The great myth of the power of political representation – having a seat at the table – is the primary lens through which most "firsts" are filtered. It makes sense on some level. Landing indigenous officials like Haaland, a progressive legislature who supports tribal consultation and reducing fossil fuel activities in local and public areas, in positions of power is an important step in ensuring that indigenous voices are heard and heard within the American government be reinforced. If no one represents the interests of tribal nations and communities, those interests will be silenced or unheard.
But we cannot forget an unfortunate truth that history has taught us many times. As has been the case for centuries, ensuring the well-being of indigenous communities is a legal mandate that the federal government wants to break with every annual budget. And while Haaland's appointment has rightly been recognized as historic, the indigenous peoples have occupied positions of great power within this colonial machine. Many of them wanted to make sure these mandates were kept only to remain bitter or to turn into an active participant in the Grand American tradition of breach of contract and apology. Haaland has the potential to overcome these structural obstacles and do justice to the unheard corners of Indian land, just as the next Republican government will have the potential to erase those gains and bring us back to the regularly scheduled program of recognizing tribal nations as a national inconvenience to treat . This is the difficult push-pull she is up against.
After all, it's still about the United States.
There is no better case study of the paradox of indigenous participation in colonial government than that of Charles Curtis, a longtime member of Congress and the first and only Native American vice president in US history. (…)
THREE OTHER ARTICLES THAT WOULD READ
BEST COMMENTS • • SAVED DIARIES • THE SHORT
TWEET OF THE DAY
Ron Johnson is up for re-election in 2022 in a state that has just elected a Democratic governor, a Democratic governor, a Democratic attorney general, a Democratic senator, and a Democrat president.
– Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) February 23, 2021
“The loss in Vietnam radicalized a generation of veterans and pushed many into the ranks of white supremacist groups. Ronald Reagan, the flag bearer of a rising New Right, effectively used this radicalization, which helped him to victory in his 1980 presidential campaign. Once in office, Reagan's renewed escalation of the Cold War allowed him to contain radicalization and prevent it (too much) from spilling over into domestic politics. Anti-communist campaigns in Central America – a region Reagan called "our southern border" – have been particularly helpful in turning militancy outside. But Reagan's Central American Wars (which included support for the Contras in Nicaragua and the death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) produced millions of refugees, many, perhaps most, of whom fled to the United States. When they got over the border, they ignited the same constituencies Reagan had mobilized to wage the wars that turned them into refugees in the first place. "
~~ Greg Grandin, The end of the myth: From the border to the border wall in the head of America (2019)
BLAST FROM THE PAST
That day at Daily Kos in 2003– Americans believe the war will increase terror::
Bush Co. and its media and war blogging cabal argue that eliminating Saddam will help the nation combat the terrorist threat. However, the public is not buying it. In the latest CBS News poll, 59 percent of respondents believed war would lead to more terrorism in the US. Only 12 percent thought it would reduce the threat.
Additionally, 60 percent of all respondents and 40 percent of Republicans believe that the US should wait for the approval of the United Nations before invading.
Not that Bush would heed the poll results, but it does suggest that he will drag this nation to war without the full and enthusiastic support of the people – a reality that can have ramifications later