Politics is an interesting business to participate in and a sometimes frustrating one to watch.
A good example is the recent “renaming” of Mt. McKinley.
As readers who have been paying attention to national news stories are aware, the Obama Administration earlier this summer declared that it was going to exercise its executive powers to change the name of America’s highest mountain to “Denali.”
This isn’t civics or history class, so we won’t launch into a long dissertation on how incredibly complex situations such as this one can be. Politics and history, particularly in a democratic society, is never simple. More on that in a moment.
For those not particularly familiar with the background here, we offer this quick-and-dirty version: The land we now know as Alaska was once occupied by people who had traveled eastward from Asia and had occupied the northwestern portion of North America for thousands of years. About 300 years ago, white men arrived, loved what they saw, and moved in. As has often occurred since the recorded history began, the invading newcomers gained dominance geographically, culturally and politically.
One step in that process was the renaming of the 20,310-foot Denali peak in 1896 by a gold prospector, in a gesture of support, after Wiliam McKinley had been elected president. The name was formalized by President Woodrow Wilson in 1917, nearly 20 years after McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist.
The Koyukon Athabaskans, who have lived in the area around the mountain for centuries, had assigned the mountain the name “Denali” (based on the Koyukon word for “high” or “tall”). Incidentally, other native peoples, who lived further away, had their own particular names for the mountain – all of which referred to the mountain’s size and, incidentally, began with the “D” sound. “Denali” apparently was not a universal designation even among native peoples.
However, as we Americans have grappled in the last 50 years with some of the black eyes of our history, particularly in relation to how our forebears treated the native peoples of the land, their descendants have gained increasing voice in issues such as this. “Imperialism” has become a dirty word in our schools and in our media, and in some senses, rightly so.
Despite what some educators may tell our kids, the fact that Europeans came to America is not necessarily wrong. Throughout history, people have moved from here to there, based on motives running the gamut from the need for survival to greed for riches and power. (What may have been questionable were the incentives for most of the explorers who preceded us to the Americas, for whom the latter were their main motivation.)
What happened after they arrived included many abuses – on both sides.
Understandably, the existing peoples were not always happy to have their land, lifestyle, language and liberty overrun by loud, brash invaders. They resisted, in some cases with extreme cruelty, those advances. Even those who tried to get along fell prey to the white men’s germs, greed and firewater. The history books we read in high school and college don’t usually mention this, but there were clearly atrocities on both sides.
The scene in “The Last of the Mohicans” movie in which a traitorous scout kills a British commander and takes a bite out of his heart is a historically substantiated fact. It may not have happened often, but it did, along with scalping, burning captives and victims to death, and slaughter of non-combative women and children.
At the same time, there were a tremendous number of abuses on the part of the American government and settlers, both before and after the Revolution.
It’s not a pretty picture, and efforts such as the renaming of Mt. McKinley are gestures to try to atone for some of the injustices that have occured.
Trying to look at it fairly, despite arguments that the indigenous people would have been better off left alone, that may not be entirely true.
Many have access to food, clothing, medical care, other modern conveniences that can contribute substantially to longevity.
Statistics suggest that the modern average lifespan of a Native American in Alaska today is just over 70 years. Though an search for specific research focusing on Alaska-area peoples came up empty, there are studies that indicate that an average of 5 percent of Native Americans in general, before the arrival of Europeans, could expect to reach age 50. It was a hard life.
However, other research that suggests that, historically, people, including Native Americans, have struggled for generations with “historical unresolved grief” from genocide and other abuses. In American Indian communities, such repercussions have manifested themselves in excessive rates of suicide, homicide, domestic violence, child abuse and alcoholism.
Other than common human decency, why should we care, here in Sweet Home?
The move to place the Cascadia Cave site under the management of the U.S. Forest Service is a local example. The site certainly has historical significance for not only local Native Americans but for all of us. It’s been abused by treasure hunters and others, who have caused damage. Securing and preserving it for future generations to admire is not only responsible but considerate.
Situations like the renaming of Mt. McKinley are complex, filled with emotion on all sides. While many of us may not really care either way, Ohioans have a high regard for their native son, William McKinley, a good man whose life was tragically cut short. They’ve been proud to see his name on the tallest peak on the continent.
Alaskans, though, may view that name in different light. It’s easy to see how some of them might associate it with the injustices of the past, or just imposition by the federal government.
Should Mt. McKinley be renamed? Should the Lebanon Warriors get a new logo? Certainly, we’re in favor of laws such as our own Rep. Sherrie Sprenger’s bill allowing Oregon school districts to negotiate with tribes on how to handle team names that represent Native Americans. We see that as paving the way to the kind of discussion that should be taking place in regard to these issues. Communication always helps.
Will restoring the Denali name ease tensions and salve bitterness? Possibly.
But it appears to us to be a Band-Aid solution to deeper issues that really should be addressed in more than name only.