– A GROWTH INDUSTRY
Lest you think I invented this stuff, here is the 1882 text I refer to in the ‘Chinese Exclusion Act’! It’s always best to allow the Bigots to speak for themselves, don’t you think!
Just listen to all those ‘Revisionist Historians’ on TV, who tell us about America’s long, glorious and honorable History in dealing with Immigrants! Ain’t Revisionism WONDERFUL!
Americans were less ‘long winded’ in 1882 and not so versed in ‘small print’ in those days! So seeing through their Bigotry, Racism and Lies was a lot easier then without all those pages and pages of Fine Print.
In the event you decline to read the 1882 ‘Fine Print’, a ‘Simplified’ Explanation may be found at the end of this Post!
Text of Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882:
Chinese Exclusion Act
Forty-Seventh Congress. Session I. 1882
Chapter 126. – An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese.
Preamble. Whereas, in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States.
SEC. 2. That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed, and Chinese laborer, from any foreign port of place, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and may be also imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.
SEC. 3. That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and who shall produce to such master before going on board such vessel, and shall produce to the collector of the port in the United States at which such vessel shall arrive, the evidence hereinafter in this act required of his being one of the laborers in this section mentioned; nor shall the two foregoing sections apply to the case of any master whose vessel, being bound to a port not within the United States by reason of being in distress or in stress of weather, or touching at any port of the United States on its voyage to any foreign port of place: Provided, That all Chinese laborers brought on such vessel shall depart with the vessel on leaving port.
SEC. 4. That for the purpose of properly indentifying Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and in order to furnish them with the proper evidence of their right to go from and come to the United States of their free will and accord, as provided by the treaty between the United States and China dated November seventeenth, eighteen hundred and eighty, the collector of customs of the district from which any such Chinese laborer shall depart from the United States shall, in person or by deputy, go on board each vessel having on board any such Chinese laborer and cleared or about to sail from his district for a foreign port, and on such vessel make a list of all such Chinese laborers, which shall be entered in registry-books to be kept for that purpose, in which shall be stated the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, physical marks or peculiarities, and all facts necessary for the identification of each of such Chinese laborers, which books shall be safely kept in the custom-house; and every such Chinese laborer so departing from the United States shall be entitled to, and shall receive, free of any charge or cost upon application therefor, from the collector or his deputy, at the time such list is taken, a certificate, signed by the collector or his deputy and attested by his seal of office, in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, which certificate shall contain a statement of the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, personal description, and fact of identification of the Chinese laborer to whom the certificate is issued, corresponding with the said list and registry in all particulars. In case any Chinese laborer after having received such certificate shall leave such vessel before her departure he shall deliver his certificate to the master of the vessel, and if such Chinese laborer shall fail to return to such vessel before her departure from port the certificate shall be delivered by the master to the collector of customs for cancellation. The certificate herein provided for shall entitle the Chinese laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and re-enter the United States upon producing and delivering the same to the collector of customs of the district at which such Chinese laborer shall seek to re-enter; and upon delivery of such certificate by such Chinese laborer to the collector of customs at the time of re-entry in the United States, said collector shall cause the same to be filed in the custom house and duly canceled.
SEC. 5. That any Chinese laborer mentioned in section four of this act being in the United States, and desiring to depart from the United States by land, shall have the right to demand and receive, free of charge or cost, a certificate of indentification similar to that provided for in section four of this act to be issued to such Chinese laborers as may desire to leave the United States by water; and it is hereby made the duty of the collector of customs of the district next adjoining the foreign country to which said Chinese laborer desires to go to issue such certificate, free of charge or cost, upon application by such Chinese laborer, and to enter the same upon registry-books to be kept by him for the purpose, as provided for in section four of this act.
SEC. 6. That in order to the faithful execution of articles one and two of the treaty in this act before mentioned, every Chinese person other than a laborer who may be entitled by said treaty and this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States, shall be identified as so entitled by the Chinese Government in each case, such identity to be evidenced by a certificate issued under the authority of said government, which certificate shall be in the English language or (if not in the English language) accompanied by a translation into English, stating such right to come, and which certificate shall state the name, title, or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities, former and present occupation or profession, and place of residence in China of the person to whom the certificate is issued and that such person is entitled conformably to the treaty in this act mentioned to come within the United States. Such certificate shall be prima-facie evidence of the fact set forth therein, and shall be produced to the collector of customs, or his deputy, of the port in the district in the United States at which the person named therein shall arrive.
SEC. 7. That any person who shall knowingly and falsely alter or substitute any name for the name written in such certificate or forge any such certificate, or knowingly utter any forged or fraudulent certificate, or falsely personate any person named in any such certificate, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor; and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, an imprisoned in a penitentiary for a term of not more than five years.
SEC. 8. That the master of any vessel arriving in the United States from any foreign port or place shall, at the same time he delivers a manifest of the cargo, and if there be no cargo, then at the time of making a report of the entry of vessel pursuant to the law, in addition to the other matter required to be reported, and before landing, or permitting to land, any Chinese passengers, deliver and report to the collector of customs of the district in which such vessels shall have arrived a separate list of all Chinese passengers taken on board his vessel at any foreign port or place, and all such passengers on board the vessel at that time. Such list shall show the names of such passengers (and if accredited officers of the Chinese Government traveling on the business of that government, or their servants, with a note of such facts), and the name and other particulars, as shown by their respective certificates; and such list shall be sworn to by the master in the manner required by law in relation to the manifest of the cargo. Any willful refusal or neglect of any such master to comply with the provisions of this section shall incur the same penalties and forfeiture as are provided for a refusal or neglect to report and deliver a manifest of cargo.
SEC. 9. That before any Chinese passengers are landed from any such vessel, the collector, or his deputy, shall proceed to examine such passengers, comparing the certificates with the list and with the passengers; and no passenger shall be allowed to land in the United States from such vessel in violation of law.
SEC. 10. That every vessel whose master shall knowingly violate any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed forfeited to the United States, and shall be liable to seizure and condemnation on any district of the United States into which such vessel may enter or in which she may be found.
SEC. 11. That any person who shall knowingly bring into or cause to be brought into the United States by land, or who shall knowingly aid or abet the same, or aid or abet the landing in the United States from any vessel of any Chinese person not lawfully entitled to enter the United States, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.
SEC. 12. That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel. And any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to be removed therefrom to the country from whence he came, by direction of the United States, after being brought before some justice, judge, or commissioner of a court of the United States and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States.
SEC. 13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the Chinese Government traveling upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned, and shall exempt them and their body and household servants from the provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons.
SEC. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.
SEC. 15. That the words “Chinese laborers”, whenever used in this act, shall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.
Approved, May 6, 1882.
Tabacco never learned about this in any Public School when I was growing up!
Here’s that ‘Simplified’ Explanation I promised you!
Chinese Exclusion Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the former U.S. law. For the similar Canadian law, see Chinese Immigration Act of 1923.
The first page of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, following revisions made in 1880 to the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. Those revisions allowed the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration, a ban that was intended to last 10 years. This law was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943.
Chinese immigrant workers building the Transcontinental Railroad.
Main article: Chinese American history
The first significant Chinese immigration to America began with the California Gold Rush of 1848-1855, and continued with subsequent large labor projects, such as the building of the First Transcontinental Railroad. During the early stages of the gold rush, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were tolerated, if not well received. As gold became harder to find and competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased. After being forcibly driven from the mines, most Chinese settled in enclaves in cities, mainly San Francisco, and took up low end wage labor such as restaurant and laundry work. With the post Civil War economy in decline by the 1870s, anti-Chinese animosity became politicized by labor leader Denis Kearney and his Workingman’s Party as well as by California Governor John Bigler, both of whom blamed Chinese “coolies” for depressed wage levels. Another significant anti-Chinese group organized in California during this same era was the Supreme Order of Caucasians with some 60 chapters statewide.
Chinese Gold Rush in California
Early on, the California government did not wish to exclude Chinese migrant workers from immigration because they provided essential tax revenue which helped fill the fiscal gap of California. Only later, when there was enough money did the government cease to oppose Chinese exclusion. By 1860 the Chinese were the largest immigrant group in California. The Chinese workers provided cheap labor and did not use any of the government infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) because the Chinese migrant population was predominantly made up of healthy male adults. As time passed and more and more Chinese migrants arrived in California, violence would often break out in cities such as Los Angeles. By 1878 Congress decided to act and passed legislation excluding the Chinese, but this was vetoed by President Hayes. Once the Chinese Exclusion Act was finally passed in 1882, California went further by passing various laws that were later held to be unconstitutional. After the act was passed most Chinese families were faced with a dilemma: stay in the United States alone or go back to China to reunite with their families. Although there was widespread dislike for the Chinese, some capitalists and entrepreneurs resisted their exclusion based on economic factors.
The first page of a twenty one page interrogation transcript of Yee Bing Quai. He is interrogated by Inspector Charles E Golding with clerk Marion T Lovett recording and David Lee interpreting, June 15, 1938, in Boston, MA.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was one of the most significant restrictions on free immigration in U.S. history. For the first time, Federal law proscribed entry of an ethnic working group on the premise that it endangered the good order of certain localities. The Act excluded Chinese “skilled and unskilled laborers employed in mining” from entering the country for ten years under penalty of imprisonment and deportation. Many Chinese were relentlessly beaten just because of their race. The few Chinese non-laborers who wished to immigrate had to obtain certification from the Chinese government that they were qualified to immigrate, which tended to be difficult to prove. Volpp argues that the “Chinese Exclusion Act” is a misnomer, in that it is assumed to be the starting point of Chinese exclusionary laws in the United States. She suggests attending to the intersections of race, gender, and U.S. citizenship in order to both understand the restraints of such a historical tendency and make visible Chinese female immigration experiences, including the Page Act of 1875.
The Chinese Exclusion Act required the few nonlaborers who sought entry to obtain certification from the Chinese government that they were qualified to immigrate. But this group found it increasingly difficult to prove that they were not laborers because the 1882 act defined excludables as “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.” Thus very few Chinese could enter the country under the 1882 law.
The Act also affected Asians who had already settled in the United States. Any Chinese who left the United States had to obtain certifications for reentry, and the Act made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from U.S. citizenship. After the Act’s passage, Chinese men in the U.S. had little chance of ever reuniting with their wives, or of starting families in their new homes.
Amendments made in 1884 tightened the provisions that allowed previous immigrants to leave and return, and clarified that the law applied to ethnic Chinese regardless of their country of origin. The Scott Act (1888) expanded upon the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting reentry after leaving the U.S. The Act was renewed for ten years by the 1892 Geary Act, and again with no terminal date in 1902. When the act was extended in 1902, it required “each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, he or she faced deportation.”
Between 1882 and 1905, about 10,000 Chinese appealed against negative immigration decisions to federal court, usually via a petition for habeas corpus. In most of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the petitioner. Except in cases of bias or negligence, these petitions were barred by an act that passed Congress in 1894 and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs Lem Moon Sing (1895). In U.S. vs Ju Toy (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the port inspectors and the Secretary of Commerce had final authority on who could be admitted. Ju Toy’s petition was thus barred despite the fact that the district court found that he was an American citizen. The Supreme Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not require due process and is legally equivalent to refusing entry at a land crossing. This ruling triggered a brief boycott of U.S. goods in China.
One of the critics of the Chinese Exclusion Act was the anti-slavery/anti-imperialist Republican Senator George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts who described the Act as “nothing less than the legalization of racial discrimination.”
The laws were driven largely by racial concerns; immigration of persons of other races was unlimited during this period.
On the other hand, many people strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act, including the Knights of Labor, a labor union, who supported it because it believed that industrialists were using Chinese workers as a wedge to keep wages low. Among labor and leftist organizations, the Industrial Workers of the World were the sole exception to this pattern. The IWW openly opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act from its inception in 1905.
A political cartoon from 1882, showing a Chinese man being barred entry to the “Golden Gate of Liberty”. The caption reads, “We must draw the line somewhere, you know.”
Certificate of identity issued to Yee Wee Thing certifying that he is the son of a US citizen, issued Nov. 21, 1916. This was necessary for his immigration from China to the United States.
Just a few more examples of American Goody-Goodyness – if you are American, you must be SO PROUD!
For all practical purposes, the Exclusion Act, along with the restrictions that followed it, froze the Chinese community in place in 1882. Limited immigration from China continued until the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943. From 1910 to 1940, the Angel Island Immigration Station on what is now Angel Island State Park in San Francisco Bay served as the processing center for most of the 56,113 Chinese immigrants who are recorded as immigrating or returning from China; upwards of 30% more who showed up were returned to China. Furthermore, after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which destroyed City Hall and the Hall of Records, many immigrants (known as “paper sons”) claimed that they had familial ties to resident Chinese-American citizens. Whether these were true or not cannot be proven.
The Chinese Exclusion Act gave rise to the first great wave of commercial human smuggling, an activity that later spread to include other national and ethnic groups.
Later, the Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration even further, excluding all classes of Chinese immigrants and extending restrictions to other Asian immigrant groups. Until these restrictions were relaxed in the middle of the twentieth century, Chinese immigrants were forced to live a life apart, and to build a society in which they could survive on their own (Chinatown).
Furthermore, the Chinese Exclusion Act did not address the problems that whites were facing; in fact, the Chinese were quickly and eagerly replaced by the Japanese, who assumed the role of the Chinese in society. Unlike the Chinese, some Japanese were even able to climb the rungs of society by setting up businesses or becoming truck farmers. However, the Japanese were later targeted in the National Origins Act of 1924, which banned immigration from east Asia entirely.
In 1891 the Government of China refused to accept the U.S. senator Mr. Henry W. Blair as U.S. Minister to China due to his abusive remarks regarding China during negotiation of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Repeal and current status
The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act, which permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. It also allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year. Large scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Despite the fact that the exclusion act was repealed in 1943, the law in California that Chinese people were not allowed to marry whites was not repealed until 1948. Other states had such laws until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional.
Even today, although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of Title 8 of the United States Code is headed “Exclusion of Chinese.” It is the only chapter of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality) that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group.
On June 18, 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution introduced by Congresswoman Judy Chu, that formally expresses the regret of the House of Representatives for the Chinese Exclusion Act, which imposed almost total restrictions on Chinese immigration and naturalization and denied Chinese-Americans basic freedoms because of their ethnicity. This was only the fourth time that the U.S. Congress issued an apology to a group of people.
Note: China has Big Time Power in USA today, so they get a perfunctory ‘Apology’!
Those of African descent such as yours truly do not! That just proves the old Adage is valid:
A NATIVE AMERICAN’S
Full Show: Living Outside Tribal Lines
April 12, 2013
The unprecedented level of economic inequality in America is undeniable. In an extended essay, Bill shares examples of the striking extremes of wealth and poverty across the country, including a video report on California’s Silicon Valley. There, Facebook, Google, and Apple are minting millionaires, while the area’s homeless — who’ve grown 20 percent in the last two years — are living in tent cities at their virtual doorsteps. “A petty, narcissistic, pridefully ignorant politics has come to dominate and paralyze our government,” says Bill, “while millions of people keep falling through the gaping hole that has turned us into the United States of Inequality.”
Later, Bill is joined by writer Sherman Alexie. Born on a Native American reservation, Alexie has been navigating the cultural boundaries of American culture in lauded poetry, novels, short stories, screenplays, even stand-up comedy for over two decades. Alexie shares his irreverent perspective on contemporary American life, and discusses the challenges of living in two different cultures at the same time, especially when one has so much dominance over the other. “I know a lot more about being white than you know about being Indian,” Alexie tells Bill.
BILL MOYERS: Welcome! Inequality matters! You will hear people say it doesn’t, but they are usually so high up the ladder they can’t even see those at the bottom. The distance between the first and the least in America is vast and growing.
The Washington Post recently took a look at two counties in Florida and found that people who live in the more affluent St. Johns County live longer than those who live next door in less rich Putnam County. The Post concluded: “The widening gap in life expectancy between these two adjacent Florida counties reflects perhaps the starkest outcome of the nation’s growing economic inequality: Even as the nation’s life expectancy has marched steadily upward…a growing body of research shows that those gains are going mostly to those at the upper end of the income ladder.”
That’s true across America. In California’s Silicon Valley, Apple, Facebook and Google, among others, have reinvented the Gold Rush. But down the road in San Jose it’s not so pretty a picture. Do the math: in an area where one fourth of the population earn an average of about $19,000 dollars a year, rent alone can average more than $20,000 dollars a year, and that difference adds up to homelessness. We talked to Associated Press reporter Martha Mendoza, who brought this story to our attention.
MARTHA MENDOZA: I’ve been a journalist in this area for 25 years, and during that time it has gone from having a pretty robust middleclass to being an area where you see this great divide of wealthy and poor, and nowhere do you see that more than in the Silicon Valley, where 25 years ago this was a place of orchards and farms and ranching and small businesses, and it has completely changed now so that you have incredibly wealthy people and incredibly poor people and a growing gap. Homelessness has increased dramatically. In the shadow of Google, in the shadow of Oracle, in the shadow of Apple Computer, you have people who are hungry.
CINDY CHAVEZ: People had this believe that somehow Silicon Valley was paved with gold—and I would even say my parents, coming from New Mexico, all those years ago when I was very small, I mean they came here looking for opportunity. They wanted to be in a place that it didn’t matter what their ethnicity or culture was, it didn’t matter what their class was, that they really could put their stake in the ground, buy a home and grow a family. I think that’s a dream that a lot of people come to Silicon Valley with, and one of the problems is that it’s not like that for everybody. We have really been a tale of two cities for really a long time.
RUSSELL HANCOCK: Our economic expansion is pretty staggering, people have referred to it as the longest, most sustained, largest, legal wealth creation in the history of the planet. We have very high-income, highest in the nation. We also have very low. We’ve got both. And what’s actually happening right now is a hollowing out in the middle. Now, this is a national phenomenon, but it seems to be particularly acute in Silicon Valley. We’re still generating on the high end—engineers and scientists and coders. But the support positions, manufacturing, you’re not going to see that in Silicon Valley anymore.
MARTHA MENDOZA: They would manufacture silicon chips here in the early days. And I was just the other day looking for anybody making wafers anymore, and there’s not.
THERESA FRIGGE: I used to work with National Semiconductor. I worked in masking. I made that silicon chip. I’m the one who put the programs on that chip; I’m the one who inspected them. I’ve cleaned houses; I have taken care of disabled people. I’m 54 years old; I’ve got nothing.
MARTHA MENDOZA: What happened was, in the Silicon Valley 15 years ago, during the first boom, for every five jobs they were adding, they were building two units of housing. So that jacked up the housing prices to what fights for the most expensive housing in the country. Sometimes it’s first place. Sometimes it’s second place. People who had blue-collar jobs were getting paid 10, 15, 20 bucks an hour, and when their jobs went away they were largely unskilled and could take jobs that paid $8 an hour. That would be the minimum wage in San Jose for the past 15 years. As of last week, they raised it to $10 an hour. Now, on that type of wages, you can’t rent an apartment, you can’t buy food, and you can’t handle the transportation expenses, which can be very high. And so you end up—in some cases you find people living three or four families to an apartment, or people move into homeless shelters or people leave the area.
DANIEL GARCIA: This is my tent. This is where I live. I’ve got my transportation, my bike. I have electricity that I run by car battery. I worked at a restaurant at Google. They have, I don’t know, I guess sixteen or eighteen full-blown restaurants you can go eat at when you work there, for free. I never heard of that in my life. They started doing background checks and they did a background check on me. I’m a convicted felon, so they couldn’t keep me there anymore. Right now, I do yard work for people, stuff like that. I find bikes I fix them up and resell them.
MARTHA MENDOZA: In many communities you see the homeless people, you see them living in the streets, you see them begging downtown, or busking. In the Silicon Valley, this is a lot of freeway living and the homeless people they live along the creeks, or in parks, but where people aren’t going to see them, so it’s more of a hidden problem.
CINDY CHAVEZ: We had a family visit us, mother, father and three children, and they are homeless, and they’re homeless because the father is a gardener, he works three days a week, he makes $75 dollars every day he works. The mother lost her job in manufacturing. It took one paycheck to move them from their apartment onto the street. And that’s true for a lot of families in our community. At some point and I do worry about this, like I think is it all sudden that the country splits in half are we creating literally two Americas?
MARTHA MENDOZA: Silicon Valley has the brainpower and has the risky personality to do some really innovative things when it comes to poverty. And I even think there’s a will to do this, but I think there is a lack of awareness, and hopefully a growing awareness because I do think there’s been brilliance out of that region that has changed the world. So wouldn’t it be something if that area could also be the one that sparks the brilliance that starts to solve this really major problem?
BILL MOYERS: Let’s hope so, because inequality in America is now at the greatest level in modern history and shows no signs of abating. And paradoxically, this week it got worse. The stock market reached new levels, making the rich richer and the press euphoric.
NEWS ANCHOR 1: And the gavel goes down on an historic day on Wall Street.
NEWS ANCHOR 2: Roaring stock markets.
NEWS ANCHOR 3: The S&P just hit another record intraday high.
NEWS ANCHOR 4: Dow’s above 14.8.
NEWS ANCHOR 5: The NASDAQ rose about 60 points.
BILL MOYERS: No one stopped to point out that when the market goes up, it can mean companies have fired workers in order to increase investor profits. Sure enough, the latest figures show employment has barely risen and more rank-and-file Americans have gone missing from the job market altogether. The Commerce Department reports that personal income fell 3.6 percent in January – that’s the sharpest one-month dive in twenty years. It sure seems like the Roaring 20s all over again — people at the top living it up while those down below lose their livelihood.
Which brings us to our nation’s capital — rich in alabaster symbols of representative government yet shamelessly cynical in writing laws and bending rules to favor the one percent. And that includes the tax code.
So on Monday, when you send in your tax returns, think about this. Corporate profits are at record highs. But have those companies invested that in new jobs? No. Did they at least give their workers a bump in pay? Hardly. Surely they shelled out a little more in taxes to help refurbish the social structure – highways, bridges, schools, libraries, parks – where they do business! Guess again. Corporations are sitting on $1.7 trillion of cash. Look at this report just published by PIRG — the Public Interest Research Group — on how average citizens and small businesses have to make up the $90 billion giant companies save by shifting profits to offshore tax havens. Among the 83 publicly traded corporations named: Pfizer, which for the past five years reported no taxable income in the US, even as it made 40 percent of its sales here.
Microsoft, which avoided $4.5 billion in taxes over three years by shifting its income to Puerto Rico! Citigroup, which maintains 20 subsidiaries in tax havens and has over 42 and a half billion dollars sitting off-shore. Taxes collected here at home? Zero.
It’s not only corporations stashing their swag abroad. The Center for Public Integrity in Washington and its International Consortium of Investigative Journalists recently got their hands on two and a half million files from offshore bank accounts and shell companies set up around the world by the wealthy. Among those documents are the names of 4,000 Americans who hid their money in secret tax havens. Here’s how they do it:
FEMALE VOICE: You can easily set up a secret company using one of hundreds of off-shore agents. Let’s look at the British Virgin Islands, home to half a million offshore companies. That’s about 40 percent of the offshore companies on the planet. You can buy a ready-made shell company or create your own secret company from scratch in about three days, for just over $1,000. You may be asked to produce documents to establish your identity and they might check your name in a database, to see if you’re a terrorist. But don’t worry, while the system may catch the big fish, it still lets scores of fraudsters and criminals slip through the net.
BILL MOYERS: So it shouldn’t surprise us to learn that the United States collects less in taxes as a share of its economy than all but two other industrialized countries. Only Chile and Mexico collect less. Chile and Mexico. Right now a powerful group of CEO’s, multi-millionaires and billionaires are calling on Congress to fix the debt. And their enablers in both parties are glad to oblige. Okay. But why not fix the debt by raising more taxes from those who can afford to pay? Close the loopholes. Shut down the tax havens. Cancel the Mitt Romney Clause Congress enacted, allowing big winners to pay a tax rate far less than their chauffeurs, nannies, and gardeners.
Instead, as we speak, our political class in Washington is attempting to fix the debt by sequestration – Washington doublespeak for bleeding services for veterans and the elderly, the sick and poor, for kids in Head Start.
Marching in lockstep beneath a banner that now stands for “Guardians of Privilege” — GOP — Republicans refuse to raise revenues, while Democrats have a president whose new budget contains gimmicks that could lead to cuts in Social Security. Social Security! The one universal safety net — and a modest one at that – and yet the main source of purchasing power for millions of aging Americans! This, from a Democrat – the heir of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who pulled us to our feet when the Great Depression had America on its knees.
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: This Social Security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens, who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health.
BILL MOYERS: But those were the days when our political system rallied to the defense of everyday Americans. Now a petty, narcissistic, pridefully ignorant politics has come to dominate and paralyze our government, while millions of people keep falling through the gaping hole that has turned us into the United States of Inequality.
BILL MOYERS: Let’s talk now with Sherman Alexie. He comes from a long line of people who have lived the consequences of inequality, Native Americans, the first Americans. They were the target of genocide, ethnic cleansing, which for years was the hidden history of America, kept in the closet by the authors and enforcers of white mythology.
How do you grapple with such a long denied history? If you are Sherman Alexie, You face it down with candor and even irreverence, writing poems, novels, and short stories, and even movies. Here’s a clip from “Smoke Signals” that Alexie wrote and co-produced in 1998:
VICTOR IN SMOKE SIGNALS: You got to look mean or people won’t respect you. White people will run all over you if you don’t look mean. You got to look like a warrior. You got to look like you just came back from killing a buffalo.
THOMAS IN SMOKE SIGNALS: But our tribe never hunted buffalo, we were fishermen.
VICTOR IN SMOKE SIGNALS: What? You want to look like you just came back from catching a fish? This ain’t “Dances with Salmon,” you know.
BILL MOYERS: Alexie has published 22 books of poetry and fiction, including “The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven,” “War Dances,” and “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian,” a book for young adults and winner of the National Book Award. His latest work is a collection of short stories, old and new, with the title, “Blasphemy.” I’ll ask him why.
He now lives in Seattle, like many of his characters, who left the reservation for the city, living in between, and traveling across boundaries both real and imagined.
BILL MOYERS: Sherman Alexie, welcome!
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Oh, thank you. It’s good to be here.
BILL MOYERS: Life for you is a lot of in between, isn’t it?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Well, as a native, as a colonized people you do live in the in between. The thing is I’m native. But necessarily because I’m a member of the country, I’m also a White American.
BILL MOYERS: But you must feel at home in that in between now, because so many people are, as you say, living there.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: I was taught that it was not easy, that there was something destructive about it. I was taught by my elders, my parents that it was a bad, dangerous place to be. But I’ve come to realize it’s actually, it’s pretty magical. You know? I can be in a room full of Indians and non-Indians. And I can switch in the middle of sentences. So, and also because I’m ambiguously ethnic looking, you know, I come to New York and I can be anything. People generally think I’m half of whatever they are.
So, I end up feeling like a spy in the house of ethnicity, you know? Because people will talk around me as they would talk around the people in their cultural group. So I get to hear all the secrets and jokes and you know, I’m a part of every community because of the way I look.
BILL MOYERS: Is that a big change from your parents’ generation and your generation?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Oh, I mean, I grew up in a monoculture. We did a family tree in sixth grade on the rez and everybody was related.
BILL MOYERS: On the reservation?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Yes, including the teacher. My mom and dad met when he moved to the rez, when he was five and she was 14. And she helped him get a drink at a water fountain. My mom was born in the house where her mom was born. So we were as isolated in the sense of Native Americans as anybody else. So, you know, I realized later on that when I left the rez to go to the White high school on the border of the rez I was a first-generation immigrant, you know? I’m an indigenous immigrant.
BILL MOYERS: What is it like to be an alien in the land of your birth?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: I mean, it’s a destructive feeling. Because, you know, a lot of native culture has been destroyed. So you already feel lost inside your culture. And then you add up feeling lost and insignificant inside the larger culture. So you end up feeling lost squared. And to never be recognized, to never have any power, you know, other minority communities actually have a lot of economic, cultural power. But we don’t, you know? Not at all!
I mean, you can still have the Washington Redskins, you know! You can still have the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians, which is by far the worst. And if you look at Chief Wahoo on their hats and put Sambo next to him, it’s the same thing. And, you know, you could never have Sambo anymore.
Most, you know, at least half the country thinks the mascot issue is insignificant. But I think it’s indicative of the ways in which Indians have no cultural power. We’re still placed in the past. So we’re either in the past or we’re only viewed through casinos.
BILL MOYERS: Do you feel shoved back into that tight space, that closet, even by the questions I ask about Indians, natives, reservation, all of that?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Sometimes. But, I’m, you know, it’s who I am. So I have no issue talking about it. You know, I know a lot more about being White than you know about being Indian. I am extremely conscious of my tribalism. And when you talk about tribalism, you talk about living in a black and white world. I mean, Native American tribalism sovereignty, even the political fight for sovereignty and cultural sovereignty is a very us versus them. And I think a lot of people in this country, especially European Americans and those descended from Europeans don’t see themselves as tribal, you know? I don’t think, for instance, Republicans see themselves as tribal. I was speaking to a Republican here in New York, a friend of mine. And, you know, I asked him, “Do you think it’s an accident that, what, 80 percent of Republicans are White males?” And he did. I mean, he–
BILL MOYERS: Coincidence, huh?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Yes. He couldn’t even imagine that he’s part of a tribe. So as a member of a tribe, I think I have a more conscious relationship with black and white thinking. And I used to be quite a black and white thinker in public life and private life until 9/11, you know? And the end game of tribalism is flying planes into building. That’s the end game. So since then, I have tried, and I fail often, but I have tried to live in the in between. To be conscious what did Fitzgerald say? The sign of a superior mind is the ability to hold two different ideas. Keats called it negative capability. So I have tried to be in that and fail often, but I try.
BILL MOYERS: That’s what I get from your poems. You even see Yo Yo Ma’s cello differently from the rest of us. That’s one of my favorites. Would you read it?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Oh, yes–
BILL MOYERS: Here it is.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: And this poem is called Tribal Music.
Watching PBS, it occurs
To me that I want to be
Yo Yo Ma’s cello.
Hello! Does this mean
That I’m sexually attracted
To Yo Yo Ma? Nah,
He’s cute and thin
Looks great in a tux,
And makes the big bucks,
But I long to be simultaneously
As strong and fragile
As the cello. I want to be
The union of fingertip
And string. I want less
To be a timorous human
And desire more
To become a solid
Wooden thing, warm
To the touch but much
Colder when left
Alone in my case. I need
To flee the mystery
Of mortality and insanity
And become that space
Between the notes.
I no longer want to be the root
Cause of anybody’s pain,
Especially my own.
O, Yo Yo Ma, I hem
And haw, but let’s be clear:
I want to abandon
My sixteen-drum fear
And inhabit the pause
That happens between falling
In love and collapsing
Because of love. I want
To be sane. I want to be
Clean and visionary
Like a windowpane.
BILL MOYERS: Where does that come from?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Well, you know, number one, the cello looks like a woman to me. And, you know, the curves. And so I am in a way, and it’s funny to admit this, I am sexually attracted to the cello, the curves really get me. So as I watched him play, you know, Yo Yo Ma is sort of making love to a beautiful woman.
And I want to be that beautiful. So I was thinking of that watching it. And then it occurred to me, you know, I’m a man. I don’t want to be a woman. But I want to be the object of beauty. I want to be so clearly beautiful. And in a way it’s a need for perfection, you know, the desire to be perfect, even though I can’t be and even though if I really started thinking about it I don’t want to be. But there’s a state of nirvana or bliss especially when Yo Yo Ma’s playing. I want to be that blissful. And it’s so fleeting. And I’m just incapable of it.
BILL MOYERS: Yearning for that moment of sanity or that place of sanity?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: You say in there, “To be sane.”
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Yes. Well, I’m bipolar. So, you know, I myself veer between these extremes. And to be in the middle is a strong desire. And I mean, I’m working on this idea, I don’t know where it’s going to go, that being tribal, being colonized automatically makes you bipolar. I think the entire Native American world is bipolar.
BILL MOYERS: But is this your imagination or are you clinically bipolar?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: I’m clinically–
BILL MOYERS: You’ve been diagnosed–
SHERMAN ALEXIE: I’ve been diagnosed. I’m medicated. And the medication’s working right now. I mean as any person watching this who knows anything the, you know, the medications have to be adjusted constantly, because your brain sneaks around it, you know? Your brain is like the, your bipolar brain is like the soldiers. And your sanity is like the civilians.
BILL MOYERS: Help me understand what the experience of bipolarity is, what happens to you?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Well, you know, when you’re depressed, you know, it’s like the world has ended. Even getting out of bed takes the most massive amount of effort. But when you’re manic, oh, it’s so addicting. You know, I have finished novels in two weeks in manic stages.
Just staying up, you know, two days in a row writing and great stuff often. I mean, you’re crazy! So you get these incredible images. You know, forget Yo Yo Ma’s cello. I mean, it ends up being, you know, I’m, well, I’m hearkening back to somebody like Sylvia Plath, you know, writing Colossus, you know, Daddy, you know, “You do not do.” You know, which directly comes out of mental illness. And depression and mania! I would venture that most of the world’s great art has come out of manic periods in an artist’s life.
BILL MOYERS: But has it ever occurred to you that there’s been more preoccupation with Sylvia Plath’s illness than with her poetry?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Oh yeah. I mean, there’s a new biography out about her. And it’s the same story. It’s about her craziness.
BILL MOYERS: Why is that?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: I think we’re more interested in the biography.
BILL MOYERS: The story.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Yeah, and especially in this era, where there are no secrets anymore, where the audience in fact desires so much to know more about the artist. You know? You’re supposed to now Twitter everything you’re feeling, you know? You go to, you know, some artist’s, writer’s Twitters. And like everybody else, they’re talking about what they had for dinner, you know? All over writer’s Twitter feeds and Facebook pages are pictures of what they had for dinner. And why anybody would care, you know, that I had a bowl of cereal in my hotel room this morning, I don’t get it. And—
BILL MOYERS: So does that explain The Facebook Sonnet?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Oh, definitely. Definitely.
BILL MOYERS: All right, let’s hear that one.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: The Facebook Sonnet.
Welcome to the endless high school
Reunion. Welcome to past friends
And lovers, however kind or cruel.
Let’s undervalue and unmend
The present. Why can’t we pretend
Every stage of life is the same?
Let’s exhume, resume, and extend
Childhood. Let’s all play the games
That occupy the young. Let fame
And shame intertwine. Let one’s search
For God become public domain.
Let church.com become our church.
Let [us] sign up, sign in, and confess
Here at the altar of loneliness.
BILL MOYERS: Sherry Turkle has written a book called Alone Together on just this point. Talking about how the Internet has produced this serial isolation.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Well, when I think the human is so complex, you know? And as we’re relating here, we’re relating on so many different levels that we don’t consciously understand. I mean, we’re actually smelling each other right now, but our, we, as we talk, don’t know that, but our bodies know that, you know? My gestures, your gestures, the look in your eye! And the Internet takes all that away. There was, there is one level of communication on the Internet, which actually in a way is really insulting to the complexity of being human.
BILL MOYERS: How so?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: It limits us to one sense.
BILL MOYERS: One dimension.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: One dimension. And that’s not who we are. The poetry, if you will, of life is reduced to this sort of dry, scientific, you know, it’s the worst sort of précis of who we are. And, you know, I don’t have Facebook friends. I have friends. And a lot of my friends play basketball. And when we play basketball together, literally, we’re touching each other.
And that can’t be replicated in any form whatsoever with the Internet. And when people say they’re really connecting with somebody, I think, it occurs to me that I don’t know that they’ve ever really connected with anybody if they think the Internet is how you do it.
You know? It’s postcard relationships. In order to know somebody through their words, I mean, it has to be an, it has to be a letter, you know? It has to be a long e-mail. It has to be a five-page hand-written letter, you know, it has to be overwhelming and messy and sloppy as humans are.
And Facebook and Twitter and these other social sites bring every, I mean, 140 characters. I mean, I’m on Twitter and I have fun. But I don’t think anybody learns anything about me as a person.
You know, one of the things I’ve always tried to do as a public person is limit the gap between who I am on a daily basis and who I am on a stage. You know, I’ve tried to be as honest—
BILL MOYERS: Consciously
SHERMAN ALEXIE: –Yes, I’ve tried to be as honest as possible.
BILL MOYERS: How are you different?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Well, I think I’m a more gentle person in private, maybe slightly more gentle. I mean, I’m a lot more confrontational in public. I mean, I’m very angry person.
BILL MOYERS: At what?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Oppression.
BILL MOYERS: Oppression?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Racism, sexism, colonialism, the sins of capitalism, the sins of socialism, human weakness, human cruelty. You know, when we behave more like a lion pride than people with prehensile thumbs.
BILL MOYERS: Is writing cathartic for you? Is it healing?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: No. I think it can be healing for readers. You know, I have been helped and healed by other people’s words.
BILL MOYERS: Same here.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: But I, my own words for myself, oh man, I don’t think so.
BILL MOYERS: Do you think of yourself as a poet first and foremost? Because that’s how I first got introduced to you!
SHERMAN ALEXIE: I’m naturally a poet. I started as a poet. I think it’s how I look at the world, you know?
BILL MOYERS: What, how does it help you see the world?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: You know, I look at Yo Yo Ma’s cello and want to be the cello. I think a novelist would want to write about where the cello came from, who built it. I don’t care.
BILL MOYERS: In this poem, Tribal Music, whose tribal music are you writing about?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Mine. A tribe of one! You know, one of the things about being tribal, being a member of a tribe is the force that makes you, that makes the tribe, for you to be like the tribe, to share similar values, to be less of an individual and more a very conscious member of a community to share political beliefs, to share cultural beliefs.
And I’ve always resisted that. One of the misconceptions about Indians, you know, because liberals love Indians, you know? White liberals worship Indians. But actually, Indians are a conservative lot. I mean, we by and large we vote Democrat, but we live very Republican lives, you know? Indian communities, there’s no separation of church and state, war is a virtue, guns are everywhere, by and large pro-life. So, you know, once again, it’s a very bipolar existence.
You know, this, you know, knowing that Democrats, by and large, are going to support us more. But still behaving like Republicans. You know, it occurs to me it’s like a big city Republicans, who live these incredibly liberal, secular lives in the city, while espousing small town religious politics.
BILL MOYERS: You’re so different from how I expected you to be, quite frankly, because I have never met you. Although one of my producers met you some years ago, 11 years ago, I think, Rick Fields. And I have a clip of the piece that we ran on my show then about you from Seattle. Take a peek.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: But my dad, that alcoholic nomad, he used to leave my family for days or weeks at a time drinking and roaming. And I would lie awake all night waiting for him to come home, and five or six times I cried myself sick into the hospital. And I’d lie awake in the kids’ ward, ignoring the night shift nurses who came in and said, “Please, try and get a little sleep.” So maybe I learned how to be an insomniac because I’m still waiting for my father to come home.
BILL MOYERS: What’s changed for you since then?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Medication. I was undiagnosed bipolar. And staying awake was directly the result of that. Either staying awake because I was depressed and didn’t want to fall asleep for the nightmares or because I was manic and couldn’t fall asleep because I had a million things to do.
BILL MOYERS: Did your father ever come home?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: No. You know, I cut my hair when he died as part of a ceremony. And you can grow it back when the grieving is over. It’s been 10 years since he died. So… and I haven’t grown my hair back. And I doubt I will.
BILL MOYERS: He was an alcoholic?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Oh, lifelong, really.
BILL MOYERS: There’s one scene in your short story War Dances, where the narrator’s in the hospital with his father, who has just had surgery. He’s cold. And the son is trying to find a blanket for him. Why don’t you read this excerpt, War Dances, from Blasphemy.
I walked down the hallway – the recovery hallway – to the nurses’ station. There were three woman nurses, two white and one black. Being Native American-Spokane and Coeur d’Alene Indian, I hoped my darker pigment would give me an edge with the black nurse, so I addressed her directly.
“My father is cold,” I said. “Can I get another blanket?”
The Black nurse glanced up from her paperwork and regarded me. Her expression was neither compassionate nor callous.
“How can I help you, sir? ” she asked.
“I’d like another blanket for my father. He’s cold.”
“I’ll be with you in a moment, sir.”
She looked back down at her paperwork. She made a few notes. Not knowing what
else to do, I stood there and waited.
“Sir,” the Black nurse said, “I’ll be with you in a moment.”
She was irritated. I understood. After all, how many thousands of times had she been asked for an extra blanket? She was a nurse, an educated woman, not a damn housekeeper. And it was never really about an extra blanket, was it? No, when people asked for an extra blanket, they were asking for a time machine. And, yes, she knew she was a health care provider. And she knew she was supposed to be compassionate, but my father, an alcoholic, diabetic Indian with terminally damaged kidneys, had just endured an incredibly expensive surgery for what? So he could ride his motorized wheelchair to the bar and win bets by showing off his disfigured foot? I know she didn’t want to be cruel, but she believed there was a point when doctors should stop rescuing people from their own self-destructive impulses. And I couldn’t disagree with her but I could ask for the most basic of comforts, couldn’t I? “My father,” I said, “an extra blanket, please.”
BILL MOYERS: Autobiographical?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Oh, completely. You know, I remember when my first short stories came out and people were calling it autobiographical and I fought it. And then 10 years later I reread the book and thought, “Oh shoot, this is memoir.”
BILL MOYERS: Eventually, the son in the story finds a Pendleton blanket. What’s a Pendleton blanket?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: It’s actually made by a White-owned company in Oregon. These blankets have become highly sacred among Indians. And actually, the Pendleton Company’s amazing in their relationship with Indians. So, you know, we love the Pendleton Company in Oregon. And they’re gifts. You know, the joke is they’re like Native American fruitcakes. The same blanket travels over and over and over. And nobody ever uses it.
BILL MOYERS: Was that you searching for a blanket or wishing you were–
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Wishing and the desire to go out. Because I knew there’d be Indians in the hospital, you know? If you’re near an Indian community, there are Indians in the hospital. And so I knew somewhere in that hospital was an Indian family with more than one Pendleton.
BILL MOYERS: And in the story, the son brings the blanket back. And he and his father sing together. Did that happen?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: No, we never sang together.
BILL MOYERS: You wish it had happened?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Yes. I mean, even if we’d sang Elvis together, that would have been great.
BILL MOYERS: You know that you’ve been described as both an explorer and an exploder of Indian stereotype. And alcohol is surely one of the most persistent stereotypes, correct?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: It’s not a stereotype. It’s a damp, damp reality. I mean, Native Americans have an epidemic rate of alcoholism. I’m an alcoholic, recovering. My father was an alcoholic. My big brother’s an alcoholic. One of my little sister’s an alcoholic. My mom’s a recovering alcoholic. Every single one of my cousins is a drinker. All of my aunts and uncles were drinkers, some of them have quit, some of them never did. You know, my classmates, you know, three have died in alcoholic-related accidents. My brother has had five best friends die in alcohol-related accidents. And we’re not atypical.
BILL MOYERS: What have you come to understand about that?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: It’s medication. Trying to take away the pain. And in a way it has substituted for cultural ways of dealing with the pain. So instead of singing, we’re drinking. And my father often said, “I drink because I’m Indian,” which, you know, is the saddest thing imaginable.
BILL MOYERS: Why did you drink?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Because I’m Indian.
BILL MOYERS: How do you, how do you stay sober?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Because I don’t want to disappoint all those hungry sons out there, whose own fathers have failed them. Because whether or not I believe in visions or omens, the last time I drank, I completely destroyed my then girlfriend’s birthday party with my alcoholic behavior. And woke up the next day, late in the afternoon feeling deeply ashamed and thinking once again, “I’m going to quit.” You know, I tried eight or nine times. But I woke up, went and checked my mail, and the acceptance from “Hanging Loose” for my first poetry book was in the mail. And I thought, “Okay, this is a sign. Write poems, sober up.”
BILL MOYERS: And you did?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: And I did.
BILL MOYERS: You live in Seattle now. You’ve lived there for how long?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Twenty years.
BILL MOYERS: But as a boy you lived on the Spokane–
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Indian Reservation.
BILL MOYERS: –Reservation. How do you feel where you’re in a place where your people were ethnically cleansed?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: We didn’t make reservations. The military, the US military and government made reservations. And it was a place where we’re supposed to be concentrated and die and disappear. And I don’t know, and I think it’s only out of self-destructive impulses that Native Americans have turned reservations into sacred spaces.
BILL MOYERS: You don’t consider them sacred?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: No. Often the place where reservations are aren’t where the sacred locations were for tribes. I think Spokane, because it’s where Spokane Falls is, I think the city is actually far more sacred than the reservation.
BILL MOYERS: Well, more Indians today live in the cities than live on reservations.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: It’s almost 70 percent of natives live off the reservation. It’s not easy to live in either place.
BILL MOYERS: Can American Indians ever feel easy in a country that is haunted by the memories of genocide, ethnic cleansing?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: I think for that process to begin, the United States would have to officially apologize. I mean, there’s a Holocaust museum in the United States, which I think there should be.
BILL MOYERS: Right in downtown Washington.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: But there should also be a Native American Holocaust Museum.
BILL MOYERS: Why isn’t there?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: This country’s not good at admitting to its sins.
BILL MOYERS: Have you ever heard an apology for what happened?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: From White liberals. But never from White conservatives!
BILL MOYERS: These were, you were nearly exterminated. You–
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Oh, late 19th century, early 20th, we almost blinked out. Ironically, the reservations also saved us, because they concentrated us.
BILL MOYERS: How did that save you?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Breeding. You know? It wasn’t until much later when the US government realized that relocation, taking us out of, you know, highly concentrated ethnic communities was the way to dissipate us. And that didn’t work either, you know? There are blond Indians now, redheaded Indians. So it was cultural protection. It was sovereignty. The impulse to be together in a little group!
BILL MOYERS: In this sense, possessed of a horrendous memory, do you sometimes think of yourself as Jewish?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Constantly. I have a really strong identification with that. And, you know, it’s funny, because my poetry editors are Jewish. And, you know, I have quite an international following. And one of my editors tells the story of she and her husband were in Europe and these Italian scholars were really obsessed and questioning about, you know, “What is the relationship between Jewish people and Indians?” And using my work as sort of this universal idea! And they asked her, “What does the Native world think about,” you know, “Jewish people and Native Americans?” And she said, “I think only Sherman talks about that.” So I, it’s a very personal vision.
The big thing is humor. Humor in the face of incredible epic pain! I mean, Jewish folks invented American comedy. When you’re being funny in the United States, you’re being Jewish. And despite all this incredible dislocation! And the thing, you know, even though it’s pretty similar in population, the number of Jewish folks and the number of Native Americans, they’ve had this incredible success. They have this incredible cultural power.
And in a way, I wish that was us! In a way, that could have easily been us! You know? Indians with our storytelling and artistic ability could have created Hollywood. We could have created American comedy. So in some ways, we’re the yin and yang of the American genocidal coin.
BILL MOYERS: There’s a poem that I have read several times in anticipation of this meeting. And this one is troubling. Another Proclamation.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Another Proclamation.
that, one year earlier, in 1862, he’d signed and approved the order for the largest public execution in United States history? Who did they execute? “Mulatto, mixed-bloods, and Indians.” Why did they execute them? “For uprising against the State and her citizens.” Where did they execute them? Mankato, Minnesota. How did they execute them? Well, Abraham Lincoln thought it was good
simultaneously. Yes, in front of a large and cheering crowd, thirty-eight Indians dropped to their deaths. Yes, thirty-eight necks snapped. But before they died, thirty-eight Indians sang their death songs. Can you imagine the cacophony of thirty-eight different death songs? But wait, one Indian was pardoned at the last minute, so only thirty-seven Indians had to sing their death songs. But O, O, O, O, can you imagine the cacophony of that one survivor’s mourning song? If he taught you the words, do you think you would sing along?
BILL MOYERS: Talk about that.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Well, essentially, they were executed for terrorism. The perception of being terrorists for defending themselves and their people from colonial incursions!
BILL MOYERS: As the Whites had been pushing into Minnesota, pushing them further west. And promised them, as I understand it, food in exchange for land. And then the food didn’t come. And the Indians reacted violently.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: And then all over the country massacres happening of people they, you know, they would push these tribes and these people onto reservations and then send the soldiers in to wage war on them. I just learned, I don’t know why I didn’t know this, some sort of denial I guess. But they gave medals of Honor to U.S. soldiers who participated at Wounded Knee, absolute massacres of unarmed women, children, and elderly people.
BILL MOYERS: He lived in the in between like everyone. What I know of this incident is that 303 Indians were sentenced to death. President Lincoln commuted the sentences of 265 of them on the basis he himself said of not enough evidence, but allowed 38 of them to be hanged.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: So, the hypocrisy abounds. So once again, the way in which I watch Lincoln the movie is far different than most people watch Lincoln.
That movie in no way portrayed the complexity of human beings, and certainly does not portray the complexity of Lincoln, who for his genius was also, you know, an incredibly, as any politician, an incredibly conflicted and conflicting man, who was capable of ordering great evil. And who did, in fact, by ordering it, created a great evil, committed great evil, a sinful, sinful man that Lincoln.
BILL MOYERS: Had you known about the story for a long time?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: You know, most Indians know a lot about the massacres. They’re touchstones. They’re a myth for us.
BILL MOYERS: What saved you spiritually? What saved you inwardly?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Storytelling.
BILL MOYERS: How so?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: The age-old stories, you know, sort of an actual sacred nostalgia. And keeping all the ghosts alive, keeping all the memories alive! If you tell a story well enough, everybody in it is right there. So nobody ever dies.
BILL MOYERS: Why did you call this book Blasphemy?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Because I’ve been so often accused of it by Indians and non-Indians.
BILL MOYERS: How so?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Because I question everything. Because even though I do believe in the sacred, I believe just as strongly in questioning what people think is sacred. Because we’re humans and we make mistakes. So, you know, I do my best to point out our weaknesses. And people don’t like that. And the weaknesses of our institutions and the weaknesses of our politicians and the weaknesses of our religions!
Once again, 9/11 was the event for me. 9/11 turned all sorts of people into fundamentalists who weren’t otherwise, on the left and the right, in the Christian worlds and in the Muslim worlds. And I refuse to participate.
BILL MOYERS: So what do you mean by blasphemy?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: I don’t believe in your God. And “your” means the royal “your”.
BILL MOYERS: Do you believe in your God?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: No.
BILL MOYERS: What do you believe in?
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Stories. Stories are my God.
BILL MOYERS: Would you read this for me?
I’ve never been to Mount Rushmore. It’s just too silly. Even now, as I write this,
About the T-shirt that has four presidential faces on the front and four bare asses
on the back.
Who’s on that damn T-shirt anyway? Is it both Roosevelt, Jefferson, and Lincoln?
Don’t get me wrong, I love my country. But epic sculpture just leaves me blinking
With dry-eyed boredom (and don’t get me started on blown glass art. I really
hate that crap).
I’ve never been to Mount Rushmore. It’s just too silly. Even now, as I write this,
That I’d much rather commemorate other president. Let’s honor JFK’s whoring
Or the thirteen duels Andrew Jackson fought to defend his wife’s honor. Why
don’t we sculpt that?
Who’s on that damn Rushmore anyway? Is it McKinley, Arthur, Garfield,
And, yes, I know, there’s a rival sculpture of Crazy Horse, but the sight of that
one is ball-shrinking
Because Crazy Horse never allowed his image to be captured, so which sculptor
do you think he’d now attack?
I’ve never been to Mount Rushmore. It’s just too silly. Even now, as I write this
About George W’s wartime lies, Clinton’s cigars, and Nixon’s microphones, and
Because I know every president, no matter how great on the surface, owned a
heart chewed by rats.
Who’s on that damn Rushmore anyway? Is it Buchanan, both Adamses,
and Mr. Lincoln?
Answer me this: After the slaughterhouse goes out of business, how long
will it go on stinking
Of red death and white desire? Should we just cover the
presidents’ faces with gas masks?
Who cares? I’ve never been to Rushmore. It’s too silly. Even now, as I write
this, I’m thinking:
“Who’s on that damn mountain anyway? Is it Jefferson, Washington,
vReagan, and Lincoln?”
BILL MOYERS: Now go eight pages over to page 38 and read me your footnote.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: So it’s footnote 13.
Honestly, I’ve never been there. This is not a conceit for the poem. I’ve truly never had any interest in visiting Mount Rushmore or the Crazy Horse memorial. Once while driving in the region, I thought about stopping by, but I didn’t. I have no regrets. I’ve seen Alfred Hitchcock’s film “North by Northwest”, where Cary Grant’s climactic battle with the bad guys happens on the face of Mount Rushmore. It’s exciting. But I much prefer the ending where we watch Grant and Eva Marie Saint start to make out in their train car, and then cut to the final shot of that awesomely phallic train penetrating a wonderfully vaginal mountain tunnel. I’m a lover, not a fighter.”
BILL MOYERS: And we’re all glad for that. Sherman Alexie, I really enjoyed this time with you. And thank you very much for sharing it.
SHERMAN ALEXIE: Thank you, thank you.
BILL MOYERS: Sherman Alexei will be joining us at our website, billmoyers.com, for a live web chat this coming Tuesday, that’s April 16th, at 1 pm, Eastern Time. You can submit your questions on the website or at our Facebook page. I’ll see you there and I’ll see you here, next time.
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!
In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People