I dunno but about 90% of rapists of black women are black men.

That’s an interesting point. Are there any statistics regarding how often persons are sexually assaulted by a person of another race in general? Not just for NDNs? I’m curious to know the answer, given how race and gender often intersect.

Because they should know better. Because their cultural background (at least in some tribes) is to honor women and consider them equals, not treat them as chattel property, as it is in historical Euro-American culture. Not that this cultural baggage makes white men any less culpable if they engage in sexual violence, of course.

“But even if it is, that really has nothing to do with a man’s moral obligation not to rape any woman under any circumstances (and I really don’t think you disagree with that statement).”

You are correct, sir.

Okay, makes sense now. My original point was that it’s even worse for Indian men (as opposed to yonegv, white men) to victimize Indian women given many tribe’s histories of gender relations.

Why hold NA men (or women) to a higher moral standard than non-NA men or women? Perhaps from the victim’s point of view being raped by someone in your “group” is worse than being raped an “outsider”; that’s a question I would leave to others who are better qualified to answer it. But even if it is, that really has nothing to do with a man’s moral obligation not to rape any woman under any circumstances (and I really don’t think you disagree with that statement).

In the immortal words of Senator Joe Biden: Yes.

“I only brought this up because I thought I saw a claim upthread that native american men couldn’t possibly be asked to stop raping native american women because native american men were oppressed by all those mean native american matriarchies.”

Okay, makes sense now. My original point was that it’s even worse for Indian men (as opposed to yonegv, white men) to victimize Indian women given many tribe’s histories of gender relations.

matrilineal means descent through the mother. Matriarchal does NOT mean “rule solely by women.” However, given that nearly all domestic authority rested with the mother and her family, I think it applies.

Matriarchy does imply rule (or at least equal representation) in the public sphere by women.

I don’t really want to get engaged in a semantics debate with you. Can we say that women had a great deal of power in the domestic sphere, and a kind of limited power over (but not in) the public sphere that did not involve a gender reversal of the kind of dominance we mean when we reference patriarchy?

That sounds an awful lot like a society where men run things, and women have a voice (and even on a veto on some decisions) but not real power. The men’s council ran the tribe, and sought women’s advice on some things. A wiser patriarchy, perhaps, but a patriarchy

Yeah, that’s how I’ve always heard it described.

*

Whee! I’m an idiot.

I only brought this up because I thought I saw a claim upthread that native american men couldn’t possibly be asked to stop raping native american women because native american men were oppressed by all those mean native american matriarchies. It was on this basis that I was trying to attack the concept of matriarchies in indigenous populations, because it seemed to me that the claim was tapping a myth of populations where gender relations are just a black and white flip of what patriarchies look like.

Anyway, I appear to have entirely hallucinated that claim. So, this would be me, backing down and apologizing. Sorry!

That sounds an awful lot like a society where men run things, and women have a voice (and even on a veto on some decisions) but not real power. The men’s council ran the tribe, and sought women’s advice on some things. A wiser patriarchy, perhaps, but a patriarchy.

matrilineal means descent through the mother. Matriarchal does NOT mean “rule solely by women.” However, given that nearly all domestic authority rested with the mother and her family, I think it applies. But we may be getting bogged down by labels here, which is completely besides the point and off-thread.

“There are a lot of valid academic critiques of the kind of passage you’re quoting.”

Not that you necessarily intended it that way, but your statement seems to imply that “academic critiques” (almost all of which are produced by white academics) are somehow more valid than the traditional history of the Cherokee themselves. That’s ethno-centric and I don’t accept it. Given a choice between what my granny told me and what somebody at Harvard wrote for their dissertation, I have to go with granny. If you must have validation by white people as proof, there are any number of descriptions of Cherokee society by early white invaders and almost all make reference to what they referred to as a “petticoat government.” The history of my tribe makes it clear that “War Women” and “Beloved Women” wielded authority over the both the civil and the military governments (which were always separate) and maintained the right to veto decisions by male chiefs. Indeed, it is impossible to understand pre-Invasion Cherokee society without understanding both the clan structure and the central role of women. It was only after contact with whites that Cherokee society became more patriarchal in nature, a pattern that has been repeated in other tribes throughout Turtle Island. Now, to digress back to the topic, I think violence against women, at least for some tribes, was (like smallpox and racism) a foreign concept with which Indians were infected post-Invasion.

That was more or less what I was expecting you to provide as proof. There are a lot of valid academic critiques of the kind of passage you’re quoting.

Women had more power in many native american societies than we are accustomed to them having in other societies. That does *not* make them matriarchal.

(People confuse the heck out of matriarchal and matrilineal, for instance.)

Matriarchal what now? Proof of that claim, please?

You may find the following comments by David Cornsilk (a well-known Cherokee genealogist and lay advocate on behalf of the Cherokee Freedmen) of interest:

“You should read the book, “Cherokee Women,” by Theda Perdue, professor of history at the University of Western [sic] North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Cherokees were a traditionally matriarchal, matrilineal and matrilocal tribe. Clans and property passed through the women and children were the sole property of the women and thier clan. The women’s council, which functioned independently of the national council dominated by men, had its own powers, including the right to veto war and determine the fate of war captives. Children were of little concern to the father, as his responsibility would be directed toward the care of his sister’s children, who shared his clan. Following European colonization and forced and voluntary assimilation by Cherokees, patrilineal descent became important, including destruction of the clan system, inheritance through the father and surnames derived from the father was introduced to the tribe. However, Cherokee women did continue to hold onto an important role in the traditional Cherokee households, where clans continue to be inherited from the mother and a form of matriarchal society exists around elder Cherokee women.”

http://www.afrigeneas.com/forume/index.cgi?noframes;read=12746

Subservient, my ass.

The post I wrote yesterday seems to have evaporated (maybe in the spam filter?)

It should be taken care of now, unless there’s another one out there I’ve missed!

—Myca

Don’t have time to rewrite it and find the links again, but quickly let me mention that preferences/stereotypes/acceptability aside, in areas where white settlers were moving into Indian lands (e.g. Oklahoma) there weren’t a lot of unattached white women, compared to the number of men looking for partners or spouses. Add to that the economic incentives - by far the easiest way for a white businessman to get a license in Indian Territory was to marry into the tribe - and the unfortunate success of the allotment rules that purposely scattered the Indian allotments among lands reserved for white settlers, in order to promote assimilation and prevent Indian communities from forming.

In the earlier years of this country white men very strictly controlled intermarriage for white women, where as white men had much greater freedom to intermarry. And white men were also less likely to be ostracized if they did intermarry; thus the negative consequences were not as great

From what I’ve read, NDN woman/white man unions were also less problematic for matrilineal tribes like the Cherokee during that period.

No, you’re right. Indian men, especially from traditionally matrileneal, matrilocal and matriarchal tribes like the Cherokee, should be in the forefront of efforts to root out this kind of foul, reprehensible behavior. And any Indian man who commits such a crime deserves to have the full weight of tribal law descend on his head.

‘isn’t it true that in the 18th and 19th centuries (when most people’s “great-great-great-grandparents” would have been born), marriages between NA women and non-NA men were more common than the reverse?’

Absolutely true and that was my point, though I didn’t make it clear enough. White notions of racial superiority will not admit that a white woman might be attracted to an Indian man (though Chief John Ross and Elias Boudinot of the Cherokee, to name but two, both had white wives). Thus, “family legends” are almost always of Indian women falling for (and sometimes saving a la Pocahontas) white men.

“were no princes/princesses in traditional Cherokee society”

True and that’s something of a running joke among Cherokee. For example, there’s a great tee-shirt you can buy in the gift shop next to the Cherokee Nation complex in Tahlequah that says, “I’m not a Cherokee princess, I’m Queen of the Universe.”

I fairly certain this is the case. In the earlier years of this country white men very strictly controlled intermarriage for white women, where as white men had much greater freedom to intermarry. And white men were also less likely to be ostracized if they did intermarry; thus the negative consequences were not as great.

Nevertheless, the exotic sexual stereotype of American NDN women is pervasive (similar to Asian American women in my view). I certainly know the white men I grew up with had this mentality. They also had the belief that NDN women were subservient, which is even more interesting considering the American Indian population was very small.