portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

imperialism & war | indigenous issues

Apocalypto Mockalypto

The attributes of sacrifices, cannibalism, etc., are those of the christians,
christianity (as well as judaism and islam), and they attribute their values
and morals to Indigenous Peoples in "Australia" - Hawaii, North/South
"America", and everywhere else.
The Europeans live in a shadow world, and are in a constant state of denial.

AIM's view of the movie, and of Mel Gibson
 http://www.colorado-aim.blogspot.com:

"Disaster-lypto" - Mel Gibson's Latest Racist Insult

Apparently, insulting and racist attacks against indigenous peoples continue to be the acceptable status quo in the world today. Although Mel
Gibson was vilified for his drunken, anti-Semitic tirade a few months ago, and Michael Richards is still, justifiably, in the woodshed for his racist
rant at a LA comedy club last month, it remains open season to mock Native people in both public and private arenas. On Friday, December 8,
Mel Gibson's new movie, "Apocalypto," opens nationwide. Gibson appropriates the Maya people, in their classic period, for this gratuitously
violent depiction of a very complex society -- about which Gibson knows nothing. The film is a disaster -- historically, culturally, anthropologically,
spiritually, and humanly. "Disaster-lypto," if you will.

The most repulsive aspect of the film is that the Maya are "saved" from their self-inflicted "apocalypse" through the arrival of Christians -- a
historical glitch, because the European, Christian evangelical destruction of indigenous peoples did not begin until 300 years after the movie's
setting. That doesn't dissuade Gibson though, who admits that he was making it up as he went along. (see Village Voice review below) For an
anthropological critique, see: "Is 'Apocalypto' Pornography?" by Traci Ardren.
 http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/apocalypto.html
and this insightful one from The Nation:
 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061218/shorris

Gibson got his ass kicked all around Tinseltown by the Jewish community for his idiotic rant about Jews being responsible for all the wars in the
world. "Apocalypto" seems to be Gibson's translation of that lesson from his earlier drunken meltdown as: "it's important only to insult people
who you think will not fight back." As indigenous peoples, we'd better not let this one pass -- or we deserve exactly what we get from Gibson and
Hollywood (in this case Disney Studios). Gibson's admission that he made up most of his invader fallacy, is a practice with which we, as
indigenous peoples, are quite familiar, unfortunately. And Gibson's reward for this latest product of total cultural incompetency? The film is
getting Academy Award buzz. So, the message is: insult Jews and African-Americans and get publicly rebuked and chastised. Insult indigenous
peoples, and get considered for an Oscar!?

The construction of indigenous peoples' reality by invader (fill in the blank - writers, historians, anthropologists, priests/popes, judges, politicians,
filmmakers) dates back to the commencement of the invasion by Columbus. The distorted images of cannibalism and human sacrifice among
Native societies are so deeply ingrained in the invader hegemony that now even indigenous people parrot it. Nacona Burgess, Activities
Director at the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, where a screening of Gibson's disaster was scheduled to be held, reinforced the
commonly-held, ignorant and racist stereotypes about Maya and Aztec peoples. "All of our students are adults, and they could've handled the
sacrificing scenes because they know that's how it was in the Mayan civilization," Burgess told The Santa Fe New Mexican. That's how it was?
Says who, Mel Gibson? We're now going to let Mel Gibson define Maya history and reality? Unbelievable. How about let's ask some Maya
people -- like the more than six million in Guatemala? Like the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico?

Gibson went out of his way to wrap his tripe in the veneer of legitimacy by sponsoring a screening of the film at the Chickasaw Nation's
Riverwind Casino in Oklahoma last week. Some of the attendees shilled for Gibson. "It is very important to note that Mr. Gibson has gone to
great lengths to cast indigenous people in this film," Chickasaw Nation Gov. Bill Anoatubby said. "This not only helps make the film more
realistic, it serves as an inspiration to Native American actors who aspire to perform relevant roles in the film industry." Right. Jobs, jobs,
anything for jobs, massah.

Instead of fabricating the histories of indigenous peoples, Gibson would be better served atoning for his own society's brutality and inhumanity. If
he is so enthralled with human sacrifice, let him make some films about Euro-American-Australian human sacrifice, beginning with the 300 year-
long Spanish Inquisition:

followed by the Salem Witch Trials of 1692:

perhaps then a film epic about the centuries of human sacrifice in America/Australia (Gibson's original invader state) to keep the race "pure"
through the lynchings and other acts of collective violence against people of color:

and bringing it on up to a film inside the contemporary human sacrifice chamber at the Texas State Penitentiary at Huntsville, where hundreds
have been sacrificed to appease the God of Vengeance.

We will not be holding our breath waiting for these Gibson blockbusters. In the meanwhile, read this review of "Disaster-lypto" from the Village
Voice, and organize appropriate anti-racist actions (boycotts/pickets/letters to the editor) in your community. Don't let this racist pig get away
with this attack on us.

COLORADO AIM CALLS FOR BOYCOTT/PICKETS OF GIBSON FILM
The American Indian Movement of Colorado is calling for a boycott of the Mel Gibson film, "Apocalypto," due to its blatantly racist, anti-
indigenous theme and message. Colorado AIM urges all people of goodwill to refrain from giving the bigot Gibson any profits from this film.
Instead, Colorado AIM urges its members and allies to send the $20-30 that you might spend on attending the film to the following groups who
work with Maya communities that are in active struggle for their survival and resurgence:

Chiapas Support Committee
 http://www.chiapas-support.org
P.O. Box 3421
Oakland, CA 94609
(510) 654-9587

Café Rebelion
 http://www.caferebelion.com
381 E. 55th Avenue
Denver, CO 80216
303-744-7343
(working directly with Maya coffee and honey cooperatives)

Mel Gibson Is Responsible for All the Wars in the World
OK, slight exaggeration, but he's at least to blame for this one he made up
by J. Hoberman
 http://villagevoice.com/film/0649%2Choberman%2C75217%2C20.html

Apocalypto has a faux Greek title and an opening quote from historian Will Durant that ruminates on the decline of imperial Rome. It may seem
an odd way to comment on the supposed end of an imaginary, unspeakably barbaric Mayan civilization, but WWJD? Mel Gibson means to be
universal.

Following the gory trail marked by Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto is a blatantly sadistic spectacle, albeit not without a
certain chivalry. Women are raped and children butchered but Mel shows no taste for such savagery. (You might even call him protective: In one
feeble bid for a PG-13, the surviving children of Sugar Tit village are left to fend for themselves in the charge of a teenage babysitter). Mel is a
glutton for male punishment. There's not a man in this movie who isn't scourged, bashed, or punctured, unless he's disemboweled.

Unlike its predecessors, however, Apocalypto is unburdened by nationalist or religious piety, it's pure, amoral sensationalism. By those
standards, the most engaging sequence is played in the evil heart of the Mayan sacred city. Give the devil his due: Hieronymus Bosch or
Matthias Gruenewald would have appreciated Mel's vision of paganism run wild. The place is a monstrous construction site cum marketplace
where life is cheap (and so are the extras), and the blood pours over the stone monuments like molasses on Grandma's griddle cakes. It's
political too: Gesturing muck-a-mucks in feathered masks rise from their human footstools atop garish temples to address the juju-dancing mob
below.

Maybe the Mayans really did bounce human heads down the steps of their pyramids but, being as their civilization collapsed hundreds of years
before the Spanish conquest, how would we know? "A lot of it, story-wise, I just made up," Gibson confessed to the Mexican junketeers who
visited his set last year. "And then, oddly, when I checked it out with historians and archaeologists and so forth, it's not that far [off]." Or far out, for
that matter. Irrational as it may be, Mel's sense of history does have a logic: JP's trip to hell ends when the Christians arrive.

"Today we are remembering our eldest elders, those who initiated the long struggle of resistance against the arrogance of Power and the
violence of money. They, our ancestors, taught us that a people with pride are a people who do not surrender, who resist, who have dignity." -
from Our Word Is Our Weapon.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
I thought perhaps the movie would be a bit of a closer depiction of the following information. But how close can Hollywood get to us Aboriginal
people? Close to us in terms of depicting Aboriginal way of people? Dream on.
 link to bahai-library.com

Hello,

I am full-blooded Inuit from Nain Labrador, 32 and proud of my way of life. I've been in University for five years now.

I have not seen this movie yet, but the way it looks makes me a little concerned because of the delicateness that is involved, white people should
be very careful, I think, in depicting another people especially if it is an ancient one. There seems to be very strong images in this movie and I'm
a little afraid of that, what if the depictions are way offf, how will western people react to me when I look so much native? Will they think I'm
savage, in a cultural too? I'm tired of these wrong stereotypes. I want to go see a movie about natives that delivers a lot of pride because we
are very proud of where come from and who we are. I'm really tired.

I went to a friend's house and I showed him my traditional Inuit drum and two white guys, including him, asked what was the rim made of, I was
joking and said human. he looked at me with a fierce seriousness thinking what I said was true. He thought that may very well be true due to
watching this Apocalypto movie. His depiction of native people is sketched in his mind so deep now in such a horrible way. His image of native
people seem so war like now. I was saddened by his false image of native people. I wanted to say 'hey western white person, I am not like that,
I am proud of who I am, we have value for people, for life, for all things, children and so on'.

This movie was made by a western white person, not native, and this movie will run rampant! Wrong images and depictions of native people will
run deeper due to assholes like Gibson. He thinks he has an artistic right to do whatever he wants but he is damaging a way of life and that's not
right at all, not true art. Killing the spirits of a people who have a way of life fraught with pride.

I don't think there will be enough discussion and interpretation of this movie between us and western white people. The images are too deep
now I suppose.

Sick of being hit with wrong images and depictions.

With pride,
Stan Nochasak
 inuksuk2002@yahoo.ca

Cowboy Smithx
 cowboy_smithx@hotmail.com

Mel Gibson is full of shit, don't watch his new movie, "Apocalypto"

Body: As an indigenous person of Mexico I am very much offended and disturbed by Gibson's movie about the Maya. I went to see it at my school
(UCLA) for free a few days after it came out.

As a decendant(Huasteco) from the Maya people 30,000 years back I am very much worried that this false image and perspective of Indigenous
people is shown to Europeans, who are already ignorant of our cultures, and our own people whose identities have been also stolen by the
ancestors of the present oppressive right wing governments of the Americas. There have always been and are still today movements of
resistance and survival across the Americas. Some of us are working hard and reading, writing and learning the white man's ways to be able to
clarify some of the misconceptions of our original cultures and identities for some one like this punk to create a movie that only enforces more
stereotypes of our people. We have existed in the white eye's mind only as a mystical, romantic and magical image suspended in time and
therefore our reality, experience and lives are not worth it. They like to talk and present images of us in their own eyes, but when we try to clarify
and give them a reality check, than we are out of line.

Here are the things that I do not like about the movie.

1. That the scenery and the re-creation of the Mayan cities in the movie made me feel like I was in ancient Rome or Greece, our cultures were
not the same as theirs and therefore that should have not happened. We did not and still (at least I hope not) don't think like them and don't see
the world with their eyes.

2. This movie was full of blood and violence, from begining to end. In the fighting scences I feel I was watching Gladiator or some movie about
European warfare during the Crusades. It was really bad. As Indian people we value life and had a different set of rules in which to fight war and
resolve conflict.

3. One thing that I always question is human sacrifice. I have seen some books that suggest that some of the things "Europeans" saw as sacrifice
was in fact brain and heart surgery. The number of sacrificed victims in the movie was too much, (that kind of number of people that the main
character walked all over when he was trying to scape). Our people were very much knowledgeble of science, math, medicine and many other
things that we are not given credit for. Most of the credit is given to Romans and Greeks.
Tha'ts is how history is told. I leave it up to you to look it up.

4. Another thing that our people were very much aware of was astronomy, in fact many of the present indian cultures still use the sky as a
guidance on their cultivation cycles. That was then and this is still the case. The Mayan understood the universe and had calculations of distance,
time and cycles of planets around our galaxy. In the movie they show the people as being unaware of what an eclipse was and because of it they
were lied to by the "chiefs". That's bull shit.

The movie does not allow for any discussion or interpretation.

5. During the part of the movie when the eclipse is happening there are images of famine and biblical type of things happening as if we were
part of the experience of the christian people. That is Mel Gilbson trying to convert everyone, but we are different and we should be left alone. Our
cultures and prophecies are very much different than theirs (before and after catholicism and other christianity was introduced).
Things like revelations can not and should not be applied to us, because our experiences are different than theirs.

6. The way slavery is presented in the movie is wrong. Our people practice slavery but like I always say, it was not the same as European
slavery. We would have a more respect for those that we captured. There were places like the south in the U.S where tribes like the Cherokee
and others practice slavery but only after it was introduced in a new way by Europeans. It looks like the type of slavery that was and still is done in
the U.S and all over the world. That is where the next part of this will go.

Since Europeans landed on our continent they have used and abused not only our natural resources but have exploited our human labor. They
made us slaves in our own homelands and sometimes slaves across their constructive borders.
Enough is enough, to this very day they have had almost total control of what belongs to us as Indigenous people of these lands. They are the
rich and have lots of power in all areas. They control the institutions of the colonies they created and inherited from their ancestors . They control
the media, Televisa, Univision, TV Azteca, Venevision, Fox, NBC, CNN and many, many more. They control what is said in universities and
public school. Ya basta. Todas las cosas naturales de este continente nos pertencen a nosotros desde Alaska hasta tierra del fuego, todo fue
puesto aqui por el Creador para nosotros, ya es tiempo que reclamemos lo que nos pertenece.

All of the natural things of this continent belong to us from Alaska all the way down to Tierra del Fuego, all of it was placed there by the Creator
for us, it is time for us to reclaim what belongs to us by divine right. It is not just or morally correct for our people to be working for our survival and
their enjoyment of life and our resources, while they continue to exterminate us and work us to death. When will all of this end? Well, when we
get up and organize and fight back. It makes me sad when a lot of American indians take the position of the Europeans, a position against
migration from the Americas and can not see beyond their own noses. In a way they are in a bad situation because they live in the mouth of the
beast and with their current cooperation they are adding to its survival. Why not dream of getting all of the land that they took away, instead of
settlling for what they keep. We have nothing to lose because they control most of what we had, we have lots to gain, if you don't belive me ask
them how much they have and how they got it. The rest of the continent is in a phase of true liberation and we have to join in or else we will be
part of the problem.

Like I said there are a lot of movements of liberation going on in the Americas today and this time they seem to have more of a chance than ever
before, participate in this change, not in continuing a tradition of false images and stereotypical racist attitudes.

Eduardo J. Aguilar
M.A American Indian Studies '07
UCLA
whites untrustworthy people 11.Dec.2006 18:52

rez dog

Foolish people.

Mayans did practice human sacrifice, there is immense evidence for it, 11.Dec.2006 19:46

but...

that doesn't mean it looked like some kind of Classical Roman rave, and I don't know wtf that dancing was supposed to be. In addition, I cannot see how this film portrays Europeans as saving indigenous people from themselves. The only scene involving europeans is around a minute long, and devoid of action on their part. I for one took it for granted that their arrival was meant to be the apocalypse referred to in the film, not any kind of salvation. However, that Mayan civilization suffered the same problems that civilizations do everywhere is hardly an imperialistic statement.

The film itself is jammed full of stupid inaccuracies that show a sense of priority for drama/action/money over the completely honest portrayal of Mayan civilization and hunter-gatherer culture in Central America. But, I don't agree that the film is purely "anti-indigenous", beyond the fact that it's director is a crazy, white, christian fundamentalist. The hero's village is portrayed rather flatteringly, though a bit too slapstick for my tastes.

Right Under His Nose 12.Dec.2006 00:13

bitterroot

How has Gibson missed the opportunity to grab the story line based on the blood sport antics of the European "discoverers" and missionaries in the early stages of the invasions of civilization into the Caribbean--or anywhere in the "new world", for that matter.

The white settler history is replete with special effects opportunities simulating displays of severed body parts, encounters between indigenous children and mounted sword-wielding christians, babies on pikes, spouting blood...that historical epoch cries for expression from Gibson's particular niche cinematic talent and hand.

The pattern of lies is clear 12.Dec.2006 09:41

JV

"Mayans did practice human sacrifice, there is immense evidence for it,"

Well, if lies are repeated for hundreds of years, then yes, a lot of material will be generated.

Paradigm Wars: Indigenous People's Resistence to Globalization 12.Dec.2006 12:29

le Pew

Here's something that might interest anyone who wants to find out more from Indigenous People's perspectives:

Wednesday, 13 December, 7:30 pm:
St Johns Booksellers, 8622 North Lombard in St Johns presents:

Jerry Mander, editor of Paradigm Wars: Indigenous Peoples' Resistance to Globalization.

Best-selling author and cultural critic Jerry Mander has challenged dominant cultural mind-sets in books such as Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television and In the Absence of the Sacred. In Paradigm Wars, he and coeditor Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, a leader of the global indigenous peoples movement and chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, have gathered an impressive international roster of contributors to document the momentous collision of worldviews that pits the forces of economic globalization against the Earth's surviving indigenous peoples. Mander will discuss the process of creating this book, and the issues it addresses. Coffee will be served.

I also want to add that the many Peoples of Meso-America had very different ideas about life and death than we do in the present, Westernized societies. It would be better for those of us with blood ties to those cultures to stop feeling shame and guilt over sacrifices that added meaning to people's lives that we can't grasp. And before all those white folks out there try to guilt-trip us over our past, we should always be aware that christianity was founded by human sacrifice. Also, what's going on in Iraq, if not human sacrifice? Different cultures, different methods, different values.

I was 12.Dec.2006 13:09

going to see the movie

and make an exception to monetarily supporting Disney or Mel because of interest in Mayan culture. Prior to reading this article though, I had learned of the historical debauchery Gibson chose to emulate and had quite a laugh at his statement "I thought it would be interesting to tell a story that wasn't from the New World point of view."

Thanks for posting your article to alert more people to his sham and his shame. It feeds directly into the current trend of demonizing anyone south of the U.S. border to reinforce the fever of border control.

Here are some excerpts from perspective presented in the San Francisco Chronicle:
 link to sfgate.com

"The Maya at the time of Spanish contact are depicted as idyllic hunters and gatherers, or as genocidal murderers, and neither of these scenarios is accurate. The film represents a step backward in our understanding of the complex cultures that existed in the New World before the Spanish invasion, and it is part of a disturbing trend re-emerging in the film industry, portraying non-Western natives as evil savages."

"First, a typical Maya village is shown as an unorganized group of jungle people who appear to subsist on hunting alone. The Maya were an agricultural people with a very structured social and economic system. Even small villages in the hinterlands of large cities were connected to some political center. The jungle people in Gibson's movie are flabbergasted at the sight of the Maya city, exclaiming that they have never seen such buildings. The truth is, pyramids of comparable size were never more than 20 kilometers away from anywhere in the Maya world, be they occupied or abandoned. "

"Second, Mayan city people are shown as violent extremists bent on harvesting innocent villagers to provide flesh for sacrifice and women for slaves, leaving the children to die alone in the jungle. Hundreds of men are sacrificed on an Aztec-style sacrificial stone, their headless bodies thrown into a giant ditch reminiscent of a Holocaust documentary or a scene from "The Killing Fields." Problem is, there exists no archaeological, historic or ethnohistoric data to suggest that any such mass sacrifices -- numbering in the thousands, or even hundreds -- took place in the Maya world."

"Third, once Gibson paints this bloody picture of 15th century Maya civilization, the ultimate injustice is handed the pre-Columbian Maya. As the jungle hero escapes the evil city and is chased to the edge of the sea by his antagonists, with literally nowhere else to turn, Spanish galleons appear, complete with a small, lead boat carrying a stalwart friar hoisting a crucifix. For Gibson, the new beginning for these lost Mayan people, the Apocalypto, evidently is the coming of the Spaniards and Christianity to the Americas."

"Although this film will undoubtedly create interest in the field of Maya archaeology by way of its spectacular reconstructions and beautiful jungle scenes, the lasting impression of Maya and other pre-Columbian civilizations is this: The Maya were simple jungle bands or bloodthirsty masses duped by false religions, resulting in the ruin of their mighty but misguided civilization, and their salvation arrived with the coming of Christian beliefs saddled on the backs of Spanish conquistadors."

"As archaeologists struggle to accurately reconstruct ancient Maya society, obstructed by their decimation via Western diseases; destruction of their books, art and history by Spanish friars; and their subjugation and exploitation by the conquistadors, such films as "Apocalypto" represent a significant disparagement of that process. "
===================================
I believe Mel Gibson should receive an Oscar for this movie. It should be an Oscar with one middle finger extended and FUCK YOU MEL inscribed on its base.

How many of you have even visited Mayan ruins? 12.Dec.2006 20:28

@

I've been to Copan in Honduras three times. I've seen the stone platforms where heads humans were sacrificed and the indented passage thereon where the blood was drained out. Human sacrifice in the Americas is no lie. It happened. There is nothing racist about pointing this out. Whites engaged in human sacrifice in ancient Europe as well, just look at the bog people that pop up from time to time.

What you make of the scene of the Christians (or Europeans) arriving on the shore is left to your own imagination. Perhaps Gibson is making a statement with that scene and perhaps not, we don't know.

However, it is clear from the plot of the movie that this is not the first arrival from Europe. In a scene, a girl is suffering from small-pox and they refer to it as the plague. Since small-pox was brought by the Europeans, it is clear that the Europeans we see coming ashore at the end of the film are not the first to arrive. That Gibson shows small-pox contradicts your assertion that he is trying to make the case that the Christians saved the peoples of America. After all, 9/10 of the population was wiped out by small-pox.

The movie is very good. It is in a dialect of the Mayan language. The scenery is true to the region. The howler monkeys, the race of the actors and actresses, and the forests are truly Mayan.

I think the film was very good. It showed the good in the Mayan people when it showed us the life of the Mayans living in the forest and the devotion of these people to their own families and village.

I saw heroism and intelligence. I did not see inferiority. Perhaps you colored the scenes with your own racism?

Still not seeing this film 13.Dec.2006 11:31

JV

yes, I've visited Mayan ruins. No those are not Mayan actors in the movie.

One thing that caught my eye in the ads for the movie was a quick flash of the painting of human sacrifice drawn by one of Cortez' men.

no more time to waste, sorry

Incorrect 13.Dec.2006 18:31

@


Controversial? 13.Dec.2006 22:47

fireweed (white)

How can anything seem controversial unless you take the time to listen to the dissent?

All of the websites you cited show that people SAY that Mayans sacrificed, but say nothing about how this is known to be true.

If you read Devon A. Mihesuah, Angela Cavendar Wilson, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, and many other Indigenous academics, you will hear something to the effect that "knowledge" is a story we all make up out of the infinite particles of daily reality, and that it matters very much who tells the story and how it is told.

For example, it is "known" that the Aboriginal peoples on the continent some call Australia had no concept of ownership of their artistic styles and creations. The people who "knew" this assumed that because the Aboriginal way of interacting with art was different from the Euro way of interacting with art, it had no parallels at all and therefore belonged to everyone and could be appropriated without twinge of conscience. This was "known" to all scholars except the few who investigated deeper and found that Aboriginal peoples did, indeed, have concepts of ownership that resembled the (legally protected) Euro concept of "insignia" (like a family crest).

Of course, the Aboriginal peoples knew this all along, but how can a people protest ALL of the many things they have to protest if they are also struggling to regain their ability to thrive under great duress?

Examples abound. It is "known" that Indigenous peoples had chiefhood structures that ruled from the top. Hmmm. Really? Based on this "knowledge" Indigenous peoples (in the US, maybe other places too) must now "prove" that they had a specialized heirarchy, the kind of specialized hierarchy that the anthropologists say that they had, before this federal government will recognize them as a sovereign nation. Then they have to keep a "democratic" system of government. Wow. An entire federal policy that privileges white Euro "knowledge" about the Nations over the Nations' knowledges of themselves. Nations must spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars learning, in some cases, to lie about themselves, to get access to a fraction of the lands or monies that they are owed by treaties still being broken every day.

I don't know if the Maya sacrificed or not. What I do know is that I would really like myself, and other people, to be veeeeerrry suspicious of "knowledge" about Indigenous peoples. Activists are usually the first to decry scientific studies funded by Industry. Well, almost all the "science" of the last hundred years has been not only funded by the Industry that is colonization, but has in many cases been performed by people explicitly biased against even speaking as a human equal (or speaking at all) to the peoples being "studied". And then if people do speak to people in the Nations, they develop the "Indian best friend" syndrome and forget to consult people with a diversity of opinions, and "forget" to support Indigenous peoples in their processes of coming to unity and reviving themselves as a people.

Even when the Nations have been solicited in a diverse fashion, too many of those processes succumb to the forces of history and become sham procedures of "Invite, Inform, Ignore" that look good on the organizer and/or researcher's grant proposal but inaccurately represent the lives, perspectives, and concerns of Indigenes.

It is true that there are some truths only an outsider can see, but those truths are incomplete and therefore false without insider truths. Science has been practiced (and shaped by) individuals biased to enact or allow others to enact Colonial coercion for so long that any truths it purports to hold should be examined with a lively curiosity, yes...and a lively eye towards what the "truths" serve...but with obedience and credence alone? I hope never.