a bit overdue, but still interesting....

On September 8, 2009, the House of Representatives passed Bill H.R. 310 in a unanimous, which allowed for a section of the Ouachita National Forest to be transferred over to the Indian nations Council of Oklahoma. At first glance, this generous land transfer appears to be a positive step in the direction of advocating Native American land rights. However, if one knew what the Indian Nations Council represented, this gesture is anything but positive.
The Indian Nations Council is a chapter of the Boy Scouts of America and has absolutely nothing to do with Native Americans. In fact, the vast majority of its members are European Americans, who take pleasure in mocking Native American groups by dressing up and playing “Indians”- feathered headdresses and all. This chapter of the Boy Scouts creates Native-sounding subgroups, acting as tribes, performing outdoor “rituals” and sacred tribal dances- all taking place in the Ouachita National Forest. The reason why the Indian Nations Council wished to have this land for private ownership and use was due to the fact that their current meeting facility was unable to hold the number of people who wanted to participate. U.S. Representative Dan Boren commented: “Attendance has now exceeded the maximum number of available campsites and program areas, which is causing Camp Hale to begin turning away hundreds of scouts each summer. It is now critical for camp growth that the boundaries be extended”.

Apart from the somewhat racist nature of the group, I chose to ignore that fact at first and felt that the Indian Nations Council’s intent was one of good nature, as they were just trying to provide equal opportunity for all children who expressed interest in becoming a member of their group. Additionally, I regarded young boys “playing Indian” as a usual form of childhood playtime, and didn’t think of it being racist. However, my point of view soon changed when the author of the article insightfully compared this current situation to a hypothetical one: “Imagine that a predominantly European-American organization set up a club in downtown Chicago in which children were taught to dress up in blackface and imitate African Americans. Imagine that this group then asked congress to help expand its facilities by giving it part of what had been public park”. Wow, right? Why is it that I was only able to truly see the gravity of the racist issue once the situation was put in a black-vs- white context? Why did it seem less urgent when it involved Native Americans? Although the historical contexts of these two examples are vastly different, putting on blackface and dressing up like an Indian are truly much in the same. You are taking on a new persona, a new identity different from your own, different from your own race, with little regard for the history or social contexts of your actions (especially when the group we’re referring to is composed of children who are most likely unaware of these issues). I, myself, didn’t realize the racial and social context of playing dress up (in this case, playing Indian), until I read Going Native.

In the chapter entitled Manning the New Frontier: The Boy Scouts and American Imperialism, the text informed me that these fraternal gatherings of white men acting and dressing as Indians was not a new phenomenon, as it has been occurring since the 1860s. By the end of the nineteenth century, these American fraternal organizations “collected a combined annual income of up to $2 billion (a figure matching the amount spent on federal defense during the same time period)” (Huhndorf, 65). So, not only were white Americans mocking Native Americans in their ritualized practices, they were also profiting off of their sacred culture, much like white actors were profiting off of doing shows in blackface. Yet, at the same time, white Americans chose to emulate Native American culture as it served as a strong model for accomplishing the goals structured by the Boy Scouts, which was to instill strength, masculinity, and military ideals in American men- something that never occurred in the relationship between whites and African Americans. In this sense, having Native Americans as a model for success appears to be a compliment. However, in the context of the nineteenth century, its actions meant something entirely different: “The fact that a group of Anglo-American men could play Indian in this fashion seemed to demonstrate that “a new order of things is to take place,” that whites would literally take the place of Native Americans” (Huhndorf, 66). Although whites have not taken place of the Native American race, its population certainly trumps the once dominant culture. The Ouachita National Forest is meant to be a public space enjoyed by all- regardless of race. Why can’t the Boy Scouts just leave one aspect of natural history for all to enjoy instead of hording it for themselves?