquest commonly known as the Fighting Sioux logo? Maybe.

But how many times has each side thought it had victory in its grasp only to have it snatched away?

Not so many years ago, our Spirit Lake Tribal Council refused to meet with then-UND President Charles Kupchella on the logo issue. And I remember attending a General Assembly when the logo issue was brought up -- and was overwhelmingly defeated.

Now, our reservation has a resolution supporting the name, and my fellow tribal members are threatening to take action against the Big Sky Conference, UND and the State Board of Higher Education.

Although I'm not a lawyer, I'm comfortable enough in my knowledge to say this: Our tribal court does not have jurisdiction over either UND or the state board.

And I say this with some regret, because although I am strongly against the name, I think it would be very nice indeed if our court did have jurisdiction over state institutions. For if it did, the Committee for Understanding and Respect could sue the Al Carlson-led Legislature for rejecting six bills that would have allocated close to a million dollars to address American Indian issues.

There are about 6,700 Spirit Lake tribal members. Some 700-plus voted for the name, which is roughly 10 percent of our total population.

Meanwhile, the combined population of all Sioux reservations is more than 110,000. Leaders of these reservations have signed a resolution against the name.

So, the 700-plus who voted for the name comprise less than 1 percent of the entire Sioux Nation. Hardly an overwhelming majority, I would say.

The majority of Spirit Lake tribal members who have graduated from UND are against the name and have signed a letter to that effect.

Much ado has been made of the Sioux "disappearing" if the logo is retired. This is the most foolish, racist argument of them all. Not one Caucasian has come up to me and said they are proud to meet a "Fighting Sioux" (me). On the other hand, many, many Caucasians have come up to me and shook my hand after I received my doctorate from UND.

It will be UND that will be forgotten if pro-logo supporters insist on keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo.

Last but not least, a Herald editorial stated the only reason the nickname is going to be retired is because of NCAA's policy ("NCAA, not Big Sky, deserves committee's wrath," Page D1, Oct. 9).

Hmm: After all that has transpired because of the nickname over the past 40 years, it is sad to note that the editorial board and likely others still don't understand that it is derogatory to use a race of people as nicknames, mascots or logos.

Or, maybe they have, and they just don't have the courage of their convictions to state it publicly due to fear of retaliation by pro-logo supporters.

Longie is president of Spirit Lake Consulting.

 

In a letter to the Turtle Mountain Times ( June 25, 2007) The writer starts by saying:

I've always believed when a person even steals one penny from a tribal program, that person steals not from the program, but from each and every member of the tribe.

Unfortunately, the writer goes on to say,

Nothing is being done to correct the problems. Corruption, nepotism, and outright theft still exist. Our 'tribe' does nothing to protect the whistle-blowers. People still live in fear, and the outspoken people on this reservation are marginalized and blacklisted.

 

Becoming an Ethical Manager

There are literally hundreds of educational institutions that offer programs in management, and there are thousands of books on the art of management. Most of these programs and books cover the essentials of management: leadership, managing human resources, job performance, meetings, how to handle change at the macro and micro level, hiring/firing, etc. however, most of them teach very little, if any values. 

 

By incorporating Native Americans values into your management skills, you will find that you will be a much better manager. You will feel pride in your decision-making; you will not spend time worrying about the consequences of your actions; and, you will find out how much more people respect you and your decisions. In short, it is fun and fulfilling being a courageous and ethical manager.

 

Courageous Leaders:

Almost all managers believe that they are leaders and they have a positive influence over their employees and the tribal members they serve. Manager would like to believe all their employees respect and say nothing but good things about them. However, if you live on a Indian reservation you can probably easily think of the names of one or two managers who do not have the respect of their employees due to their unethical behavior.

 

"Courage is the single most decisive trait in a leader"

 

Why? ...Because as a manager, you are required to make dozens of decisions daily. The majority of these decisions do not take much courage and/or high moral character, but those few that do will determine what kind of leader you are. And it turn what kind of manager you are. Without courage you will not make moral and ethical decisions in most situations. Instead you will make cowardly and unethical decisions. Courage is not something you are born with. Courage like every other value becomes stronger the more you practice it. Once you have learned how to face your fears and overcome them, when you have demonstrated your courage over and over again, it will become your most admirable virtue. It will change how people view you, how they approach you, and it will increase their respect for you. Without courage, you will not be able to develop other critical leadership traits, such as decisiveness, (self-) responsibility, flexibility, and generosity.

 

Traditional Values and Tribal Management

Long before the coming of the white man, Native Americans were excellent managers - they had to be; their lives depended on it. Within the Great Plains tribes (Sioux, Blackfoot, Arikara, Hidatsa, Mandan, Arapaho, Gros Ventre, Omaha, Crow, Ponca, Cheyenne and Assiniboine) different societies existed, each with unique roles. Societies originated from a legend, vision, or dream. Often the most important of these societies were the warrior societies. For the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota (the Sioux), these Societies were often referred to as police or military organizations, but they were much more than that. These warrior societies often kept order in the camps, and often had the responsibility of managing the daily activities of the camp. One did not just go out and join these societies. To be accepted into a society usually meant an individual had exemplary character. He was usually known for his courage, honesty, perseverance/fortitude, generosity, wisdom, and for his loyalty

Also like managers today, the members of warrior societies had many additional responsibilities. These included:

• Playing a unique intermediary role in government by serving as the active, but temporary, dispensers of authority;
• Serving as creative display centers where recognition was given for honors earned by warriors and women's guild workers for tasks well done on behalf of the tribe.
• Punishing offenders against the public welfare;
• Guarding the camp against possible surprise attacks by an enemy, both at camp and while moving;
• Keeping the camp informed at all times as to the movement of the buffalo herd;
• Fostering intersociety rivalry to cultivate bravery and a military spirit among themselves and among boys, who needed a living example of their future responsibilities;
• Taking the most commanding and dangerous places in battle;
• Ministering to the desires of members for social recreation through feast and dances.

Back in the pre-reservation days, Indian people of the northern plains had the best deterrent to bad leaders: They simply stopped following them. Therefore it is important to remember that tribal members have the final say on who is going to be our leaders. If our reservations are going to become better places for our children to live, then we tribal members have to stop supporting unethical leaders, and start supporting leaders who have courage, honesty, perseverance, and generosity to lead justly. If we do not demand these qualities from our leaders, we have no right to complain when our leaders commit cowardly and unethical acts.

It has been over 27 years since I had my last drink of alcohol. (I was thirty-one years old.) Because that was such a long time ago and since I am not an Addiction Counselor I am not prone to go around preaching against the evils of alcohol.  But that doesn't mean I have forgotten the harm it (alcoholism) has caused my family and relatives.

 

Every now and than an alcohol-related incident will occur that will remind me of the pure evil of alcoholism. Such an incident occurred last night, which in turn prompted this blog:

 

A woman gets into an argument with her 18 year old daughter and ordered her (daughter) out of the house. In spite of the fact her daughter had two young babies both less than two years old. Later that same day, as it was getting dark the mother/grand mother throws all her daughters clothes and other belongings out onto the lawn. The daughter implores her to think about her grand daughters but to no avail. 

 

Now alcoholism may not be as prevalent on the reservation as it was back in my heyday.  This may be because other drugs have taken it place. I know pills are a huge problem. They appear to be at least as bad as alcohol if not worse.

 

Anyway, if you noticed I characterized alcoholism as "pure evil". As a recovering alcoholic who drank alcoholically for 15 years I view alcoholism as a tangible evil force.  This force is smarter, more cunning, more persistent, and more ruthless -- it never tires, it never takes a day off -- it is virtually unconquerable. Why? Because of the amount of pure lies intertwined into the life of an alcoholic.

 

Charles Eastman (Dakota 1858 - 1939 said this "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."

 

When a person become addicted to alcohol, when they cross that imaginary line that defined them as an alcoholic as opposed to a social drinker he or she begins to live a life of a lie. Their first lie is that they are not alcoholic. Then they begin to lie about the problems it causes them; late or missing work, DUI's, bills not be paid, family members going without new clothes and other necessities, arguments with family, relatives and acquaintances... the list goes on and on. 

 

The alcoholic will ignore all warning signs (lying to one's self) that their life is in trouble. Why? I don't know why, I don't think anyone does.  That is the big mystery of addiction.  

 

More times than I care to remember I have woken up feeling absolutely horrible. First, from the amount of alcohol I drank the night, days or even the weeks before. And than from the despicable acts I committed while under the influence.  I would vow never to drink again. A few days later my feelings of self-loathing would magically disappear and I would start the whole cycle all over again.

 

As powerful as alcoholism is it does have its Achilles heel.  It has no defense against (SELF) HONESTY.

 

Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has it right when the came up with this first step to sobriety: We admitted we were powerless over our addiction - that our lives had become unmanageable - I call this is totally honesty.  However, the amount of self-honesty a person needed to make this admission is enormous. Most people are not capable of this level of self-honesty, which is why the recovery rate of alcoholics are very low - around 30% I think.

 

I was one of the lucky few. The values my mom instilled me, one which was honesty, enabled me to admit that that alcohol had ruined my life.  Even so, it still took three stints in the Veteran Hospital's treatment center before I quit drinking for good.

 

Getting back to my opening scenario, I realize there are two sides to every argument.  However, regardless of the circumstances surrounding an argument a parent has to be pretty ruthless to kick a child and grand children out in the manner that I described. This example of alcoholic behavior is why I classify alcoholism as "pure evil".

As my good friend AnnMarie wrote in her blog I "...hypothesized that schools that had more cultural activities would have lower academic achievement." Prior to leaving to DC to take a look at the yet to be released data from the National Indian Education Study.

Over the years I have always been involved in promoting our culture in the classroom, as a Tribal College academic dean and president and later as a high school board member. Why? Because numerous studies have shown the more an Indian child knows about his or her culture the higher their test scores will be.

Therefore, I could never understand why college instructors and high school administrators would not put a serious effort into promoting culture in the classroom. Other board members who also wanted to see more culture in the classrooms shared my frustration.

Why did I change my mind?

This past year I had the opportunity to teach "The History and Culture of the Spirit Lake Oyate" to the fifth and sixth graders at Tate Topa Middle School. The experience was rewarding. I had always said I wanted to end my career in Indian Education back in the classroom. Preferable back to teaching third grade.

My close up, hands on experience, of teaching culture revealed an equation that I wasn't aware of. What actually happens in a classroom and in the school on a daily basis?  Here are my observations:

Ø  Why don't administrators push for more culture classes? Because most administrators believe there is no real learning going on in culture classes.

Ø  Why? The majority of culture teachers don't have a teaching degree, which in the mind of administrator make them poor teachers.  It is one thing to know the culture and another to know how to teach it.

Ø  What happens then? The lack of teacher trainings by culture teachers gives a bad impression to students and other professionally trained teachers.

Ø  Why are they allowed in the classroom? Because who else will teach the culture? Indians with teaching degree are needed and wanted in the regular classroom.

Ø  What is the result of this lack of professionalism?  The administration does not view culture classes as important as other disciplines. Their academic expectations are lower. As a result the quality of instruction is not a good as the other disciplines.

Ø  What is the final outcome? Culture instruction can actually have an adverse impact on student learning. The student pick up bad habits in a culture class, no respect for teacher, low motivation to learn, not finishing assignment, etc., these bad habits spill into other classes.

(I would say the exceptions to my observations are the Language teachers. It is almost impossible to find college graduate who speaks the language)

Is there hard data to support my observations? Yes there is. Let me refer you my friend and colleague AnnMaria's blog title: More cultural relevance = lower academic achievement: WHY?  http://t.co/OzpevQ8

There is another reason why I think we are having a difficult time teaching culture.  As I stated earlier, I had the opportunity to teach culture to the 5th and 6th graders this past spring. Having been out of an elementary classroom for over twenty years it took me awhile to get organized and adjusted to the classroom again.

Shortly after starting I begin to suspect the students had no idea what "Being Indian" meant.  One day I gave them a simple assignment. The students were to write down the answer to this question.  What does it mean to be Indian?  Most of them had no answers. Those students that did answer, their answers weren't satisfactory. I disregarded my lessen plans and set out to teach them what I thought "Being Indian" meant.

The first thing I did was explained to them that our culture could be divided into three parts: language, customs, and value. A person has to speak the language to teach it. Other than a speaking a few words I didn't speak the language other than a few words. The custom, which I identified as the dances, homes, clothes, history, etc., can be taught in any social studies class. I told them would focus on the values: courage, honestly, generosity and perseverance I would try to incorporate the other two aspects into my instructions as well.

Why did I choose to focus on the values? Because it was the most effective method of getting them to understand what "Being Indian" meant.  For example, I pointed out many Indian wear clothes with "Native Pride" and "Proud to Indian" on them. What does Native Pride mean, I would ask them? It means a person who is courageous, who is honest, who is generous and who perseveres... just like our ancestor did, I pointed out.

And I would refer to our values when I had to discipline a student. For example, when a student was talking when he or she should have been working I would tell him to be quiet. "I wasn't talking", the student who most often say. I would than remind him or her that a Dakota was honest...

I had them watch a documentary on about a High School Indian basketball team. The team was exceptional but they lost in the state finals. Why did they lose, I asked the students at the end of the documentary? Because they (players) smoked weed, most to them said. I explained to the class when a student signs up for basketball they give their word they will follow the rules. Did those players follow the rules, I asked them? No they didn't, was the reply.  What values does it relate do, I asked them. HONESTY! They yelled.

Was my method of teaching culture successful? The last week of school I ask the same question, what does it mean to be Indian? Here are responses from three students:

"Dakota means to be honesty, respect(ful) and generosity. And if you lie all the time no one would ever believe you even if you're telling the truth. Back when Indians were roaming the lands if you lied you would die. The dakota followed the seven values. We take care of our people. And we are always proud of who we are."

"I feel proud to be an Indian because we don't steal. We respect other people and we (are) honest. Indians show courage and wisdom. We fight in wars to protect our country and tribe. We show generosity by helping our relatives and elders."

"It means generosity which means sharing with people. It means respect which means respect your parent and teachers. It means persevere which means don't give up. It means courage which means stand up which you think is right."

I think I was on the right track.

 I belong to Group on Facebook that encourages members to share their cultural beliefs. A few days ago a member posted an opinion on consuming alcohol and attending ceremonies.  A couple member responded with their thoughts on the subject. I did to. Here is what I wrote:

 

"I agree that people should not drink and attend ceremonies at the same time.

 

If a person is truly addicted to alcohol and behaves accordingly yes, that person should not attend ceremonies and pretend that they are walking the Red Road.

 

However, I also agree with many of the points _________ _________ made. One or two drinks once or twice a month does not make a person an alcoholic. I have been sober for 27 years but I have not forgotten the harm alcohol has done to our Indian Communities. On the other hand I am not one of those recovering alcoholics who looks upon anyone who picks up a can of beer every now and then as an evil person.

 

I admit I am not a regular at our ceremonies although I do attend them at special times in my life. The last time I attended a sweat was a couple years ago when I took a young man as my son in a ceremony.

 

My concern is not so much the people who drink and attend ceremonies as it is about those who attend ceremonies and continue to lie, cheat, steal and are moral cowards in their daily lives. I know an elder who attend many ceremonies but is known by many as one of the biggest liar in the community. And man, can this person use vile language at basketball games.

 

In many ways we have become like Christians who go to church every Sunday and then go out and "sin" the rest of the week. And back to church on Sunday.....

 

Because many of us were not raised from infancy with our traditional values we have a hard time following them every single day.

 

I would like to see more of us practice our traditional values of courage, honesty, perseverance and generosity every single day... instead of just verbalizing them at ceremonies."

 

A couple of other members posted comments warning about "judging others".  My response was this:

 

"Prior to being exposed to Christianity we ndn were pretty much a live and let live type of society. Blaming and judging other probably comes from Christian influence.

However, we had rigid standards of behavior that tribal members were expected to follow. For example, among my ancestors, the Dakota, lying was considered evil and if a person lied too much he/she was put to death to prevent the evil from spreading.

My point is, let's not confuse the expectations of the people who truly follow the Red Road with the Christian's habit of judging and condemning."

 

In the meantime, a couple of the members who were discussing what and what isn't "judging behavior" had their conversation between them sort of go down hill, if you know what I mean. This resulted in one person leaving the group. 

 

Let me go back to my assertion that, "Blaming and judging other probably comes from Christian influence."  

 

As a child I attended several different churches, when I became old enough to understand what "You are going to hell if..." meant, or what was in store for me if I wasn't a good Christian I became worried that "God" was always watching (judging) me and I would end up in hell for sure. The more I went church, the more I became deathly scared of going there (hell). And the older I became, the more convinced  I was that I was going to end up there (in hell), which would frighten me even more.

 

This scare tactic, which was really "judging", by the Christians priests and ministers was very effective. We Indians soon learned to judge others Indians in the same manner as well.

 

The priest and minister were not the only one who frowned upon my behavior as child. Many older Indians also disapprove of my behavior but there was never a mention of hell or what would happen to me in the Spirit World if we didn't behave.

 

However, that is not to say we did not disapprove of certain types of behavior. Let me repeat what I said earlier:

 

"However, we had rigid standards of behavior that tribal members were expected to follow. For example, among my ancestors, the Dakota, lying was consider evil and if a person lied to much he/she was put to death to prevent the evil from spreading."

 

In other words, punishment (judgment) was swift and certain if you deviated from your tribe's standards (values) of behavior.  Why this quick punishment? Because back than the traditional values of courage, honesty, perseverance, and generosity was instilled in a person from infancy.  Therefore, when a person did commit a grievous offense there was no "judging" or arguing if they were guilty or not. Why? Because when you live by traditional values you do not make an untrue accusation and the accused would not try to lie their way out it.   

 

I recall a story I read in which a young Indian man was accused of murder and sentenced to death. Instead of defending him the father asked to die in his place. The father said he was old and could not take care of his son's family if he (son) is executed. So "I am going to take his place...", the father said. "What are a few more years more or less when you're old."  The father goes on to say.  The father is summarily executed in his son's place.

 

Compare that with what would happened today.  Today, a person or his family would make up many excuses, many of them outright lies, to prevent a person from being held accountable for his or her actions.

 

My point of this blog, and yes I do have one, is this; the majority of us were not raised from infancy by our tribe's traditional values. Therefore, we need to be very careful that we do not "judge" others unfairly, and/or maliciously, at the same time we should not become overly defensive when we perceive someone is judging us. This extremism in either direction will only reveal our character weakness to others.