Who are you? Please give a hyphenated response

IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas

When I was about 8 years old, I lived in Andover, KS. It’s a little town just outside Wichita. My class went on a field trip to what I think was a Native American cultural center, though I’m sure the words “Native American” weren’t in the title of the center. It was 1979ish after all. At some point in the tour, all of us tow headed kids sat in a circle around an old Native American man who explained to us why his people were called “Indians.” He told us Columbus had been looking for India, so the people who lived here were called Indians even though they were not in India. He then said, “We’re all glad he wasn’t looking for Turkey.” Of course, all of us little kids laughed at his joke. However, I remember thinking how stupid it was that entire group of people were named by mistake and even after 400 years, no one had bothered to fix it.

As I grew older, I often had reason to recall this incident. I remember when I first started hearing the term “Native American” and I thought it was a great term. I thought it was far better than the archaic misnomer of “Indian.” For me at the time, it had nothing to do with “political correctness;” it was about being correct. I felt that since Native Americans were not from India, we should not call them Indians. It didn’t occur to me until later that I was buying into the idea that one group of people has the right to determine the definition of another group of people. This notion wasn’t even on my radar until I heard that there were Native Americans who preferred to be called Indian. Then I realized that even the term “Native American” has its issues. After all, am I not native to this country? I was born in Wichita, KS. Despite my place of birth and the fact that I know nothing really about my European heritage, I cannot call myself a Native American even if I want to, which I don’t. Incidentally, I would never call myself a Kansan, either.

Of course, I don’t need the qualifier “native” to be considered American. I get to be the default. If I were to say to someone, “Imagine a 7 year old American girl and then describe her to me,” I think most people would describe a child similar to the child I was. I think this is how the invisible asterisk next to the word men in “All men are created equal” works. I think it is also why pragmatism needs ethics. According to the exhibit, “In the early 20^th century, the U.S. government used blood quantum to help determine which Indians were ‘competent’ to manage their own property. The less Indian blood a person had (and the more white), the more likely he or she was declared competent.” This practice seems to be pragmatic from the perspective of those who came up with the idea. If you are an early 20^th century man and you believe that the “all men” part really means “all white men,” then you have to base access to civil rights, including property ownership, on just how white a person is. I think this lead directly to the phenomena of the default American as being a white man. He needs no qualifier to be either one.

I have always had a problem with all of the different qualifiers that end up in front of the word American. I feel that the practice actively works against inclusiveness and only serves to divide us more. Or, perhaps more accurately, it gives the power structure of this country more tools with which to divide us and that works in their favor. It creates outsiders. On the other hand, I understand the importance of the IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas exhibit. The title highlights the word “visible” within the word “indivisible.” The decision to identify as African-Native American is just as pragmatic as the decision to base competency on the amount of so-called “white” blood. American experience has shown that when a group is invisible, that group’s concerns are also invisible. Therefore, to gain visibility, the group must identify itself to bring attention to their concerns. Once a group is identified and its members tell their stories, it is difficult to continue ignoring the group. While both are pragmatic decisions, only one is based in democratic ethics because it seeks inclusion while the other seeks exclusion. In the end, I am more in favor of these qualifiers than against despite my discomfort with them. I think as more and more ways to be American are recognized, the term “default American” will become an oxymoron.