The Water Management Board’s meeting to schedule hearings on the Keystone XL pipeline-build water permits yesterday included an awkward intercultural moment:
One presenter identified himself as Cameron from Cheyenne River, and he sang his message….
[singing in Lakota]
Afterward Geraldine Clifford of Milwaukee lambasted the board and the attorneys who did not stand for the song.
“You should recognize a holy song from the indigenous people of this land. Shame the hell on you!”
[shouts and applause]
At that point the board adjourned [Victoria Wicks, “Keystone XL Water Permit Planning Meeting Draws Opponents,” SDPB Radio, 2019.07.18].
I have to admit that when I heard Cameron start singing on the radio, I didn’t recognize the song. I think it’s in Lakota, but that’s all I know. I have no more idea that the music he made is sacred and triggers a standing protocol then I would recognize the difference between common secular music and sacred music requiring some polite acknowledgment in any number of other cultures in which I was not born.
How would anyone in the setting yesterday, a conference room in the Capitol in Pierre, in the middle of a governmental meeting, know that a sudden outbreak of song requires some sort of polite cultural acknowledgement other than letting the speaker sing his piece? I could flip the cultural question and ask is it appropriate for me to enter into a governmental meeting in some other community, say, “I can best express my feelings on this issue in song,” and break into a relevant selection from a hymn book, or a Broadway musical, or some other musical touchstone? May I dance as well?
I do not seek to belittle Cameron’s approach to protest. I think it’s pretty cool that he found a memorable and culturally powerful way to express his desire to protect water, the basic element of life, from a predatory foreign corporation and our foolish thirst for fossil fuels and illusory promises of jobs and property tax revenue.
But my question is this: if I introduce my cultural practice into another culture’s secular activities, and if I consider my practice sacred while the other-culture people around have no idea of that unique sacredness, am I entitled to then berate those others (“Shame the hell on you!”) for not only not knowing the specifics of my culture but also not actively participating in my cultural practice?
Sing in protest if you want. Invoke your gods and say your prayers if it helps convey your message. But recognize that the people around you may not believe in the same gods. They may not recognize the same sacredness. And even if they visit your temple (and that’s not what was happening yesterday), those others are not obliged to pray with you.
I suggest, with great tentativeness, that Cameron’s exercise of free speech was admirable, but the demand that others afford his expression any greater respect than given to any other speaker at the mic—listening quietly, allowing the speakers to have their say—goes too far.
How would anyone in the setting yesterday, a conference room in the Capitol in Pierre, in the middle of a governmental meeting, know that a sudden outbreak of song requires some sort of polite cultural acknowledgement other than letting the speaker sing his piece?
Don’t you expect moar from gubmint officials? I would think a committee charged with dealing with indigenous peoples have a rudimentary understanding of those people. At the least have someone on hand familiar with the culture.
Maybe it was a deliberate slight on the part of the committee.
I agree as well, but I would like to think that if I had been at that meeting and I saw a group of people stand when the song had begun, I would have stood, in the very least, to recognize its existence. The same could be said for people who don’t stand or recite the pledge of allegiance. You don’t have to buy into the message not to recognize or respect its legitimacy. I guess it all boils down to common courtesy, which, sadly, was lacking on both sides in this matter and is in very short supply these days.
When I officiated at funerals I always took plenty of time at the very beginning pointing out to everyone where to follow along in the hymnal because there were often people who were unfamiliar with liturgical routines. I didn’t want them to feel uncomfortable or awkward so pointed out where it says to sit or stand or pray, etc.
It would have benefited everyone if one of the Indians had said something like, “This is a sacred traditional song. It is customary to stand as a sign of respect while it is being sung.”
On the other hand, we don’t know if all the Indian people were sitting, then rose as the song began. If that was the case, that would be a strong indication that standing was called for.
If that had been a white male Christian pastor, even without any insignia marking him as such, who had stood up to speak and the other white people stood also, would the other whites have also stood?
It’s a difficult situation. I’m eager to hear what Roger can tell us ignorant white people.
Oh. One more thing. Of course we must take into account the very long history of such white boards treating Indians, singly and in groups, with complete contempt. The Indians would be fools to be unprepared for that.
I agree with Debbo on this one, it is actually a simple issue that could have been resolved quite easily if the Indians had followed Debbo’s advice.
I don’t agree with or respect the national anthem or the pledge allegiance, but will stand out of respect for those that do.
What this does show is that Indians are already preparing for another Xl showdown.
Oy vey. Where to begin?
First: Your headline suggests this “demand” was made by the entirety of the KXL opposition, or even by the young singer himself, instead of it being one white-presenting elder’s impassioned response to the failure of some (the primary target was TransCanada’s attorneys) to respectfully stand.
Second: You mischaracterize the song as a “protest” song. It was a prayer song. Us white folks can figure that out even if we don’t speak the (now “official” according to state law) indigenous language of this place because it features “Wakan Tanka” prominently. If you’ve lived here for any length of time and are not aware those are Lakota/Dakota words for Great Spirit or Creator, that seems like willful ignorance.
Third: The way that you tell that it’s appropriate and respectful to stand, even in a cultural setting not your own (or in a setting that includes cultures not your own), is that pretty much everyone else in the room stands up–as was the case yesterday. Kind of like if someone completely unfamiliar with the process wandered into the gallery during opening Christian prayers at the beginning of each day’s floor session in the legislature (so much for secular activity). You’re not required to stand, but you’ll sure get the side-eye if you don’t.
Fourth: While Ms. Clifford’s tone was perhaps not especially helpful to educate those in the room who are ignorant of the appropriate way to show respect during a prayer song, it’s even less helpful to focus on (and mischaracterize) this one small event in the course of the two-hour hearing rather than, say, to point out and celebrate the number of young South Dakotans who traveled to the Capitol to present compelling and in some cases really beautiful and moving testimony in front of a state board.
IMO, it was more likely embarrassing (for them) ignorance on the part of TransCanada’s attorneys that they failed to stand for the prayer song rather than a deliberate slight. Hopefully they and the members of the Water Management Board will shrug off the tone of delivery and take the lesson to heart about how to show respect for the cultural practices of the original inhabitants of this place.
Of course the native songs speak to those who understand the value of water. Water is life and sooner than we think, we will be all be singing for that water to save ourselves. We are truly misguided and blind to what is going on around us. Here is some reality on what we can expect. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-49017062/chennai-the-city-where-drought-is-visible-from-space
The displacement of fossil fuels in our economy is better done by having a better and cheaper alternative in electric vehicles.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/18/cars/electric-car-market-sales/index.html
That means getting the price down and having broader and easier access to recharging. But we need to generate more electricity to recharge our vehicles as well. Renewables by themselves will not be sufficient for this task.
One alternative is not to drive, which is perfectly fine as a personal choice, but not as a policy intended to win a general election.
On the other hand, why would indigenous peoples of South Dakota expect moar from state officials who routinely ignore citizens in the name of greed? I’m guessing this decision was already made and ignoring the guests was a weak attempt to go through the motions.
Debbo–Your thoughtful and measured comments are appreciated as always. I was at the hearing, and I can tell you that the young man who sang did not indicate that it was a prayer song. He appeared to be very nervous, and yet he approached the witness podium and shared his song nonetheless. It was very moving.
I can also tell you that the vast majority of audience members, as well as all of the opposition attorneys, regardless of race, stood for the song. I couldn’t see from where I was standing whether the DENR staff stood as well, but from my vantage point, there were only 2-3 people out of an audience of maybe 75 or so who did not stand (minus the WMB and applicant attorneys).
This is really an opportunity for education. It’s hard for those who feel (and IMO in most cases rightfully so) that they have been disrespected and ignored for generations. As I stated in previous comments, I do not believe that the Board and applicant attorneys remained seated out of an intentional disrespect, but only out of a failure to understand what was unfolding. It’s unfortunate that the tone of the final comments was what it was, but again, it is an anger that comes out of a multi-generational sense of disrespect.
It’s going to take a lot of patience and understanding (primarily on the part of white folks) to bridge this long and wide divide. I hope we’re up to the task.
Roger mentions the national anthem: Shall we discuss the difference between the apparent expectations of the Keystone XL opponents who cheered Geraldine Clifford’s scolding and Donald Trump’s uproar over folks who choose not to stand during the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner? Could the protest at the WMB be read in part as a clever jibe at Trumpist’s anthem rage?
Rebecca gives me four points:
One: the headline is accurate: the people who made this demand—Clifford explicitly, those applauding her implicitly—were Keystone XL opponents.
Two.one: the prayer was offered in protest. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Two.two: even though I recognize the words and cultural import of the words “Our Father who art in heaven…,” I do not stand, bow my head, or say Amen just because all the believers around me do. That doesn’t make me willfully ignorant; I’m just not a fellow believer, and I don’t want to offend believers by pretending to be one.
Three: Legislators and spectators who give people visiting the Capitol side-eye for declining to stand for one sectarian display of piety are behaving improperly.
Four: I cast no aspersions on the value or participating in government or protesting the further surrender of our land and water to a foreign fossil fuel corporation, as is made clear by the vast body of my writing on Keystone XL and on participation and protest. However, I found this particular cultural conflict to be especially worthy of discussion. That’s why I’m ignoring Robert’s comment and asking that we focus on this interesting and important point about intercultural respect and relations.
I respect people of other cultures who protest the demands white European colonizers have imposed on them. I recognize that a power differential distinguishes white government oppressing Indians from Indians making demands of white officials.
Nonetheless, I ask the question: what demands can one culture make of another? To what extent does intercultural tolerance require active acknowledgment and participation by non-cultural members? Did the chairman show sufficient respect by not gaveling the prayer/protest song out of order? Or must the chairman of the meeting also stand whenever anyone in the room offers sacred commentary as testimony?
What if I contend that public testimony on any governmental matter is sacred? That is my fundamental belief. I see the Capitol as our Temple of Democracy, the one building where we all must be heard. Perhaps we all should stand whenever anyone comes to the mic to express the voice of the people in the Capitol in any language, speaking or singing.
I have deep respect for a young man who would come forward and sing his prayer before the unfamiliar and intimidating powers that be. He showed exemplary bravery.
I will accept that the few who did not stand for his prayer were not making any brave statement themselves.
But you know me. Whenever I’m in a crowd reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, I have to make an effort not to slip into the group momentum and say “under God.”
At work, we have a monthly celebration where we sing Happy Birthday to everyone. Then everyone raises their hands and sings to the same tune, “May the good Lord bless you.” In good conscience, I sit silently, hands in my lap, as my boss right next to me engages in her cultural practice.
I have attended plays and concerts that are adequate but strike me as worth a standing ovation. At the end, when a handful of enthusiasts (or friends of the director?) leap to their feet, I sometimes remain seated. Sometimes I wimpily compromise, standing to blend in but gathering my coat and hat rather than applauding.
Among my basic principles is the notion that the fact that everyone else is standing doesn’t mean you have to stand. That’s part of why I find this small incident so interesting and worth further discussion.
If you’re going to single her out…at least get the quote right…she began by telling them they broke her heart, (TC attorneys & WMB.) She gave the basis of her background, who her teacher was and the viable comparison to not just the US national anthem, but other patriotic songs that also invoke a deity, (God Bless America) and why they should have recognized and shown not just respect, but common courtesy. She did not give her own background, but shouldn’t have to. She spoke a truth everyone who stood for the songs were thinking. She just gave it a good old fashioned Irish Catholic mother flare.
How do I recognize the Irish Catholic flare? She’s my mom.
Maybe before passing judgement from across a radio broadcast you should actually be in the room so you can bear witness with the rest of us to how blatantly obvious the disrespect from the TC attorneys and WMB was displayed. The looks on their faces, their body language and their dismissal of the young man’s interpretation said it all. It was too much for her to bear. She was the only one with the courage to confront yet another colonial affront; which is why she received the uproarious and Lakota appropriate response she did.
There is a bible verse about “when in Rome do as the Romans do.” Just because it’s a colonial structure doesn’t mean they’re not in our home. Showing common courtesy & respect is the Christian thing to do and is especially obvious when the very diverse group in the room figures it out. Then again, you would have to be there.
Thanks for ignoring my comment. It’s not like the ultimate goal is clean water, clean air, and clean energy.
We’ll see if this situation is used to educate the public or not…which would be a good outcome.
But what if the proponents could do everything right in terms of respecting the culture? Would opponents then support a modified pipeline proposal (i.e. slightly different route, increased monitoring and maintenance, better steel, etc.)?
It escapes me why there isn’t a grand deal being discussed. Allow a safer pipeline to be built, train Native American students to make the pipeline safer, celebrate Native American cultures, and have alternative transportation infrastructure available for all Native Americans (both the generation of the requisite energy and the vehicles that use them).
This Geraldine Meeks was speaking with anger because she knows South Dakota’s racist history towards its Native Americans. I don’t really blame the committee for not standing, after all, this is South Dakota, do you really expect them to?
As as person that greatly respects the Native culture, I would have immediately stood up when the rest of them did, as this is obviously a song of great importance to them.
Not standing is your right, no matter how much you may dislike it.
Elizabeth, I can only respond to what is reported. I cannot respond to disrespect that is not made obvious in the reporting. There is certainly a difference between simply not standing and making active gestures of disrespect during someone else’s speech.
Native people’s are speaking for all of us on the dangers of this black snake from start to finish. The toxins released from refinery’s are devastating to all of us human’s.
“(Reuters) – Massive explosions that engulfed a Philadelphia refinery in flames on Friday have renewed concerns about the oil industry’s use of a highly toxic chemical to make high-octane gasoline at plants in densely populated areas.
Aerial video of the scene at Philadelphia Energy Solutions Inc’s refinery, the largest in the northeast, on local television showed significant damage and the massive complex nearly engulfed in flames.
One of the explosions took place in a hydrofluoric acid alkylation unit – a chemical processing unit that has been involved in three near-misses of releases into cities in California, Texas and Wisconsin, according to safety officials.” Chemicals? Think American Chemical Council…hmmm. Hey, isn’t that the same bunch who are paying lip service to Mike Rounds??https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-refinery-blast-acid-explainer/explainer-philadelphia-refinery-blast-puts-new-spotlight-on-toxic-chemical-idUSKCN1TM279
You don’t have to go far to see one of these refineries like New Castle, Wy. and imagine that place gone, not by explosion but by toxic death.
If the dangerous sludge oil with some kind of solvent to make it move better in the pipe, makes it to the refinery in Texas, then all bets are off of when the place will explode. Remember, this refinery is owned by Saudi Arabia, what could go wrong? Hint Khobar Towers, the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, should ring some kind of bell. It’s all about the Benjamin’s.
Good point.
Unfortunately, without a different set of toxic chemicals you won’t be able to manufacture solar panels.
Earlier in June, a bird flew into a solar farm in California, started a fire, and reduced the capacity of said solar farm by 84% for about a month. More than $9 million in damage.
http://www.startribune.com/avian-incident-causes-fire-at-california-solar-farm/511579802/
The only good news is that no solar panels were damaged, but I agree with jerry that fire can facilitate the release of toxic chemicals into the environment.