Maybe it would be good for a while to try not mentioning Indians and Europeans but to refer to walkers (who arrived in your beautiful continent by land) and sailors (who arrived by sea)
Like in this old joke about kids in the school bus raising hell and fighting about the white kids sitting at the front and the black kids at the back, so eventually the bus driver gets p.o.ed and tells them to stop fighting and suggests a game: 'Today, we won't be black and white, today we're all green." The kids are excited and want to play, and the bus driver says: 'Okay, so all of you go to your seats - the light green kids at the front, and the dark green kids at the back'.
It does not really matter what we call ourselves or each other - as long as racist stereotypes are being used, they can be used against Indians or walkers or whatever. It gets even harder to discuss when some of the persons participating in the - errrm: discussion make quite intense a use of racist stereotypes and refuse to see what is racist about their contributions.
Do you (meaning you, ra6as, and you, people at SR) really assume it is the ndns' task to explain to you in length and detail what is a racist stereotype and what isn't? This is in fact adding insult to injury --- I kick your azz and you tell me a) does it hurt, b) why does it hurt, nd c) how does it hurt, and unless I get these explanations, I will flatly deny I kicked you, you simply must be imagining stuff and are over-sensitive in the first place, and your azz does not and may not hurt in the slightest. I just don't tell you right now that even if and when I hear your explanations I will immediately say you're wrong. Quite apart from the fact that it has always been my right and in fact a duty to kick your azzes to keep you in place, back in the olden days, you at least knew to present your azz to have it kicked, but now you're getting uppity and complain about it. That's not how we always done it - I don't want to *change* and it is simply unfair and highly inappropriate of you to even think I should stop kickin your azz, I mean, what did I get me feet for. And I'm soo sensitive it really hurts you won't give me a broad grateful smile when I kick you, you simply don't appreciate my efforts and good will.
Some people say that the walkers have much to teach the sailors about stewardship of the earth
And other people say that the image of ndns being the stewards of the continent or the earth is a concept not basing on facts. It is not true that the ndns kept the continent untouched for thousands of years, leaving no trace of human inhabitance whatsoever, but they formed their environment to meet their needs. The image of a race of 'stewards' not interfering with their environment serves as an excuse for taking the land as 'the ndns didn't make any use of it'.
Some people say but the walkers way has met with challenges which it cannot overcome, it is time to change
And some people would be racist with this argument: all human cultures change and develop, and ndn cultures have been very flexible and easily took up new assets after contact.
Other people would say that the dominant culture was not right to demand of everybody to adjust to it and deny them any right to the wish to keep their own culture. Other people would also say that the dominant culture was wrong in assuming it was superior in every respect and therefore was the only one which must be allowed to exist. Other people would also say that it was wrong in the first place to force a culture onto another group, no matter whether the imposed culture was superior or not.
Your above sentence comes in a disguise: you say "the .. way has met with challenges which it cannot overcome". Do we agree that this means ndn cultures cannot cope with modern life? - because this is what it says in the part "which it cannot overcome". Sorry, but what gives you as a person or you as a people the right to judge another culture as not being able to exist in these times? Do you also go into Amish communities and tell them: you can't overcome the challenges, you're outdated, either adjust or be run over? Then some time later we will take an interest in your religion and demand to be taught by you which we will call 'sharing'; we will mimick the way you prayed and make some of us pay to pray Amish style and call this 'our right' and as mitakuye oyasin won't work, we'll even learn (well, after a fashion) to say: wir sind alle verwandt [veer zint ahlle far-vahnt].
But I degress. As there are challenges which allegedly cannot be overcome, neither "[is] it .. time to change" - a
change means to adjust to something out of your own free will, to effect some adjustment but have the basis of the particular culture intact. And this is not what you are talking about above. You are presenting a world view in which the inability 'to overcome' results, from your point of view, in the necessity to *exchange* one culture for another, a superior one which will have the day anyway no matter whether one group or another tries to adapt it or not. It is not even given the chance to adjust on its own terms, and pick up what it finds useful - no, it is swallow it hook, line, and sinker, or you 'cannot overcome' - i.e. survive. Survival gets a matter of giving the dominant culture more than just a hearty welcome, survival means to kiss the dominant culture's azz and to become more domcult than the "some people" themselves. And only when this happens to the fullest degree will the "some people" be able to sleep tight, as there is no need to be reminded of those who were not able "to overcome" in the first place. And everything is alright in the best of all possible worlds. And they will live happily hereverafter.
Errrm - wait a minute, fairy tales rarely happen in reality... oh yup: the "some people" will still be lightgreen, and the others... errrm, yes, why, we will still be able to pick them out by the colour of their skin and their hair and thus be able to look down on them, discriminate them, tell them they still didn't fully adjust and there was still an awful lot to learn for them. May we call this: business as usual?
I think we can. If 'the ndn' gets uppity and doesn't know his/her place, we call them a halfbreed imitating the white man - why the %%&/ wears jeans and sneakers instead of a loincloth, and happily lives in a house equipped with a bathroom, and sits on the john instead of sh***ing behind a bush - hey, they're not ndn any longer so why are they criticizing us for playing a bit with their traditions? They don't keep their own traditions, I see this all the time, ndns even drive cars, there's no ponies - I mean, hell, they might even come along and demand an education these days. What - some of dem are profs at a university? How did that happen? See they're not trad. - One of the "some people" already accused ndns of exploiting white culture for using bathrooms or driving cars....
In the following speech, there is an indication of both of these points of view
Petalsharo was a great chief and a brave man known for his daring rescues (of girls from imminent sacrifice, if some accounts are to be believed)
He was also a great speaker, and in 1822 he addressed a conference in Washington at which President Monroe was present. President Monroe had urged the chief and his people to accept the friendship of missionaries. Petalsharo replied as follows [...]
As an aside, there were two Petalasharos. (You also seem to return to chiefs, ndns, and Euros, don't you?)
The speech you quoted is not an indication of Petalasharo assuming it was time to 'change' the Pawnee culture as in abandoning it in favour of some superior culture. He simply says they will continue with their ways of life until the white majority makes this impossible by various means, they do not want to have the white way of life and religion imposed on them and will only accept it if and when there is no other choice left.
As another aside, the Pawnee did not just hunt buffaloes to feed themselves, but had fields where they grew crops. They did buffalo hunts during the summer, but this was an addition to the crops harvested from their fields. Probably Petalasharo used the buffalo as an example in his speech because he was very well aware that Monroe, same as many white persons, just 'knew' all Indians in the middle of the continent hunted buffaloes and simply employed an imagine Monroe was able to relate to, in the hope to be understood.
