Understanding The Fan Outrage Over The Sullivan Book From A Native Amercian Perspective
Posted by:
Raven on: December 9 2012 •
My Favorite Pic Of Michael And Jingle Dress Dancer Sage Romero.
The fan outrage over the Sullivan book is being misrepresented in the media. I am personally tired of reading accounts that falsely try to pass this off as fans only wanting books that portray Michael positively. I beg to differ. Of course, I cannot speak for everyone. But from my standpoint, I would simply like to see books that portray Michael as a human being and that do not perpetuate the cliched’ caricature. I was thinking of this the other day when something occurred to me.
I am sure that most of you are aware that I am part Native American. I have mentioned this numerous times. Well, let’s make an analogy here.
Supposing a new book was released that promised to be a sympathetic look at the “plight” of the Native American? Let’s say that said book promised to tell the ugly truth about the US government’s treatment of Native people. Let’s say that said book does offer up some insightful chapters regarding various broken treaties and promises never delivered. So far, so good, right?
But what if in the process, said book also refers to us-not once, not twice, but repeatedley throughout the book-as “bucks” and “squaws”?
What if said book makes repeated references to scalping and highlights historical accounts of atrocities committed against Europeans, while downplaying all of the Native American massacres? And what if said book questions the validity of historical events such as the Sand Creek Massacre, or distorts events leading up to the Trail of Tears? What if said book completely ignores the advancements of civilization made at New Echota, or the Aztec Empire, only to say that all Native people lived only in tipis? What if the book only referred to us as “noble savages” and “misplaced children of the earth” or some such, and basically reduced our humanity and the entire complexity of who we are as a race of people down to nothing more substantial than a sports mascot caricature? What if the only sources or so-called “experts” on Indian culture and identity to be interviewed were descendants of Custer’s scouts and Dick Wilson’s ”goons” hired by the US government? What if the prevailing sentiment of the book was, “Yep, those poor Natives did get a raw deal, but they sure know how to make good fry bread. I love their beadwork; Dances With Wolves was a great movie, and, well, I do love me some Atlanta Braves!”
You get the picture. No matter how “sympathetic” such a book might be in regard to how the US government treated Native people, the end result is that readers still walk away with a false perception of who Native Americans are. They will come away with nothing to combat the idea of us as an inferior race; a stereotyped and carcicatured race who, even today, still are not afforded even the simple dignity and rights of most minority people. All we have to do is look around at the proliferation of sports mascots and team names that mock the true origins of Native people, or the stereotyped and cliched’ portrayals we continue to see in Hollywood (whether romanticized or villified) to see how true this is.
Native people would be understandably outraged over such a book, and most would agree that the potential damage of perpetuating cliches’, stereotypes, and misrepresentations of our people would far outweigh any of its intended good.
Now let’s suppose said author of such book went on a national talk show. An irate Native woman calls and asks if he knows what the word “squaw” actaully means, and what he is actually calling an Indian woman when he calls her by that word? (Hint: It doesn’t mean “woman” so much as it refers to what is between the legs of a woman!). The author simply shrugs, laughs off the question, and says, “But to the average American, the word simply means an Indian woman. No harm done. This word was a generally accepted part of the public lexicon for years. I have to pander to that part of my readership in order to get the ‘truth’ to them.”
Another caller asks how he can dispute that the Sand Creek Massacre, in which over 364 Cheyenne men, women and children died under the direct orders of General Armstrong Custer, happened? Again, said author simply shrugs and says, “Look, only Preseident Lincoln, General Custer, Colonel Chivington, and those 364 Cheyennes would know the truth about that.”
In between calls, the author and host exchange scoffs about “those crazy Indians” who can’t seem to understand or appreciate when someone is working for their benefit.
Our people are constantly being chided. We are told we should “lighten up” when we protest sports teams using our sacred names and defiling our images as mascots; for centuries, we have been expected to simply “take” being caricatured and misrepresented because “that’s just the way things are.”
Interestingly enough, I can also draw parallels between the current situation with the Sullivan book and how Native people have dealt with such conflicts for centuries. You see, just like with MJ fans, we have never been united on anything. You will have the radicals who believe the only way to right injustice is to have a “take no prisoners approach” (think AIM and political prisoners such as Leonard Peltier). Then there are those who think the only correct way to get results is to try to go through the system and do things “the legal way” via the white man’s system.
In the past, it has been proven time and again that neither approach really reaps results. The former almost universally results in arrests, further repatriations, deeper estrangement, and even death. Those arrested may be deemed heroes, but what good are they really serving in jail, when they could be doing far more productive things for our people? Yet history has also taught us that the way of passivity seldom works, either. (The infamous Trail of Tears was the result of leaders who tried to do things within the confines of law-and failed).
You might be asking how any of this has to do with Michael Jackson, or the Sullivan book? Well, obviously, I see a lot of parallels. Those of us who are knowledgable about Michael’s life have engaged in an ongoing battle to see the cliches’ laid to rest; his humanity fully restored, and the respect in his humanity fully restored. Some seem to think that we should settle for less in the name of whatever smidgeon of good this book proposes to do. My position, however, is that allowing the same old misrepresentations to go unchallenged isn’t making progress.
I have heard some ask: What would it matter if Michael wore a prosthetic nose, anyway? What difference should that make? Does it change the fact that he was the greatest entertainer of our time? No, it doesn’t and shouldn’t. But that is not the point.
I would still love Michael if he wore a prosthetic nose. I would still love him if he was gay. Heck, I’m sure I would still love him even if history proved him to be a purple people eater from Mars! These things don’t matter.
But truth
DOES matter. Why should we accept a narrative that insists Michael wore a prosthetic nose, was a presexual virgin, a self hating black man, etc when all of these things have either been proven as blatantly false or at the very least, have enough contrary evidence with which to cast a severe shadow of doubt? We will never get to the truth about Michael by allowing misrepresentation to go unchallenged.
You see, it’s not so much that I care whether Michael wore a prosthetic nose, or had a nose, or died a virgin-if I thought any of it was true! But I do care that what is written about him is presented fairly and accurately. I just don’t see how this can be called going forwards-making progress-when it feels to me like taking ten gigantic leaps back.
But history has taught my people two very harsh lessons. Neither extreme radicalism nor extreme passivity work. Time and again, both have only ended in tragedy and more misunderstanding. There has to be a middle ground. Somehow, we have to find the balance that is assertive strength tempered with humility, grace, and patience. We have to correct misunderstanding and ignorance with education; not angry or bitter words. Yet we can’t afford to not take a stand. Garbage doesn’t always sink to the bottom. Sometimes it floats. Worse yet, it can also stick like slime.
While I have used the Native American experience as an easy analogy for me to relate to, the fact is that this is an issue that should be of concern to
all humanity. Any attempt to exonerate or vindicate Michael Jackson should not have to be at the expense of his humanity. Allowing the caricature, tabloid myth to be perpetuated should not have to be the price that is paid.
Source:
http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=7456#comment-91844
