Using the Charge of Racism as a Tool of Censorship
by Darrel Smith

    It is intriguing to see how often defenders of federal Indian policy discredit opponents and avoid valid debates by labeling their opponents as racists. This creates an Orwellian situation and requires some explanation. George Orwell was a British socialist who was angry at Soviet leaders because he felt they had betrayed the Russian Revolution. In 1941, he wrote a witty and very famous little political fable called Animal Farm. Orwell attacked the "equality" that had developed in the Soviet Union by, among other things, having one of his characters pronounce that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - i.e. equality was redefined so that in practice it meant inequality. Somewhat later, Orwell wrote the book 1984 that warned society of the dangers of leaders that systematically distorted the truth and continuously rewrote history. He portrayed the redefining of words as one of the ways truth was distorted.
    Various dictionaries define the word racism as, (1)"The practice of racial discrimination, segregation etc." (2)"A doctrine or feeling of racial differences or antagonisms, especially with reference to supposed racial superiority, inferiority, or purity; racial prejudice." And finally a simple definition that I like, (3)"Discrimination or prejudice based on race."
    Human beings have many prejudices and we discriminate about many things. Some of these are valid. We all choose what kind of clothes, cars, houses, etc. we like. Unfortunately, we all also have some very damaging prejudices. There is no question in my mind that Indian people and other minority races have historically been, and continue to be, harmed by unfair racial prejudices and discrimination.
    What is so fascinating about all this though, is that many people are very sensitive to subtle racism in one context and seem to be completely blind to rampant racism in another context. Let's look at our definitions of racism and compare them to federal Indian policy.
    Even to have a federal Indian policy is a "doctrine of racial differences." Can you imagine having a federal White policy and a Bureau of White Affairs? Reservations and tribal governments' very existence is based on race and ancestry. As such they are the very dictionary definition of "the practice of racial discrimination or segregation." The federal government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal governments, makes all manner of discriminations based on race and ancestry, including the right to vote, employment preferences, lease preferences, constitutional protections, hunting and fishing distinctions, etc. Reservations were originally designed to segregate Indian people, and still tend to have that influence. As such they, and everyone who supports them, are guilty of the dictionary definition of racism.
    I admit that my reading and memory may be biased, but I can't remember the last time I read a contemporary article that talked in racial terms about the superiority of White people, culture, heritage or ways over those of another race. I can remember many articles that have pointed out in racial terms the superiority of Indians, their cultures, heritage and ways over Whites. I haven't read a current article that seemed designed to heighten White antagonism towards Indians, but have read many articles that seem designed to heighten Indian antagonism toward Whites. By definition, these writers and their articles are racist.
    I have never had a White person show me a card that certifies how "White" they are. I've had Indians show me cards certifying how "Indian" they are. The tracking and concern for racial purity required by federal Indian policy demonstrates racism.
    Racism has probably been around as long as people have recognized races. Throughout recorded history it has had its defenders, and many of its defenses have seemed very compelling. This is certainly true of modern Indian policy. What is amazing is that its supporters have been able to redefine words in such a way that "approved" discrimination between races is "enlightened," but merely advocating racial equality is racism. That the defenders of federal Indian policy have been able to credibly charge those who strive for a "color blind" America with racism is astonishing. Evidently, both they and their audience have been affected by a very remarkable Orwellian redefinition in the meaning of words. Without a redefinition of the word racism, the defenders of federal Indian policy can never win a debate about racism.
    We call on the defenders of modern federal Indian policy to avoid innuendo, name calling and the use of the "race card" and honestly discuss the issues. These are not just Indians issues, they go to the heart of what it means to be American. For a better understanding of the many issues raised by federal Indian policy, read the booklet: Indian Reservations: America's Model of Destruction available for two dollars. This booklet (and many other resources) are available from the Citizens Equal Rights Foundation: HCR 30, Box 1; Mobridge, SD 57601 or call (605) 845-2507.
    For example, the following lists demonstrate just a few of the differences between Citizens Equal Rights Alliance and our critics:

We support:

Our critics must defend:

    We are confident that the vast majority of Americans will choose the values associated with the first column over those in the second column when they are given the chance to understand the differences. Perhaps that is the reason defenders of federal Indian policy do everything they can to avoid fair, open and honest discussion of the issues. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote Dupont de Nemours, "We both love the [Indian] people, but you love them as infants whom you are afraid to trust without nurses, and I as adults whom I freely leave to self-government."