Click on it and you will see a form field that you can write in..
or you can copy and paste stuff.
Give it a try. Thanks.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Please contribute to this important conversation.
At the bottom of every new post you will find a link to post a comment.
3 comments:
Please Participate in this Community Conversation.
Post comments, pictures, information here. You can write, insert pictures or documents, or post links to other sites. If you have any difficulty, please contact me:
mitchblessing@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While the current statue on Lake Bemidji is pretty repulsive and of poor quality, it is almost hilarious in its representation of an Indian "chief" looking across the lake in apparent anticipation of the arrival of the whiteman. It might have been more appropriate, in view of the disgraceful behavior of the whiteman subsequent to his invasion, to show "Chief Bemidji" aiming a gun in the whiteman's direction.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, I have a question that your blog did not adequately answer: what is the hard evidence for this man being called a "chief"? Did that mean he was a hereditary chief, or merely the leader of a family group? I have heard, though I cannot vouch for its accuracy, that he had been part of a family group that split up and he settled near the point where the Mississippi River enters Lake Bemidji. Did that make him a "chief"? Did the designation come from the whiteman? What exactly did it mean in this case? I think your project ought to address this question.
Without necessarily agreeing with everything Wub-e-ke-niew says about him, I note that he calls him the "Mythological Chief Bemidji": http://www.maquah.net/AhnishahbeotjibwayReflections/1991/1991-08-08_Wub-e-ke-niew_column.html
One thing is certain: the whiteman sought to co-opt Ojibwe inhabitants when he failed to wipe them out. However honorable the motives behind your project, are your sure it is not in some measure a continuation of this co-optation? Could it be mythmaking? I have no ax to grind, but am merely raising a question.
That said, it would be a good idea for the folks in Thief River Falls to consider replacing the even uglier statue of Moose Dung (renamed Red Robe later) overlooking the original Ojibwe village of Negiddahmitigwayyung ("Where the Two Rivers Meet"), honored by the whiteman because of his aid in persuading his fellow Red Lakers to sign the Old Crossing Treaty in 1863 whereby the Ojibwe lost some 11 million acres of the most fertile land in the USA.
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your insight. I have been hoping the blog would begin to generate these very same values conversations that you bring up.
We do need more and better research about the history of the man, the history of the location, and the history of the statues. Please contribute more if you can. In regard to the statues and the stories we currently have regarding the man, one must read them in the context of the time in which they were written. The plaque by the existing statue is a good example of mythologizing and storytelling from a very particular, patronizing (though perhaps not malicious) author. The most important part of this project is to try to converse about and create art within our present day set of values. I think that the whole community today would agree to wanting a more dignified representation of Shaynowishkung, both in image and in word.
I am not trying to rationalize for the past or current behavior of any particular group, but instead trying to facilitate an accurate and positive discussion. I think we need to be careful about how we talk about this and many current community issues, as they become flashpoints for larger social conflicts.
I agree about your account of a history of co-option of local traditions and stories for less than honorable reasons. But I believe that it is not helpful to speak negatively of someone you call "whiteman", just as it is not helpful to use many other inflammatory names. I think that you are referring to specific groups of non-native settlers (french, english, united states-ers) who entered into various positive and negative relationships with the native americans who they encountered here.
That said, your question about the name of "Chief" is valid. What little we know now leads us to believe that he was chosen either by his community or by the settlers to speak for his people, and so was considered a chief probably more so by the outsiders than by his people. The question of whom his speaking benefited I can not answer, but I invite more well-researched input on this subject.
Lastly, in recent conversation with some of our committee members from Red Lake, I have learned that there are very, very few realistic honorary statue representations of Native Americans in the the whole country. There are, I am sure, many reasons for this.. but the main one may be that it has been very easy up to this point in US history for the powerful few to overlook the contributions of the many. Whether by race, or class, or gender, the important histories of the underrepresented are very slowly being spoken of and assimilated as part of our real history, versus the history of my high school textbook or the history engraved at the feet of the "play dough" Chief Bemidji. We need to be able to talk about what we want to see, what stories we want our kids to know. Cooperating to create a new and more dignified representation of any native american founder may set a precedent for national appreciation of early leaders.
Does the city of Bemidji and the surrounding community want to envision a more honest rendition of the people and events surrounding the city's founding? What does that entail? Is a statue needed, wanted, necessary? What do we want from our history?
And how can we discuss this at a table made up of all our community leaders in a way that does not incite negativity, but invites peace, cooperation, mutual respect, and vision of a future that we all can feel good about?
Thanks for writing in. Tell your friends to read and write here, and come back again.
M
A challenge: Put any proposed new, artistically wonderful, lifelike Chief Bemidji statue about a block away down the street from the old "play-dough"-looking one. Count the number of people who bother to stop their cars and have their pictures taken with each.
ReplyDeleteMy prediction: The old, only slightly hominid Chief will prevail ten-to-one over any new version which some artist has tried to render oh-so-seriously and "realistically."
The present Chief Bemidji is now at least a semi-semi-famous tourist attraction with the same, playful play-dough DNA as Paul Bunyan and Babe nearby. Over the years the statue has probably generated significant interest in who the real Chief Bemidji was and how he actually looked.
In my opinion, getting rid of, or moving, the present Chief would show great disrespect to the artistic, although not perfectly executed, vision of the logger-sculptor Gustave Hinsch and/or others who wanted to see the Chief at its current precise spot, perpetually shading his eyes, perpetually looking out over beautiful Lake Bemidji. . . .