(no subject)
May. 7th, 2005 10:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lizzybennetHere is my "Lakota Woman" paper.
With Liberty and Justice for All
In the 1970's, America was plagued with hatred, racism and bigotry. The victims of these injustices had endured this treatment for hundreds of years. However, as the civil rights movement began to take momentum, it soon became clear that such wrongs would no longer be tolerated. African Americans, Native Americans and other minorities decided it was time to stop talking about these injustices and start acting against them. On the surface, it may appear that these groups have much in common. Native Americans and African Americans were both fighting for justice, basic human rights and an end to the persecution of their race. However, a deeper look reveals great differences in the way these races defined civil rights and also in the actions they took towards achieving these rights.
Martin Luther King's letter from Birmingham jail provides great insight into the convictions and frustrations fueling the African American civil rights movement. Likewise, Mary Crow Dog's book Lakota Woman seeks to explain the Native American reasons for the formation of AIM – American Indian Movement. In comparing these two documents, basic similarities are immediately evident. When explaining why the African American community had resorted to staging demonstrations in Birmingham, Martin Luther King stated "the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative." Mary Crow Dog also explains that the Native Americans felt they had exhausted all other options. They were constantly betrayed and lied to by whites; there was simply no justice to be had for the Native Americans. It was time to take action. Both documents mention specific examples of violence and murder against their people that had gone uninvestigated. Both documents also tell of house burnings and fire bombings, the humiliation and frustration of segregation and the ordeals of poverty. The challenges and persecutions facing Native Americans and African Americans were similar in many ways. For this reason, many of the same issues were discussed by both Mary Crow Dog and Martin Luther King.
Although the two races faced many of the same difficulties, they held very different definitions of civil rights. Mary Crow Dog states "the movement for Indian rights was first of all a spiritual movement and that our ancient religion was at the heart of it." Native Americans were fighting for the right to practice their religion and culture, both inseparable from each other, with no interference or restrictions from the white man's government. According to Mary, they had no desire to be part of "white America". Although AIM did initially model their cause after the African American civil rights movements, Mary points out that there is a big difference:
Like [African Americans] we were minorities, poor and discriminated against, but there were differences. I think it significant that in many Indian languages a black is called a "black white man." The blacks want what the whites have, which is understandable. They want in. We Indians want out! That is the main difference."
While Mary does point out the injustice of segregation and the poverty faced by her people, these are not the main objectives of their civil rights campaign.
Martin Luther King, on the other hand, specifically mentions de-segregation as a major goal of the African American civil rights movement. He also states "we have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights." Something that seems like a simple right to a white person, such as drinking a cup of coffee undisturbed at a lunch counter—these were the rights being fought for by the African American civil rights movement. The Supreme Court had ruled that segregation was unconstitutional and Martin Luther King and his followers were determined to follow that ruling, despite the many challenges presented them by the deeply entrenched prejudices of the South. Also, he explains that the injustice suffered by the minorities in America were a threat to all Americans. He states:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
Martin Luther King considered the African American peoples' future undeniably linked to the White races' future. Mary Crow Dog, on the other hand, emphasizes that the Native Americans wanted a life completely separated from the White race.
Not only did each group define civil rights very differently, they also sought to gain these rights by dissimilar methods. The African American movement as lead by Martin Luther King was highly organized and implicitly nonviolent. He specifically points out the careful preparation taken before a nonviolent demonstration: collection of facts, negotiation, self-purification and direct action. He explains that demonstrators attended workshops on nonviolence, to assure that they can withstand the blows and jail time without striking back. Also, the Birmingham demonstration was planned so as to be the least disruptive as possible. It was delayed due to Easter and then again in order to accommodate the mayoral election.
The AIM movement, as portrayed by Mary Crow Dog, enjoyed no such organization. Word would spread via the tribal network and large groups would quickly gather at a sight, but no previous planning or training had taken place to prepare for the confrontation. Although AIM leaders attempted to plan for peaceful demonstrations, participants would often begin to vent their frustration through physical displays. When AIM overtook the BIA building in Washington DC, they quickly became disillusioned when President Nixon would not meet with them to discuss their list of 20 demands. As a result, many members soon had built weapons out of anything they could find in the building. Mary used scissors and taped half of them to a broken chair leg. No violence erupted during this demonstration, but it was an ominous foreshadow of the siege at Wounded Knee.
At first glance, this predisposition towards violence by the members of AIM may seem ignorant and desperate. Mary Crow Dog does an excellent job of putting this violent tendency into perspective. When speaking of the Native American's urge to fight when feeling there is no alternative she says "The average white person seldom gets into such a corner, but that corner is where the Indian lives, whether he wants to or not." She also points out that due to alcohol addiction, fighting among themselves had become a part of life. She blames this dependency on alcohol on the White men. Therefore, in a circular way of thinking, whites are responsible for Native American violence.
In 1973, the AIM movement and members of the Sioux nation took over Wounded Knee. This was in response to frustrations at corrupt tribal government as well as anger over a murdered Native American whose white killer was left unpunished. As AIM took over the Wounded Knee, they quickly barricaded themselves in. This stand took place for seventy one days and involved several fire fights with the American government. This drastic action taken by AIM was a desperate plea for help. The Sioux people felt they had no other recourse. Based on Martin Luther King's letter, I doubt he would condone such a stand. Not only was it based in violence (the Native Americans had guns and fired at the government officials), but it was also a blatant disregard for the laws of the land. King makes it clear in his letter that he believes in following just laws. As part of the siege, the Sioux destroyed property and stole supplies. These types of actions are contrary to the philosophy that King advocated.
Martin Luther King and Mary Crow Dog both fought for the justice and liberty of their race. It is clear that the individual races had very different ideas of what they would do with such liberty and freedom. Native Americans desired to be left alone, to practice their customs and religion without interference. African Americans wanted to be allowed to live normal lives as part of main stream American society. Although these goals are vastly different from each other, they stem from the same basic desires. Let all Americans have the same freedoms. Let all Americans have the same access to justice and protection from injustice.
Bibliography
Crow Dog, Mary and Richard Erdoes. Lakota Woman. New York: Harper Perennial, 1990.
King, Martin Luther. Letter from Birmingham Jail. accessed May 6, 2005 http://webmail.uis.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf.
With Liberty and Justice for All
In the 1970's, America was plagued with hatred, racism and bigotry. The victims of these injustices had endured this treatment for hundreds of years. However, as the civil rights movement began to take momentum, it soon became clear that such wrongs would no longer be tolerated. African Americans, Native Americans and other minorities decided it was time to stop talking about these injustices and start acting against them. On the surface, it may appear that these groups have much in common. Native Americans and African Americans were both fighting for justice, basic human rights and an end to the persecution of their race. However, a deeper look reveals great differences in the way these races defined civil rights and also in the actions they took towards achieving these rights.
Martin Luther King's letter from Birmingham jail provides great insight into the convictions and frustrations fueling the African American civil rights movement. Likewise, Mary Crow Dog's book Lakota Woman seeks to explain the Native American reasons for the formation of AIM – American Indian Movement. In comparing these two documents, basic similarities are immediately evident. When explaining why the African American community had resorted to staging demonstrations in Birmingham, Martin Luther King stated "the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative." Mary Crow Dog also explains that the Native Americans felt they had exhausted all other options. They were constantly betrayed and lied to by whites; there was simply no justice to be had for the Native Americans. It was time to take action. Both documents mention specific examples of violence and murder against their people that had gone uninvestigated. Both documents also tell of house burnings and fire bombings, the humiliation and frustration of segregation and the ordeals of poverty. The challenges and persecutions facing Native Americans and African Americans were similar in many ways. For this reason, many of the same issues were discussed by both Mary Crow Dog and Martin Luther King.
Although the two races faced many of the same difficulties, they held very different definitions of civil rights. Mary Crow Dog states "the movement for Indian rights was first of all a spiritual movement and that our ancient religion was at the heart of it." Native Americans were fighting for the right to practice their religion and culture, both inseparable from each other, with no interference or restrictions from the white man's government. According to Mary, they had no desire to be part of "white America". Although AIM did initially model their cause after the African American civil rights movements, Mary points out that there is a big difference:
Like [African Americans] we were minorities, poor and discriminated against, but there were differences. I think it significant that in many Indian languages a black is called a "black white man." The blacks want what the whites have, which is understandable. They want in. We Indians want out! That is the main difference."
While Mary does point out the injustice of segregation and the poverty faced by her people, these are not the main objectives of their civil rights campaign.
Martin Luther King, on the other hand, specifically mentions de-segregation as a major goal of the African American civil rights movement. He also states "we have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights." Something that seems like a simple right to a white person, such as drinking a cup of coffee undisturbed at a lunch counter—these were the rights being fought for by the African American civil rights movement. The Supreme Court had ruled that segregation was unconstitutional and Martin Luther King and his followers were determined to follow that ruling, despite the many challenges presented them by the deeply entrenched prejudices of the South. Also, he explains that the injustice suffered by the minorities in America were a threat to all Americans. He states:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
Martin Luther King considered the African American peoples' future undeniably linked to the White races' future. Mary Crow Dog, on the other hand, emphasizes that the Native Americans wanted a life completely separated from the White race.
Not only did each group define civil rights very differently, they also sought to gain these rights by dissimilar methods. The African American movement as lead by Martin Luther King was highly organized and implicitly nonviolent. He specifically points out the careful preparation taken before a nonviolent demonstration: collection of facts, negotiation, self-purification and direct action. He explains that demonstrators attended workshops on nonviolence, to assure that they can withstand the blows and jail time without striking back. Also, the Birmingham demonstration was planned so as to be the least disruptive as possible. It was delayed due to Easter and then again in order to accommodate the mayoral election.
The AIM movement, as portrayed by Mary Crow Dog, enjoyed no such organization. Word would spread via the tribal network and large groups would quickly gather at a sight, but no previous planning or training had taken place to prepare for the confrontation. Although AIM leaders attempted to plan for peaceful demonstrations, participants would often begin to vent their frustration through physical displays. When AIM overtook the BIA building in Washington DC, they quickly became disillusioned when President Nixon would not meet with them to discuss their list of 20 demands. As a result, many members soon had built weapons out of anything they could find in the building. Mary used scissors and taped half of them to a broken chair leg. No violence erupted during this demonstration, but it was an ominous foreshadow of the siege at Wounded Knee.
At first glance, this predisposition towards violence by the members of AIM may seem ignorant and desperate. Mary Crow Dog does an excellent job of putting this violent tendency into perspective. When speaking of the Native American's urge to fight when feeling there is no alternative she says "The average white person seldom gets into such a corner, but that corner is where the Indian lives, whether he wants to or not." She also points out that due to alcohol addiction, fighting among themselves had become a part of life. She blames this dependency on alcohol on the White men. Therefore, in a circular way of thinking, whites are responsible for Native American violence.
In 1973, the AIM movement and members of the Sioux nation took over Wounded Knee. This was in response to frustrations at corrupt tribal government as well as anger over a murdered Native American whose white killer was left unpunished. As AIM took over the Wounded Knee, they quickly barricaded themselves in. This stand took place for seventy one days and involved several fire fights with the American government. This drastic action taken by AIM was a desperate plea for help. The Sioux people felt they had no other recourse. Based on Martin Luther King's letter, I doubt he would condone such a stand. Not only was it based in violence (the Native Americans had guns and fired at the government officials), but it was also a blatant disregard for the laws of the land. King makes it clear in his letter that he believes in following just laws. As part of the siege, the Sioux destroyed property and stole supplies. These types of actions are contrary to the philosophy that King advocated.
Martin Luther King and Mary Crow Dog both fought for the justice and liberty of their race. It is clear that the individual races had very different ideas of what they would do with such liberty and freedom. Native Americans desired to be left alone, to practice their customs and religion without interference. African Americans wanted to be allowed to live normal lives as part of main stream American society. Although these goals are vastly different from each other, they stem from the same basic desires. Let all Americans have the same freedoms. Let all Americans have the same access to justice and protection from injustice.
Bibliography
Crow Dog, Mary and Richard Erdoes. Lakota Woman. New York: Harper Perennial, 1990.
King, Martin Luther. Letter from Birmingham Jail. accessed May 6, 2005 http://webmail.uis.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf.