|
Correcting and exposing the "hero" myths. And though people like Zinn and Loewen ("Lies My Teacher TOld Me") are adept at exposing these myths, there are a few that htey miss.
One in particular, almost isolated to the left, is the "little brown hero" myth.
In this myth, men like Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, Martin Luther King, and Mohandas Gandhi are admired for their pacifism (or assumed pacifism, in the case of Chief Joseph) while their actual personalities and stances and actions are stripped away to only that which supports the "wise pacifist" myth.
Why "little brown hero"? Becuase white people never get this treatment. Some white people get similar treatment; Helen Keller has become nothing more than a woman who overcame her blindness and deafness; no mention is made of her being a militant socialist and feminist. But no whites are hailed and held up as icons for giving up, or for not fighting back. Only brown people get this. And as strange as it seems, it's primarily a left-wing phenomena (the right simply doesn't consider brown people at all, is why)
Why is Chief Joseph famous? What statement is he most well-known for, and often praised for his wisdom for having so uttered? "I will fight no more, forever" is the phrase everyone who's gone to public school remembers out of the history of the Indian wars. The character of Chief Joseph is cast as a wise Indian who saw the futility of fighting, and instead declined to do so, to the benefit of all.
"Tell General Howard I know his heart. What he told me before, I have it in my heart. I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Too-hul-hul-sote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are—perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever."
Everyone is dead, or dying. You have crushed us. Let us live, and we will do what you want, and will not fight you.
The history books do not teach that Chief Joseph had just finished leading what had started off as one of the most successful Indian wars in American history. it does not mention that he was doing so because his people were being forced off their land for cattle interests, and forced to move to a reservation of another tribe. It makes no mention of the extensive efforts made by the US military to crush the "rebellion" and prevent there being any prisoners. It makes no mention of the Wallowa Band's last stand.
it simply tells you that Joseph (never Hinmuuttu-yalatlat by the way) will fight no more, forever. And he's hailed as a hero for that, instead of being hailed as a hero for standing up for the rights of his people. And many on the left admire him for his perceived anti-war stance, never knowing that until his defeat, he was regarded as the most dangerous man on the continent, and even after, he was hailed as a magnificent war-maker even by his enemies, called "The Red Napoleon" (unfortunately unlike the Corsican, he never had a comeback tour)
Similar treatment is given to other native "heroes" - Pocahontas and Sacajawea are not self-sufficient women who's hard work was absolutely integral to the survival of those around them, who traveled the world in an era when even most men did not travel more than ten miles from home. Rather, these two women are relegated to the status of "And she married a white guy, so we should admire her" - they don't have their own stories, they become a prop in the stories of the white people around them.
Now, look at men like Tecumseh, Osceola, Geronimo, and Crazy Horse. Granted a lot of newer textbooks have washed away the hatred expressed towards these guys, but the message remains the same; their efforts were futile and doomed, they do not deserve admiration because they did nothing, and got lots of people killed" - and then it holds up Chief Joseph, who's fight was also ultimately futile, who killed lots of Americans and lost a good number of his own people, but formally gave up.
The message is clear here; The Indian who bends knee to the white is a good Indian. The Indian who keeps fighting for what was his is a fool at best, a villain at worst.
This mentality continues even today. Lots on the left are familiar with the name Leonard Peltier. However for very few of them is he his own man with his own ideas. He has been stripped of his ideas and personality and instead serves as an icon for those who (rightly) oppose the industrial prison system and criminality of federal law enforcement agencies. But no air time is given to his red power idealism. The occupation of Wounded Knee and the Federal BIA offices are never mentioned. Instead Peltier is simply reduced to "this guy who's a political prisoner" with no mention of what his political crimes actually are.
other examples? Gandhi and King. Oh goodness, these two men have been trammeled through the little Brown Hero maker so much that they're nearly unrecognizable.
Stripped of personality (especially personality flaws), their ideas are reduced to a bare few notions that are "acceptable" - such as the vaunted passive resistance movements they both led. There's nothing wrong with passive resistance, but it's portrayed as the whole story. They are heroes for their passivity (despite the fact that both men were anything BUT passive, and both had moments of militancy). Again, the reason for this is that the passive resistance didn't disturb the dominant whites too much, so it's held up as a pinnacle of goodness. And if King and Gandhi are reduced to pale, easily-digestable fragments of themselves to play into the Little Brown Hero myth, then you can imagien the treatment the people behind them get.
In these stories, there are not three hundred and fifty million Indians. There were not twenty-two million black Americans. if htye're there, they're just props. They are not angry or upset, they just follow in the wake of King and Gandhi (and no mention is made of how those two had to bust their asses to keep things peaceful, much less that they were often unsuccessful) There are no individual stories. There are no other civil rights activists (anyone ever seen Samuel Wilbert Tucker or Al Sharpton mentioned in the books next to King? Muhammad Ali Jinnah alongside Gandhi?) - just these two men, doing the white people a good turn by keeping the torches and pitchforks at bay.
Now look at Malcom X in a history book. He's a footnote, and often reviled in a way that only Benedict Arnold and John Brown can relate with. He doesn't fit into the script, and so is either a bad guy or a non-entity.
This is repeated time and time again; Anwar Sadat is a good guy for making friends with America's allies, despite the fact that his rule was more brutal and murderous than anything cooked up by that villain Arafat. The Dalai Lama is a respected hero, despite being a theocratic remnant of one of the most abusive elitist societies in modern history, because he is also an anticommunist and hums a peaceful tune.
A brown man or woman cannot be a hero unless he is pulling the cart for the white people.
Again, this is never a standard held to whites. Many people, right and left, admire figures like Washington, Napoleon, Mother Jones, and Kennedy, despite all of these people being aggressive, even militaristic and violent. Texas has fetishized the Alamo, which was a bunch of (mostly) white guys who got their asses killed fighting over property they had stolen. They're heroes for their senseless violence, while Gandhi can only be a hero for his pacifism.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
