Blog #5- The Ethics of Courage
After some quick research I have found that Taiaiake Alfred is an author, educator and activist, who is commited to Indigenous peoples' dignity, freedom and nationhood. Reading this article is the first time I have heard of the Onkwehonwe, also known as Onkwehonwe-Neha, and have found that the first part of the word references the Mohawk name for the people of human beings; the Neha part refers to our way of life and our cultural traditions and teachings. Alfred references Onkwehonwe throughout this article as he was born of the Mohawk nation in Montreal. From my understanding, the purpose of this article is to bring awareness about the "unchallenged white arrogance and racial prejudice against indigenous people". As far as the particular audience Alfred is hoping to bring awareness to, I personally felt as though I were listening to some sort of lecture against racism; it is definitely meant for a mature adult audience. I am aware of the racial prejudice that occurs in our society, however this article gives much more detail as to how much of an issue it really is. Alfred is very serious and passionate about his faith in being able to overcome this issue.
He refers to the "spirit of freedom and the ideals of good society" and uses the term "anarcho-indigenism" to describe how "the Onkwehonwe struggle for justice and freedom, and the political philosophy and movement that is fundamentally anti-institutional, radically democratic, and committed to taking action to force change". At the beginning of this article, Alfred gives examples on how contending with state power is inescapable, with talking about the experiences in Oka and Gustafsen Lake. He goes into more thourough detail which proves his point on how Governments will always use violence to advance political objectives. I found it interesting how Alfred used various examples between other nations, and the logic behind their behaviour to take certain action. One of his examples is with Che Guevara, who is an "emblem of the revolutionary spirit" and was "uncompromising in his belief in the necessity of armed struggle and his hatred of imperialists". Alfred states how violence and hatred are in fact the essences of the "revolutionary spirit" and in order to bring about different ways of change we must first recognize the attraction of violence. I can go on about how much I am against violence, however I am aware how it is an unfortunate necessity in certain circumstances, as Alfred also states, "there are arguments in any movement both for and against violence that make sense". Violence is a powerful strategic weapon that gets attention but also has drawbacks; it really is like an "addictive drug" which in the longterm creates situations justifying further violence. It is a vicious cycle that is in some cases unavoidable.
There is so much more in depth detail in this article regarding different instances about violence because of both cultural and racial discrimination. Though Alfred lists various examples on the hostility of white people and the issues of racism, maybe I'm being naive, but I do not see it to be as big of an issue now. I know that it still exists, and prejudism is still pretty harsh in our society. It makes me wonder when and why we've become so judgemental towards other peoples race and cultural beliefs? Why must people of other nations have to be reoriented both culturally and politically in order to "be truly living the ethic of courage as warriors for the next generations" ?
He refers to the "spirit of freedom and the ideals of good society" and uses the term "anarcho-indigenism" to describe how "the Onkwehonwe struggle for justice and freedom, and the political philosophy and movement that is fundamentally anti-institutional, radically democratic, and committed to taking action to force change". At the beginning of this article, Alfred gives examples on how contending with state power is inescapable, with talking about the experiences in Oka and Gustafsen Lake. He goes into more thourough detail which proves his point on how Governments will always use violence to advance political objectives. I found it interesting how Alfred used various examples between other nations, and the logic behind their behaviour to take certain action. One of his examples is with Che Guevara, who is an "emblem of the revolutionary spirit" and was "uncompromising in his belief in the necessity of armed struggle and his hatred of imperialists". Alfred states how violence and hatred are in fact the essences of the "revolutionary spirit" and in order to bring about different ways of change we must first recognize the attraction of violence. I can go on about how much I am against violence, however I am aware how it is an unfortunate necessity in certain circumstances, as Alfred also states, "there are arguments in any movement both for and against violence that make sense". Violence is a powerful strategic weapon that gets attention but also has drawbacks; it really is like an "addictive drug" which in the longterm creates situations justifying further violence. It is a vicious cycle that is in some cases unavoidable.
There is so much more in depth detail in this article regarding different instances about violence because of both cultural and racial discrimination. Though Alfred lists various examples on the hostility of white people and the issues of racism, maybe I'm being naive, but I do not see it to be as big of an issue now. I know that it still exists, and prejudism is still pretty harsh in our society. It makes me wonder when and why we've become so judgemental towards other peoples race and cultural beliefs? Why must people of other nations have to be reoriented both culturally and politically in order to "be truly living the ethic of courage as warriors for the next generations" ?