Mille Lacs Messenger "Letter of the week" — A response to Mr. Dahlheimer
Written by Cheryl Anderson
Sunday, 20 September 2009
A response to Mr. Dahlheimer
As I read your letter in the Sept. 9 issue of the Messenger, I learned a few new things, especially with respect to the
information about the Doctrine of Discovery, which I had never heard of, but agree it is somewhat outdated and discriminatory.
But I became more than a little confused when I read the draft apology resolution. Here are my areas of confusion.:
1. An apology is generally defined as an acknowledgement of a wrongdoing; essentially saying "I'm sorry" and vowing
not to repeat such action in the future. From my perspective, the draft seems to imply that an apology is not enough.
It also seems to imply that the federal dollars that were/are distributed to the American Indians on a monthly basis
as restitution for the wrongs of the past (as I understand it), the federal recognition of sovereign nation status,
and the individual states that have granted sole proprietorship of gambling establishments in an effort to give the
American Indians a viable source of income for raising/maintaining a living standard at least equal to other citizens
of the United States are also insufficient. Why?
2. How can one liken the current situation of the American Indian to that of the subjugation of the African slaves
of the past? Please correct me if I am wrong, but, to my knowledge, currently there are no American Indians
(and I count many among my dearest friends) who have been denied the right to vote, the right to a free public education,
the right to be gainfully employed, the right to purchase/own land, the right to hold office, the right to enter/access
any public establishment, the right to bear arms, or the freedoms of speech and religion. These are the same rights
granted to all citizens residing in the United States. How is that subjugation?
Especially if you also consider that American Indians have the added privilege of dual citizenship — U.S. and
their sovereign nation.
So, what I am seeing in this draft is basically another attempt to return all land previously occupied by the
aboriginal natives 200-plus years ago to the current tribe members. The sad reality in that is, that in striving
to achieve this goal, aren't you proposing that the American Indians should do to the current residents of
these properties exactly what was done to their ancestors? Since hindsight tells us all that it was wrong then —
it is still wrong — and most people know two wrongs do not make a right.
If I have misunderstood the premise, please feel free to respond. I would like to understand whether I end up agreeing or not.
Cheryl Anderson, Wahkon
|