B.C. professor's lecture prompts FBI call

Source: CBC News


A University of Victoria professor of indigenous studies says the FBI called her after she gave a lecture in the United States about Native American land rights.

Waziyatawin, who splits her time between Victoria and her home in Minnesota, is an author, historian and activist for land rights of the Dakota people.

After a lecture at Winona State University in Minnesota on Nov. 8, a student accused her of inciting violence against white people, Waziyatawin told CBC News.

"In the context of Dakota people in Minnesota homeland, most importantly, we have a major land issue and … at the core is the reclamation of a land base for Dakota people within our homeland.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/01/11/bc-uvic-fbi-waziyatawin.html

---

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 | 10:06 AM PT

...and feel-ups by TSA in her future trips to the US.

- Because that's how Police States roll......

K&R

Of 1855 hats and jackets. It shows the original reservation, which was huge, compared to what they have now.
Red necks hate it. You'll hear them bitch about them, and say they can't have a sovereign nation inside our borders, and crap like that.
I just tell them they can because Congress says they can, and they get to decide. Then we have the white guys that insist on referring to themselves and native americans. I told a Nez Perce friend of mine that they know the difference when they are talking about fishing. Those same guys will knock themselves out to go fishing where there are native trout.

I've got a few names for them in that case....

this case appears to involve:

terrorism
Native Americans

both of which fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI

did "tree of liberty" guy even get a phone call?!

And elites don't want that overturned!

enough to tell the truth of a genocide they would have a moral leg to stand on? Sounds like they tried to remove it from consideration...

""The Dakota people paid the price for statehood," Waz says, criticizing a sesquicentennial event she says whitewashed reservation life in 1858, the year Minnesota joined the Union.

"The focus was on this happy, benign narrative of Dakota-white friendship. But the truth is, a brutal colonization was going on, when every aspect of Dakota culture was being assaulted. The result was genocide, ethnic cleansing and dispossession. Americans cannot consider themselves moral until these issues are addressed.

"Only six-one-thousandths of one percent of Minnesota belongs to the Dakota today. The vast majority of our people still live in exile from their home. A state with any kind of moral sensitivity would be able to see that the Dakota do not have justice in Minnesota."

here...

Another article talks about Governor Ramsey's plan to take the territory from the Native Americnas, "The hangings, the concentration camps and forced imprisonments, the forced gender segregation, the punitive campaigns into Dakota Territory to hunt down and terrorize those trying to flee, the bounties on Dakota scalps -- all are examples of how Ramsey's plan was successfully implemented".

here...


Huh. Talk about terrorism...

"In the context of Dakota people in (their) Minnesota homeland, most importantly, we have a major land issue and … at the core is the reclamation of a land base for Dakota people within our homeland.

"When I talked about that, I talked about that in the context of reclaiming that land by any means necessary, and that's what causes all of the uproar."

"My position is that I don't call for violence outright but my recommendation does not preclude the use of violence for indigenous self-defence — the defence of our populations or defence of our land base."


Defense of the land base by "reclaiming that land by any means necessary"? Okay then.


The student also claimed the professor talked about "giving white people what they deserve," Waziyatawin said.

"Never have I advocated violence against white settlers," she said. "Never have I advocated Dakota people taking up arms to kill other people. I didn't say anything like that anywhere in my presentation and I never have."


She would NEVER advocate violence against "white settlers"...except for those parts where she advocates defending the land base by "reclaiming that land by any means necessary". They have to reclaim the land so they can defend the land!


"I think that it's only in the United States, or only in the context of a colonial culture, a racist culture, a patriarchal culture, that a young white male can really shoot his mouth off, making accusations and causing all this uproar."

You're welcome to stay in Canada since America sucks so bad.

:eyes:

As it stands she's nothing more than a dime store ideologue.

I understand that native peoples of all nations have grievances. But that does not give them the right to agitate for violence or use racism to make their points. All peoples occupy land that was previously occupied by people who were subjugated, displaced and out right murdered. The Dakota Sioux were no different, and in fact were quite hostile and aggressive to their neighbors. I always find it humorous when violent, expanding cultures have it handed to them and then act like victims.

The larger question I have for advocates of indigenous peoples rights is this: how do you reconcile the clash of civilizations? I think that it is beyond question that western civilizations are and have been far more technologically and materially advanced than those of the native peoples they encountered. When an advanced civilization comes in contact with a far less advanced civilization, exactly how is the less advanced civilization supposed to compete? They can not, and for that reason, the less advanced civilization disappears. It has been that way through out the history of man. Trying to change that reality probably only lengthens the painful process, as it has for those Native Americans who have chosen not to participate in the American culture. Those who decided to assimilate have largely enjoyed successful lives, where as those who have chosen to remain separate have endured poverty, crime and lack of opportunity at an appalling rate.

Pride in culture is one thing; clinging to alcoholism, unemployment, crime and lack of education all in the name of honoring "the past" is more than a lie, it's cruel.

I know that my post will bring criticism; it's what DU does so well. But I would ask those critics to answer this question: If Native American cultures were warrior cultures (the Dakota certainly were), then what is a Native American males proper role in society? As far as I'm able to ascertain, the only honorable role for a male in a warrior society was to steal and kill. Anything else was unmanly. How exactly does that fit into the modern world? If it doesn't, then is it racist to ask how a warrior society could possibly coexist with other peoples in a modern world? To me, the demands of sovereign status for historical peoples is idealistic in the extreme, and completely unworkable in reality.

And absolutely nothing else, but, for me, a clear, bloodless conscience is enough.

On the other hand, I am not a First American. What does one do when promise after promise has been broken and treaty after treaty violated and every peaceful means you can think of has failed?

:shrug:

Btw: NO ONE has a right to use racism to make a point, even you or me.

"I think that it's only in the United States, or only in the context of a colonial culture, a racist culture, a patriarchal culture, that a young white male can really shoot his mouth off, making accusations and causing all this uproar," she said.

They're so persecuted.... :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:


.

found anything to disagree with in the writings of Malcolm X.

And yes, I have several ancestors who came on the Mayflower, literally.

Like on December 1, 1963, when he was asked for a comment about the assassination of President Kennedy, Malcolm X said that it was a case of "chickens coming home to roost". He added that "chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they've always made me glad."

Do you tell your history class about that?

Or how about images? In September 1964, Ebony published a photograph of Malcolm X holding an M1 Carbine and peering out a window. Now there's a heady message for the turbulent 60's.

Personally, I ascribe to the eastern notion that a man is neither good, nor bad, but capable of being both. Each day a man is faced with a multitude of decisions and has to do battle with both his conscience and his survival instincts regularly. To hold a man up as a model is a mistake. The better choice is to uphold a mans good actions, of which Malcolm X had many, but not to sugar coat a mans weaknesses.

especially at the high school level. I also share the eulogy delivered by Ossie Davis, of which this is a part:

There are those who will consider it their duty, as friends of the Negro people, to tell us to revile him, to flee, even from the presence of his memory, to save ourselves by writing him out of the history of our turbulent times. Many will ask what Harlem finds to honor in this stormy, controversial and bold young captain - and we will smile. Many will say turn away - away from this man, for he is not a man but a demon, a monster, a subverter and an enemy of the black man - and we will smile. They will say that he is of hate - a fanatic, a racist - who can only bring evil to the cause for which you struggle! And we will answer and say to them : Did you ever talk to Brother Malcolm? Did you ever touch him, or have him smile at you? Did you ever really listen to him? Did he ever do a mean thing? Was he ever himself associated with violence or any public disturbance? For if you did you would know him. And if you knew him you would know why we must honor him.


I'm old enough to remember this entire period, and I'm nearly ready to retire. But the current sugar-white coating being given to US history is really disgusting. They're eliminating Jefferson from the curriculum because of the Jefferson bible and because he advocates revolution as a change mechanism as well.

BTW, when will we stop sugarcoating Cheney, Bush*, et al?

you have someone making a serious charge that really needs to be investigated and to do that, the FBI needs to talk with the parties involved.

What were they supposed to do?

Believe the chucklehead who made the accusation?
Give the professor a free pass because she is a professor?

The FBI had to investigate the claim.