Do you deserve to call yourself a leader?

Few have the courage to speak out publicly when there is a act of cynical tokenism used to conceal outright corruption amongst our people. We have all these mediocre leaders, often their qualifications only represent how captive they are to white racist stereotypes. Yes they might have intellectual talent, but the point I'm trying to get at is our Native leaders sometimes only entertain the possibility that the racist stereotypes may be true. Hence the attempt of those tokenizing these poor victims of circumstance to try cover these leaders mediocrity with silence. Of course there are those that privately admit the mediocrity in our leaders, but white mediocrity is not justification for Indian mediocrity what so ever. Our people are constantly victims of double standards, but a argument might be presented in defense to excuse an unqualified Natives by appealing to other unqualified white men of power. This cynical tokenism rings true of the lowest common denominator, with little to no concern for breaking the racist stereotypes or investing in the public interest of our community. This also renders qualified Indian leaders invisible who deserve serious consideration to be selected and supported by our people. How did our people get into this bind? Why did so many of them capitulate to this cynical strategy? First and foremost, these leader claim their racial authenticity, the complex relation of this claim to racial authenticity is utilized to increase their closed ranks mentality that they rely their careers on. They use the notion that America's will to invest in racial justice is weak in order to belittle relations with the white community. This allows utilization of closing ranks for survival in this racial hostile country, this rests solely on claims of racial authenticity. This is a way in which native nationalist sentiment promotes and encourages native culture conservatism, especially amongst the native patriarchal powers. The idea of Native People closing ranks against hostile white America reinforces Native male power exercised over Native women. These men act as if to protect, regulate, and subordinate in order to preserve contemporary Native social order under circumstances of white literal and symbolic attack. Most of our leaders are lost in the thicket of corruption and therefore got caught in the vulgar form of racial reasoning: Native closing ranks mentality, Native authenticity,Native subordination of Native women in interests of the Native community in this hostile white racist country are examples of this corruption. Such a line in this racial reasoning leads to question,"are these people really Native?" "Are they Native enough to be defended?" Or is this just the Native on the outside effect? Questions like this have been asked and debated; unfortunately, the very frame work of racial reasoning regulates Native thoughts and actions. As long as racial reasoning regulates Native thought and action, The constant failures of these token Native leaders will continue to haunt Indian country. Conservatives and spineless liberals sit back, watch and prosper as these tokens perform the act they have become admired for amongst these racists that have been conditioned to overlook our humanity they use to justify their entertainment and capitalize on. How does one undermine the framework of racial reasoning? By dismantling each pillar slowly and systematically. The fundamental aim of this undermining and dismantling is to replace racial reasoning with moral reasoning, to understand the Native freedom struggle not as an affair of pigmentation and racial phenotype but rather as a matter of ethical principles and wise politics we've abandoned for these IRA governments, and to combat the Native nationalist attempt to subordinate the issues and interests of our people. Therefore the failure of the nerve of Native leadership is its refusal to undermine and dismantle the framework of this racial reasoning. After centuries of racist degradation, exploitation, and oppression, being Native means being minimally subject to white supremacist abuse and being a part of a rich culture and community that has struggled against such abuse. All people with red skin and a native phenotype are subjected to potential white supremacist abuse. Therefore, all Native Americans should have some interest in resisting racism, even if their interests are confined solely to themselves as individuals rather than to a larger native community. Yet how this "interest" is defined and how individuals understand vary. Therefore any claim to Native authenticity-beyond the potential objectification to racist abuse and our heir to a grand tradition of the Native struggle, it is contingent on one's political definition of native interest and one's ethical understanding of how this interest relates to individuals and communities in and outside of indian country. In short "indian-ness" is a political and ethical construct. Appeals to native authenticity ignore this fact; such appeals hide and conceal the political and ethical dimensions of "indian-ness" This is why claims to racial authenticity trump political and ethical argument-and why racial reasoning discourages moral reasoning. Every claim to racial authenticity presupposes elaborate conceptions of political and ethical relations of interest, individuals, and communities. Racial reasoning conceals the presuppositions behind a deceptive cloak of racial consensus-yet racial reasoning is seductive because it invokes undeniable history of our racial abuse and racial struggle. But if claims to native authenticity are political and ethical conceptions of the relation of native interest, individuals, and communities, then any attempt to confine Native authenticity to native nationalist politics should warrant suspicion. Native leaders that constantly fail to highlight the problematic polices, polices that help them get appointed or elected into office that they have come to take comfort in these failures of their predecessors should concern all, especially those that vouched and voted for these individuals. The undermining and dismantling of the framework of racial reasoning- most importantly the basic notions of native authenticity, closed rank mentality, and native cultural conservatism can lead towards a new framework of Native thought and practice. This new framework should be prophetic one of moral reasoning with its fundamental ideas of a mature native identity, coalition strategy, and native cultural democracy. Instead of cathartic appeals to native authenticity, a prophetic viewpoint bases mature native self-love and self respect on the moral quality of native responses to the undeniable racist degradation in the American past and present. Prophetic framework encourages moral assessment of the variety of perspectives held by native people and selects those views based on native dignity and decency that eschews putting any group of people or culture on a pedestal or in the gutter. Instead, "Indian-ness" is understood to be either the perennial possibility of white supremacist abuse or the distinct styles and dominant modes of expression found in native culture and communities. These styles and modes are diverse-yet they do stand apart from those of other groups, even if they are shaped by and shape those of other groups. And all such styles and modes stand in need of ethical evaluation. Mature native identity results from an acknowledgment of specific native responses to racist abuse and moral assessment of these responses such that the humanity of native people does not rest on deifying or demonizing others. Instead of close ranking mentality, a prophetic framework encourages a coalition strategy that solicits genuine solidarity with those deeply committed to our struggles. This strategy is neither naive nor opportunistic; Native suspicion of whites runs deep for historical reasons. Yet there are slight antiracist traditions among whites that should not be cast aside. Unfortunately, most Native leaders remain caught in the framework of racial reasoning-even when they oppose the corruption they are exemplifying for their platform. Rarely do we see a Native leader highlight the moral content of a mature Native identity, accent the crucial role of coalition strategy in the struggle for justice, or promote the ideal of native cultural democracy. Instead, the debate is overlooked or it has evolved around glib formation of a native “role model” based on mere pigmentation, an atavistic defense of native-ness that mirrors the increasing xenophobia in American life, and circles around the silence of the ugly authoritarian practices in Indian country. Native leadership must share some of the blame. As long as native leaders remain caught in a framework of racial reasoning, they will not rise above the manipulation currently ravaging our quality of life in Indian country. Where there is no vision, the people perish; where there is no framework of moral reasoning, the people close ranks in a war of all against all. The growing gangsterization of our communities results in part from a market-driven racial reasoning that links the white house to the ghettos of our reservation. In this sense, Barrack Obama, Archie Larose, and many gangster rappers speak the same language from different social locations-where they think racial reasoning will save us. Yet there is a cloud of witnesses from afar but very connected to the struggle of our people. The many anonymous others who champion the struggles for freedom and justice in a prophetic framework of moral reasoning. It is we who understand the pitfalls of racial reasoning that are very costly to the mind, body, and spirit of our people-especially for the downtrodden and despised people like us Native Americans. The best of our leadership needs to recognize the valuable truth-and more must do so very soon if Leech Lake is to survive with any moral sense.