Greg Laden's Blog

You know, I get the point these kids are trying to make, but everytime I see one of these Robert Erickson videos (they made the rounds on Facebook last week) I get a little troubled. And it's not by his agenda or the reaction of the crowd.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he's probably of Scandinavian descent. I might be wrong, but I'd go further and guess that he's probably not a member of a tribe. This looks a lot like a bunch of college students decided to pull a prank and "stick it to the right-wing idiots" by exploiting what is for many Indians still a very sensitive and CURRENT issue regarding the loss of land and sovereignty. And for what? To embarrass some people on YouTube and get some jollies out of it.

10 bucks since they've never once attended a rally to pay the Lakota what the federal government owes them. 20 says they can't even name the Minnesota reservations. But who cares as long as the people living there, quietly out of sight, can be used to get a cheap laugh and make yourself feel self-righteous about sticking it to The racist Man.

Posted by: Colin | November 25, 2009 2:43 PM

Colin,

To give you some context about the political background that has informed my recent actions check these two groups which I am involved with.

http://unsettlingminnesota.org/

http://mirac1.wordpress.com/

Thats all I'm going to give you for now.

Posted by: Robert Erickson | November 25, 2009 3:18 PM

Robert - I admit, my assumption that you and your friends are ignorant in this regard was wrong. Sorry about that. I still, however, question whether or not your actions constitute continued Western exploitation of the colonized, with a friendly face this time.

Alice - speaking of conflating, you seem to be working under the opinion that all indigenous people are more or less the same and constitute some single group of people. With very few exceptions, the US and Mexico consist of the former territories of very different Indian tribes. That's CERTAINLY true when you get as far north as Minnesota.

You're also apparently working under the opinion that the last 400 years didn't happen. Like it or not, laws have been made and borders established in that time. I might as well claim that since my ancestors are native to the northern hemisphere, I can't be an illegal immigrant if I just decide to move to Mexico or Canada without bothering with the legally-established channels. After all, why stop ignoring conceptual divisions at the level at the state?

Posted by: Colin | November 25, 2009 4:57 PM

Colin,

Care to elaborate on what you see as exploitative about the action?

The goal wasn't to get laughs or gain activist cred points, but to subvert the authority of the state by turning its racist rhetoric and policy on its head.

I believe this works toward the liberation of all people myself included, and all I can do is assure you that my intentions are not to gain internet fame.

Posted by: Robert Erickson | November 25, 2009 5:29 PM

BINGO!!!!

I just filled in my whole neocon Bingo card!

Hijack the concept of "subvert" by changing the word "subvert to "hijack"

Note that the side being mocked/subverted does not "get it", so why bother it will just make them more resolved

Dismantle broad argument about racism by getting pedantic about some detail like, in this case, geography.

Etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: Elizabeth | November 25, 2009 6:10 PM

Colin, no and there will never be such a law unless the group disappears completely. Neoconservatism is a rather pedestrian and commonplace form of evil, and it's quite reasonable to point to it when one sees it.

Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 25, 2009 6:24 PM

Oh, I've got no problems with counter-protests. ESPECIALLY if it's a counter-protest against the racist trash that usually gets spouted at Anti-Immigration Rallies. I'm just questioning the form that counter-protest takes, the historical and ideological frame within which it occurs, and the subsequent chance of that counter-protest achieving anything meaningful (or "good").

Posted by: Colin | November 25, 2009 6:30 PM

So what you're saying, Colin, is that you're very concerned...and you'd have done it better anyway, but not in any specific anyway.

Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 25, 2009 6:34 PM

Colin,

Did you ever consider that the tea baggers are not the audience in this action? They are the last person I care about in an action like this. At their expense an important contradiction was pointed out in the racist and xenophobic rhetoric of the immigration debate.

Additionally, (not at the expense of) it raised questions of what it means to be a settler on native land stolen through genocide, fraudulent treaties and ethnic cleansing. Maybe you can ask the Dakota folks we work directly with whether they felt exploited by this action rather than making assumption after assumption.

Judging by your comments about this action, I would like to make an assumption of my own to say that you probably have more in common with the tea baggers than myself and the communities of resistance that are working for justice.

Posted by: Robert Erickson | November 25, 2009 7:32 PM

"the tea baggers are not the audience in this action?"

vs

"Do you think that's going to happen if you ignore and ridicule the people that disagree with you? "

Teabaggers? Giving support to indigenous rights movements or any immigration policy that stops short of shooting them dead at the border? A lost cause.

Posted by: Elizabeth | November 25, 2009 8:25 PM

"HazelStone: A possible alternative question might be: Why would this NOT be the case? What is the legal justification for Dakota Oyate/Oceti Sakowin NOT having that role?"

The point I'm trying to make is that no group should be telling anyone where they should live. Buying into that is as much bullshit as saying the US should be allowed to deport people. This doesn't seem very radical to me.

Posted by: HazelStone | November 28, 2009 9:23 PM