Immigration: An indigenous perspective
On my truck I have a bumper sticker which says, "Immigration Causes Problems Just Ask An American Indian." It makes for a good conversation piece. However, generally, no one, certainly, most U.S. Euro-Americans, asks our (Dakota People, Indigenous Peoples) opinion of anything, and certainly not about immigration. Our views are considered insignificant. However, this Indigenous person, a Dakota man, does have an opinion, does have a viewpoint. So, I will share some comments about this topic about which many white people, especially Republicans, racists, and anti-Indigenous Peoples, get very excited.
I preface my comments with the statement that I come from a people whose lands were stolen. So, my opinion will differ from those people who stole the lands. Also, I will be contrasting the behaviors of those early immigrants from those of the more recent immigrants. By "early immigrants," I am referring to those people who came from Western Europe in the period from 1492 to the first half of the 20th century. By my use of the phrase "recent immigrants," I am referring to those peoples who generally have come from Mexico, Central America, and from South America, and who came in the second half of the 20th century to the present (2010).
LAND THEFT
The early immigrants certainly did cause considerable problems for the Indigenous Peoples of what is now known as the United States of America. For example, these first "boat people" stole approximately three billion acres of land in the continental U.S. Then, these early immigrants did not pay for these lands, and they still have not. In my opinion, this is indeed a serious problem. We, as Indigenous Peoples, and for my Dakota People, have about only one percent of the 3 billion acres we once had. Thus, we, the Indigenous Peoples, do not benefit from our lands, and the land-stealers, the early immigrants, reap all the benefits.
As I view the recent immigrants (most of whom are Indigenous Peoples), they are not here to steal the lands. The white man has stolen all the land. So, there is no land to steal for the recent immigrants. Thus, from an Indigenous perspective, the recent immigrants do not pose a problem
BROKEN TREATIES
Another serious problem is the fact that these early immigrants, these land stealers, and their government, the United States government, made approximately 400 treaties with the Indigenous Peoples and violated every one of them. These early immigrants are not honest and are not people of integrity. They are promise-breakers. One cannot trust them.
The recent immigrants, from Mexico, Central America, and from South America, did not make treaties with us, and, thus, they did not violate or break treaties. One point I should make is that only sovereign, autonomous, and independent Peoples can make a treaty. Once our Peoples were strong and, thus, we made treaties with various and autonomous foreign powers, including the United States. Our Dakota People, also, made a treaty with England.
Again, from an Indigenous point-of-view, the recent immigrants are not a problem for the Indigenous Peoples of these lands which currently bear the name of the United States of America.
GENOCIDE
One of the more serious problems the early immigrants (the Wasicu, the Dakota word for white man) caused for the Indigenous Peoples is what Russell Means calls "a little matter of genocide", a phrase for the title of one of Dr. Ward Churchill's book. Around 1500, there were approximately sixteen (16) million Indigenous Peoples living in the continental U.S. Four centuries later, in 1900, the Bureau of Census, counted approximately 237,000+ Native Peoples. This represented a 98.5 percent population decline, if one says it nicely. If one says it not so nicely, this represents a 98.5 percent extermination rate.
The United States and its Euro-American population were efficient killers. In fact, they were so efficient that Hitler learned from the U.S. Hitler, according to Toland in his book, HITLER, supposedly the definitive biography of Hitler, said, a number of times to his inner circle how much he admired the efficiency of the U.S. genocidal programs against the Indigenous Peoples of the U.S. that he saw them as the models and forerunners of his own programs against the Jews, Gypsies, the physically handicapped, and against everyone else he did not like. Stannard in his book, AMERICAN HOLOCAUST, a book about the holocaust of the Native Peoples of the U.S., says that by the late 19th century, there was "almost no one left to kill."
I do not see the recent immigrants killing our Indigenous Peoples. So, again, from an aboriginal perspective, the recent immigrants are not a problem.
There are many other problems that the white man, the early immigrants, caused for Indigenous Peoples, such as suppression of our languages, suppression of our "religions" (our Spirituality, our ceremonies, etc.), residential boarding schools, concentration camps, bounties, forced marches, mass executions, forced removals from homelands, etc. etc. etc. However, for lack of space, these will not be discussed. Suffice it to say that the recent immigrants did not cause the problems mentioned above.
One last comment I would like to make. Many, if not most, of the recent immigrants who come from Mexico, Central America, and from South America are Indigenous Peoples. That is, they are descended from ancestors who always lived in what is call the American hemisphere. Most of them (the recent immigrants), I suspect, are not from ancestors who come from Europe.
One of our teachings that I have heard from many of our Native spiritual leaders is the fact that the Americas (North, Central, and South) were given by the Creator to the Indigenous Peoples to take care of. And, of course, the Indigenous Peoples did care for the land ("Mother Earth") for thousands upon thousands of years, and it, the American hemisphere, was a beautiful country when the invaders, the exploiters, the land stealers, the recent immigrants came. Today, we see the destruction, the pollution, the poisoning of the lands (fertilizers, insecticides, etc.) and the degradation of our lands in the past 534 years since the early immigrants (the white man) arrived.
In my mind, all of the Americas are for Indigenous Peoples, and the recent immigrants, most of them Indigenous Peoples, have as much right to be here in the U.S. as the early immigrants (the white man). In my mind, when a U.S. Euro-American expresses his anger against immigration, s/he is expressing his racial hatred of Indigenous Peoples, just as s/he does here in the U.S. against the Indigenous Peoples who not only were here first but were always here.
Yes, immigration causes problems!
If anyone wishes to see documentation for some of the assertions, please contact me at " chris.matonunpa@metrostate.edu ".
Chris Mato Nunpa, Ph.D.
RETIRED Formerly, an Associate Professor
Indigenous Nations & Dakota Studies
The Twin Cities Daily Planet is an edited news source produced by professional journalists working in collaboration with citizen journalists from the local community. We publish original reported news articles, articles republished from media partners, and some content (Free Speech Zone articles, reader-submitted blog entries, comments) that is moderated but not edited. Click here for a complete description of our editorial policies. Support people-powered non-profit journalism! Volunteer, contribute news, or become a member to keep the Daily Planet in orbit. |
Chris Mato Nunpa, Ph.D is a retired Associate Professor of Indigenous Nations & Dakota Studies (INDS) at Southwest Minnesota State University in Marshall
We're people-powered journalism! Click on story links (below) to see more story information, and then email editor@tcdailyplanet.net if you want to report.
• 
Comments
I think your article had a
I think your article had a lot of good points, but there were some I felt I disagreed with. For one, you often say "the white man" or white people in general are to blame for land theft, genocide and violence. I think it's an overgeneralization, and at least somewhat racist, to lump all white people together that way. The Europeans who came over to the US with the intent to colonize, and the ones who pushed the indigenous people off their lands are to blame. However, not all European-Americans came to the land to rape and plunder. I'm of mixed ancestry (German-Jewish/Polish/Czech/Irish/Dutch), and could be classified as white, though my father's ancestors came here to escape persecution by the Aryan Germans (and many who didn't come here, died in Auschwitz). My Irish ancestors themselves had lands stolen by Anglo-Protestants, and were the victims of English oppression and ethnic cleansing. They came to this land since they had little choice. The Slavic side as well suffered persecution back in Europe (Hitler considered Slavs to be subhuman, like the Jews, and my mothers ancestors as well died in Auschwitz). So not all white folks are simply the greedy, territory stealing horde, and many of us didn't have a choice where we were born (I'd have preferred to have been born back in the land of my ancestors, to get a chance to wear the mask of the Óglaigh na hÉireann and fight back for my land, but I was born here). Please don't accuse all people with a certain skin color of the same evil.
"American Holocaust"
Read Dave's footnotes before using his population figures.
Are you kidding?
"For your statement to be true, a large majority of the indigenous peoples would have to be leaving their homes and this is just not the case."
Seriously? History has shown the Europeans to do the exact same thing whenever they went out of Europe and settled, well, just about anywhere. Be it the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa... The reason the populations of those latin American countries is so low is due to the genocide and diseases the Europeans brought.
It's much too late now but I wished Indigenous Peoples had not allowed the Europeans to take over their land. The world would probably be a lot safer today had they done that.
Nice article
Great statement; i think Americans need to hear a lot more of this type of thing. If you trace history back you'll find that much of the west/southwest U.S. was once controlled by Mexico. European immigrants forcefully took that land as well. How can European immigrants really ever be justified in what they did. How can they really ever be justified in being angry about Mexicans migrating into land that was once thiers.
To the above poster "...clarification is needed..." I'm not going to do the research myself because your point is still not really relevant but did you verify whether or not those countries "non natives" are made up of people from other South American countries? I ask because a lot of those countries are small and I'm sure people migrate from one to another pretty easily.
The point Chris Mato Nunpa Ph.D. was making in his statement is that the people migrating from south of our borders are native to the North/South American continents. When you look at a single countries statistics generally "non natives" are people from other countries correct? I don't think that South American countries only consider people from other continents "non natives."
Thank you for your article -
Thank you for your article - it is refreshing to hear a very different viewpoint from what one usually sees. Continuing on the theme of one of the other commentators above, I would like to say that the Mexican people are not for the most part wholly indigenous, but arose from a blending of primarilly Spanish and Idigenous peoples and cultures. Very, very few Mexicans could claim that they have no foreign ancestry.
I don't see where this would change your overall point, however.
Thank you again for your article, and I look forward to more.
Anytime I turn on the news I
Anytime I turn on the news I feel ashamed to be white.
@the commenter who made a correction
@ the commenter who made a "correction" - I think the author was pointing to the fact that the VAST majority of residents in Central and South America and Mexico are not "pure Spanish" or "pure European", but have indigenous ancestors as well. There is a reason people in Mexico and Central+South America are darker than Europeans tend to be...
Thank you
I may be white, but I've always felt that people of European decent have no business complaining about immigration, considering all our ancestors are immigrants.
Thank you for the well thought out an well argued editorial.
Who's owns the sky?
I am really sympathetic towards this statement and I appreciate the rhetorical value of it. But there is a dualism in that should really be pointed out. And I think it could be to the advantage of the author's argument: my understanding is that the indigenous people did not really think of the land as a posses-able thing... something that could be owned. It might be likened to someone 'stealing' your sky, divvying it up among themselves. OTOH, It's probably a point to truthful and so too subtle to really help in the current 'debate'.
Early Immigrants?
"Early immigrants" for a time period of over 400 years? Why dont you just say White vs Hispanic.
And there are plenty of "Recent immigrants" that are White from Hispanic countries. White Europeans stole that land too. So to say they are all indigenous and blameless is wrong.
Early Immigrants?
"Early immigrants" for a time period of over 400 years? Why dont you just say White vs Hispanic.
And there are plenty of "Recent immigrants" that are White from Hispanic countries. White Europeans stole that land too. So to say they are all indigenous and blameless is wrong.
Clarifiacation of your clarification
Im sorry, but to comment on your comment about Mexicos indigenous population is less than 10% disregards the fact that the majority of mexico is Mestizo or mixed. In fact current demographics for mexico are: Mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%.
I happen to be a Mexican who works with North American Indian Cultural Preservation Offices and I really appreciate this article. I and the peoples I work with have often discussed how indigenous peoples of this country have been neglected and treated unfairly. As brothers or sisters, second wave immigration is not the problem but rather the treatment (and non recognition) of Indigenous Peoples throughout the Americas.
Granted Mexicos laws are not the best in terms of treating Indigenous peoples fairly, they at least recognize their existence. For example, In 2003 Congress approved the General Law of Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes that Mexico's history makes its indigenous languages, "national languages". If the U.S. could do something like this, we would have a greater chance of preserving a cultural heritage that has been ravaged and continually being lost due to modernism and Europeanization (or modern Americanization).
On the comment of Wed, 2010-09-08
Yes, the indigenous populations of the countries you mention are broken down on those percentages. However, I believe you missed the point the author was trying to make. 30% of the Peruvian population is exclusively indigenous. They live in the Andes mountain range and in the Amazon region. I am sure some of the exclusively indigenous peoples of Peru have migrated to the United States but that its not the point of the author.
I think the author was refering to ancestry. That is, your ethnic, racial and cultural heritage. Almost all (if not all) peoples in the region called Latin America have some indigenous ancestry in them. So, the claim that "many, if not most of the immigrants that come from Central America and South America are Indigenous Peoples" is correct.
Dr. Nunpa, I wish I could take one of your classes.
This is why I hate being
This is why I hate being white and want to kill myself
I'm afraid I lost interest in
I'm afraid I lost interest in the opinion here when you started in with the whole 'the white people took everything'. It's this Us and Them attitude that causes the problems in the first place. The very idea that you are inherently different from white people because their ancestors mistreated your ancestors is flawed, horribly flawed logic. No one can possibly know what your life would be like (or if you would exist) if Europeans hadn't stolen and killed their way through north america. Maybe it would be better, maybe it would be worse or maybe just different. I don't think immigrants should be disallowed from coming to the US or denied access to anyhtign we offer or to look for a better life because they are all HUMAN BEINGS like myself and I respect their lives and their need to survive and desire to improve their lives. The past is the past. Horrible things were done to the people of my ancestry too, as has been done to the jews, the poles, the spanish, the french, the indians. Everyone has abused everyone at some point in the past and at what point do we say "that's gong back a bit" and why should you or anyone else get to decided when retribution is due?
In response to your article
I am a descendant of the "white man".
I'm white, and I'm sorry. I can empathize and understand where you are coming from.
Thanks for speaking out,
Neil
Thank you
Excellent, interesting article. Thank you.
Great read except clarification is needed on at least one point.
The article states:
"One last comment I would like to make. Many, if not most, of the recent immigrants who come from Mexico, Central America, and from South America are Indigenous Peoples. That is, they are descended from ancestors who always lived in what is call the American hemisphere. Most of them (the recent immigrants), I suspect, are not from ancestors who come from Europe."
I do not know the indigenous makeup of every Central and South American country but, Peru is the highest at just over 30% of the population indigenous. Mexico's indigenous population is less than 10% of the population. In Honduras, indigenous people make up 7% of the population. Columbia is lower at less than 1% of the poulation being indigenous.
For your statement to be true, a large majority of the indigenous peoples would have to be leaving their homes and this is just not the case.
correction
1st ColOmbia, not ColUmbia. In Spanish and in Eglish the name of the country is with an O.
2nd about Mexico: you are partly right just read this "Some 60% of the population identified themselves as being of mixed racial descent, 30% as indigenous, and 10% as white."
3rd Peru: "Peru's racial structure can be classified as 45% Amerindian, 37% mestizo (mixed Amerindian and European), 15% White, and 3% African, Japanese, Chinese, and other."
4rth Colombia: According to the CIA World Factbook, the majority of the population (58%) is Mestizo, or of mixed European and Amerindian ancestry. Approximately 20% of the population is of European ancestry (predominantly Spanish, partly Italian, Portuguese, and German). 4% of Colombia's total population is of mixed African and European ancestry, with 3% being of mixed African and Amerindian ancestry, and 4% having primarily African ancestry. Indigenous Amerindians comprise only 1% of the population.
In every country the percentage change, but you can see in the case of Mexico that almost 90% of the population can count in their ancestry some amerindian roots. So, maybe reality is in the middle, not all immigrants may be related to the "Indigenous Peoples" but many can make that claim. IMHO the article is right, but hey! is just MY opinion based on the facts I have.
indigenous
-- says the dude who's never been to any of these countries and when he sees mexicans he thinks they look just as white as the german dude on vacation in orlando.
there's a reason why they're brown.
Extra Clarification
Im sorry, but to comment on your comment about Mexicos indigenous population is less than 10% disregards the fact that the majority of mexico is Mestizo or mixed. In fact current demographics for mexico are: Mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%.
I happen to be a Mexican who works with North American Indian Cultural Preservation Offices and I really appreciate this article. I and the peoples I work with have often discussed how indigenous peoples of this country have been neglected and treated unfairly. As brothers or sisters, second wave immigration is not the problem but rather the treatment (and non recognition) of Indigenous Peoples throughout the Americas.
Granted Mexicos laws are not the best in terms of treating Indigenous peoples fairly, they at least recognize their existence. For example, In 2003 Congress approved the General Law of Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes that Mexico's history makes its indigenous languages, "national languages". If the U.S. could do something like this, we would have a greater chance of preserving a cultural heritage that has been ravaged and continually being lost due to modernism and Europeanization (or modern Americanization).
Extra Clarification
Im sorry, but to comment on your comment about Mexicos indigenous population is less than 10% disregards the fact that the majority of mexico is Mestizo or mixed. In fact current demographics for mexico are: Mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%.
I happen to be a Mexican who works with North American Indian Cultural Preservation Offices and I really appreciate this article. I and the peoples I work with have often discussed how indigenous peoples of this country have been neglected and treated unfairly. As brothers or sisters, second wave immigration is not the problem but rather the treatment (and non recognition) of Indigenous Peoples throughout the Americas.
Granted Mexicos laws are not the best in terms of treating Indigenous peoples fairly, they at least recognize their existence. For example, In 2003 Congress approved the General Law of Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes that Mexico's history makes its indigenous languages, "national languages". If the U.S. could do something like this, we would have a greater chance of preserving a cultural heritage that has been ravaged and continually being lost due to modernism and Europeanization (or modern Americanization).
Extra Clarification
Im sorry, but to comment on your comment about Mexicos indigenous population is less than 10% disregards the fact that the majority of mexico is Mestizo or mixed. In fact current demographics for mexico are: Mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%.
I happen to be a Mexican who works with North American Indian Cultural Preservation Offices and I really appreciate this article. I and the peoples I work with have often discussed how indigenous peoples of this country have been neglected and treated unfairly. As brothers or sisters, second wave immigration is not the problem but rather the treatment (and non recognition) of Indigenous Peoples throughout the Americas.
Granted Mexicos laws are not the best in terms of treating Indigenous peoples fairly, they at least recognize their existence. For example, In 2003 Congress approved the General Law of Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes that Mexico's history makes its indigenous languages, "national languages". If the U.S. could do something like this, we would have a greater chance of preserving a cultural heritage that has been ravaged and continually being lost due to modernism and Europeanization (or modern Americanization).
Maybe you are focused on the
Maybe you are focused on the pop. with only indigenous ancestors but according to the CIA world fact book, the demographics break down this way.
Peru: 45% indigenous, 37% mestizo (Mixed indigenous/ European), 82% pop. have indigenous heritage
Mexico: 30% indigenous, 60% mestizo, 90% pop. have indigenous heritage
Honduras: 7% indigenous, 90% mestizo, 97% pop. have indigenous heritage
Considering the history of Central and South America, economic pressure to emigrate would be felt most heavily by indigenous and mestizo peoples.
A high percentage would have ancestors who have always lived here but a large percentage would most likely also have ancestors from Europe. So the statement is at least half correct.
perfectly and accurately said
Beautifully, factually and honestly said. I've always believed this. This needs to be acknowledged and said loud and clear throughout. This continent is the home of all indigenous. They cannot be segregated and categorized according to white supremacist ideology that subjugates and disrespects non-whites.
Post new comment