06/09/24 - Steven Schwartzberg
Makes you such a threat? We choose the right to be who we are. We know the difference between the reality of freedom and the illusion of freedom. There's a way to live with Earth and a way not to live with Earth. We choose the way of Earth. It's about power.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:Greetings and good day, and welcome my relatives. And I shake your hands with a good heart and good feelings. It's good for all of us to be here. And this is since 1992, this is First Voices Radio and Tioka Sengosa sending you greetings and strength. The Highlands of the Esopus are what Americans and Dutch call the Catskill Mountains.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:Regardless, it is the Highlands of the Esopus in the lands of the Munsee speaking Lenape. This is an all native hosted, all native produced, First voices radio and Liz Hill from the Red Lake Ojibwe is a producer of First voices radio. Steven Schwartzberg is our guest today. He's a former candidate for congress in the Illinois 5th District. A former director of undergraduate studies for international studies at Yale Universities and instructor in political science at DePaul University, and the author of Arguments Over Genocide, the war of words in the congress and the Supreme Court over Cherokee removal.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:His great grandparents on his mother's side were involved in the anarchist communes for decades. His mother's father was an economist and speechwriter for FDR. That's Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His mother is a doctor, and his father is a lawyer. And I'd like to read something before I say hello to Steven Schwartzberg.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:Something he wrote that it is this. I am deeply cognizant that the history of non native people trying to be friends or allies of indigenous peoples is overwhelmingly a history of grotesque failures. Accordingly, I seek to present myself as mostly just trying to avoid dishonesty, especially systematic mendacity, and to avoid complicity in the traditional doubling down on moral depravity upon which my nation has built its practices of domination over other peoples as the English and Spanish empires did before it. I want to show how we violate our own constitutional law properly construed, how we violate the laws of nations as it was understood by the 18th century jurist James Wilson and the 16th century jurist Bartelomeu de las Casas and how even their understanding is is out of accord with the international laws and usages of this land before the Euro Christian invaders arrived, laws which I think remain the true unwritten constitution of this land. And it is an honor to welcome you all to First Voices Radio and First Voices Radio to welcome Steven Schwartzberg.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:Thank you, Steven, for joining us today on First Voices.
Steven Schwartzberg:Thank you, Tiokasin. And it is an honor to be here. I'm deeply grateful for the chance to share my work. I hope some of it will help us to tell a new story because I think in new stories, we find, the possibilities of changing the past. One of the things we can get into is the way in which John Marshall, the Supreme Court justice, changed the past by telling a story of the past that was false, that he knew was false.
Steven Schwartzberg:And by telling that false story, he ensured that the future would be built on lies.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:Wow. That is deep. To ensure that the future was based on lies. Tell me tell us more about that.
Steven Schwartzberg:Okay. So let me back up actually to the to the, 15th century, to the papal bulls of the 15th century because I think that's really where the story starts. It starts with, pope, Nicholas the 5th telling the king of Portugal, Alfonso the 5th, that he could enslave in perpetuity, Saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ who were so replaced. And then to pope Alexander the 6th in 14/93 saying that barb in order that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith, the Spanish could, engage in war in what was then called the new world and conquer native peoples. And I want to stress that from almost the very beginning, there were people who said, no, this is just not true.
Steven Schwartzberg:So Bartolome de las Casa says that the native nations, he says the wars that are conducted there are evil, essentially anti Christian and illegal. And so that's the starting point for understanding the truth that has been violated and that has been denied for years years years for centuries. That the native nations have according to the law of nations as it should be understood as las Casas understood it the right to their own societies their own governments their own polities their own culture they have their own world and that world is to be respected under Euro Christian that's Tink Tinkers' term for white people I think it's a better term, Euro Christian laws properly understood. Those laws were violated by the Spanish. They were violated from the very, very beginning.
Steven Schwartzberg:There were people who argued against las Casas like Juan Gines Sepulveda, the court historian, of Spain. And their arguments become adopted by the United States government under John Marshall in 18/23. So the constitution of the United States sanctions slavery in 17/89. It doesn't sanction genocide. Genocide is the handiwork of John Marshall and the Supreme Court.
Steven Schwartzberg:It's a unanimous Supreme Court in Johnson v MacDosh in 18/23, which says that because representatives of a Christian people, that's the language of the decision, a Christian people on this side of the Atlantic discovered this land, the sovereignty of the native peoples, the heathens is the language of the decision, the heathens, the sovereignty of the heathens was necessarily diminished and the government of the discoverers acquired an ultimate dominion with a title to the land and a right to a degree of sovereignty over the land to be vested in their government. Now all of that is nonsense, but that nonsense is the foundation of American law and it becomes the foundation of the genocide of the 1830s. So I want to talk about, I'm sorry if I'm rambling on, John Forsyth, who's the senator from Georgia in 1830 who says, all Christendom seems to imagine that by conveying that immortal life promised by the Prince of Peace to fallen man to the aborigines of this country, the right was fairly acquired of disposing of their persons and their property at pleasure. That's a argument for genocide and in my book Arguments Over Genocide what I say is that the arguments of the people who advocated the genocide of the 1830s became the law of the United States and serves as the foundation of American law and policy and conduct to this day.
Steven Schwartzberg:And the arguments on the other side have been largely forgotten by non native peoples. So those are the arguments that center around what the Cherokee nation told the Supreme Court in 18/31 that the Cherokee nation owes no allegiance to the United States nor to any state of this union, nor to any other prince, potentate, or power other than their own. And that truth, the truth that the native nations have a right to what in western laws called their dominion, is the truth that needs to be, I think, articulated and recognized by the American people as a first step towards recognizing the right of the native nations to live under and in accordance with their own laws, which don't have domination, which are which are built around as as I understand it I'm no expert but are built around the beloved community that's formed by the fact that all living beings are our kith and kin and that we are to have trustworthy consensual and reciprocal relationships with all life So I've I've rambled on for quite a while, Teo, because I'm sorry about that, but, maybe we can jump off into any direction you wanna take it from here.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:No. That that's necessary that you say those these things, and it is true that most of the decisions are from the West that we had to we had we had no choice but to make the decisions they decided for us. And but when it came to the traditional sense, we already had decisions made and laid before us because of what was happening to the land that is our do our decisions that we make as humans hurt the earth, and that that was the basis of how we made decisions. How did it pull the wool over people's eyes? And you made a reference into, de las Casas.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:And at that time, when he was part of the discovery of the new world, there was already this these evils being committed throughout Europe, and whatever he had to say really didn't have any teeth even now. But what's still here, as you noted, is the quote that that really stuck out with me is, on this side of the Atlantic necessarily diminished the sovereignty of native peoples, but that was part of the papal bulls. And one thing that we run into here in the Western Hemisphere that many indigenous peoples do not have the concept or the word for dominion or domination. And I think that's one thing that is part of the wool that has pulled over people's eyes with those stuck into legalities, stuck into the the US constitutions. Even I think it's being revised morally, I think, or immorally to where it continues to have effect through corporate law, corporate reverberations throughout the world, but especially with the land and the government run by the same mindset as necessarily diminished.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:And I would ask you to tell us about the effects of that infrastructure as you see it from your standpoint as an ally. The infrastructure that's happening today that began way back when because that wool is getting thicker and thicker.
Steven Schwartzberg:And I I like this image of the wool. I think the wool is rooted in a combination of dishonest and violence and a doubling down on moral depravity and the 2 work together in tandem and they've worked together since the very beginning and they're working together now. I like John Trudell's phrase of technologic civilization. I think we are all increasingly caught in the clutches of technologic civilization and I think underneath that civilization or that civilization sustains its power or its claim, of domination with this combination of violence and dishonesty and doubling down on moral depravity. And I'll talk about what I what I mean by those things.
Steven Schwartzberg:So the dishonesty, just saying that we believe in dominion is a form of dishonesty. It's saying that the way that that makes that statement does not include native peoples who do not believe in dominion. Right? It divides the world according to those who accept some notion of say you don't like the word dominion, benevolent authority. We want benevolent authority.
Steven Schwartzberg:We want the good guys on our side and we want them to use the power of the state for good purposes. That's a cover, that's a wool covering dominion. We believe that they're going to be or we say we believe that they're going to be honest and we have this constitution and this constitution promises that treaties are the supreme law of the land And yet when it comes to John Marshall in 18/31, the supreme the the Cherokee Nation comes to the supreme court and says, we have a treaty with you that guarantees this land and the state of Georgia is invading our territory in violation of this treaty, please respect our rights under your law. John Marshall says, this is a quote, if it be true that the Cherokee nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted and still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future.
Steven Schwartzberg:That violence the the state of Georgia was already conducting against the Cherokee Nation and that dishonesty about the treaty not being something that could be appealed to by the Cherokee Nation in the Supreme Court is a form of doubling down on the decision in Marshall in the John Marshall made in Johnson v McIntosh in 18/23. So first, you say that we have this right by discovery. We diminish the sovereignty of the native peoples and then when the native peoples say well even with our diminished sovereignty under your law we have rights Marshall says effectively, no, you don't and Marshall does that in violation of the constitution, in violation of the fact that treaties are the supreme law of the land and in violation of the fact that in any case arising under a treaty with to which a state is a party to the case, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Both of those points are true. The the treaties are the supreme law of the land and that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and Marshall effectively denies both of those realities.
Steven Schwartzberg:And that is the foundation of US property law. It's not just the foundation of what my friend Peter D'Rico calls federal anti Indian law in a book of that title which I highly recommend to people. That is the foundation of US property law. All property in this country derives from that set of claims. So as far as I'm concerned, the United States lacks a valid legal claim to title.
Steven Schwartzberg:Now that's a fairly radical position to articulate because it's saying every time some American buys a house, there's a title search. Where does this title come from? It all goes back to Johnson v. Macintosh. And if that's bogus, if that's based on dishonesty and violence and doubling down on moral depravity as it is, then what is the basis of a claim to own anything in the United States?
Steven Schwartzberg:There's no legal basis under our constitution properly construed for any claim of ownership of land in this country on Turtle Island. Now how do I expect Americans to sit with that truth? That's a difficult thing to ask people to do to say, wow, we have been complicit in theft and genocide for centuries. How do we begin not to make things right because I I I don't know how that could possibly be done, but to at least listen to people who have experienced this horror and to try and find ways of rebuilding a or building for the first time a community that in includes all living beings. I mean, I think that community already exists.
Steven Schwartzberg:I think that community has always existed. It's a matter of coming into balance and harmony with that community. But for people who think of themselves as superior who think of themselves as dominating or think of their government as a just government that has done all these things. They have to find a way into the story and so what I offer as a way into the story is to say where did the idea of democracy come from? Where did the idea of self government come from?
Steven Schwartzberg:You don't find it in Europe 6 centuries ago, nothing like it. I think a lot of those ideas come from seeing what the experiences of the native peoples are like in the new world over the course of several centuries. So while these genocides and violences and land thefts are going on, there is also an encounter that is going on and people are seeing that among the native peoples. For example, there's a French missionary in 17th century who says, the authority of their chief extends to the tip of his tongue for his powerful and so far as he is eloquent. And if he doesn't please, he's not obeyed.
Steven Schwartzberg:Or another one that says these people all think of themselves as of equal wars. There is no one who goes hungry in their communities unless everyone goes hungry in their communities. These perceptions of indigenous reality, come back to Europe in the form of missionary accounts that become bestsellers in Europe. These are works cited by Locke, by Voltaire, by the thinkers of the enlightenment. There's a wonderful book called, The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow that goes through some of this evidence.
Steven Schwartzberg:This shapes and reshapes European thought and it moves Europe, at least some of Europe, some of European opinion in the direction of wanting to do better, in the direction of wanting to be less oppressive, in the direction of wanting to be less, caught in the hierarchies of the past. It doesn't move them all the way out of their dominationist politics, which is where I think we all really have to go. But it does move in a more hopeful direction, at least as far as the advocates of the enlightenment are concerned. And there are people all the way through in the course of American history who argue for a measure of honesty. So in 18/30, when the decision is taken to pursue the Trail of Tears In the House of Representatives, the vote is 102 to 97.
Steven Schwartzberg:97 congressmen that are opposed to what becomes the trail of tears and there are 102 congressmen that are for it. So if you could have swung 3 votes, potentially you would have had a very different world. There have been times in the past when people were actually seeking something that at least within their terms was justice. It wasn't justice as it might look from the view from the shore as my friend Steve Newcomb puts it, you know, how it how it looked to the indigenous peoples to see these ships coming over carrying their dominator culture with them. So I'm not trying to talk about justice in that sense.
Steven Schwartzberg:I'm not qualified to, but within the context of the view from the ship as it starts to be changed under the influence of, the enlightenment which is in turn under the influence of contact with indigenous peoples and indigenous philosophies. In terms of that modified view from the ship there is a sense of justice that says the United States has no right over the native nations, whether within or without the real or pretended limits to many colony. That's a quote from James Wilson, who's in many ways the principal architect of the United States Constitution, speaking to the Continental Congress in 17/76. So there's awareness of what relations ought to be if you were pursuing right relations, at least within the context of the laws of nations as they were understood by a Las Casas or a James Wilson. There is a possibility there of moving in a more just direction that I want to hold up for people to consider as maybe a a place we could go in the future.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:Yes. And I think you're you're what you just said has a lot of validity to it, and I've also also put this in a construct of, the infrastructure, the moral infrastructure that seems to have been an empty shell all along because of the magicianship of democracy and basically corporate mindset that came over on those ships. And, you know, one thing that people don't include into this equation of, yes, they took the land, and they did this, and Americans will only listen to the good benefits of what they got out of doing what they did to to the land and to the native people and then just as soon forget about it. And because dealing with guilt is something else. You know, one thing that I think about is, like, okay.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:But why were we so easily persuaded or convinced is because of this. Rebecca Claren, who is the author of the cost of free land, and it's having to do with Jewish people with moving to a place in places in South Dakota that were native lands, and they weren't told about it. They would just said, they'll go there. That that's your land. And native people coming back into their homes and finding it wasn't theirs.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:So when I think about this, her interviews with several indigenous elders that still carry on the traditions and the morality, I I would think the meaning rather than the definition of being native is the fact that there there was no immunity to the lie when the ships landed. So that is not included in the context of why it was so easy to, quote, unquote, conquer native people. Now we put that into the equation, Stephen, then the whole the whole idea of how this country is taking over and why they still can keep going, but we see it falling apart. And that's not a doom and gloom because we've been watching it fall apart from the beginning because it's based on the lie. I think anybody as natural people, would always understand that this is just what the world is.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:It's honesty. It's consciousness and respecting all relations, as we say. And that can be, interpreted or translated to everybody around the world, But at some point, and we're not looking for that point where it began, but we know that that lie was carried by the sails in the ships that came here with the book that Las Casas ascribes to. And so many native people, without them being Christians or religious people, still carry that type of immorality, as I would say it. And that's something that has to go deeper than what's written into law.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:Our friend Steven said that it's no longer, I would say, the legalities of the laws that were written is why Cherokee nations and other nations, by the way, that were rounded up with the Cherokee and throughout all the land that that legality is is can be written in, talked about. The terminology can be just bled over and over. But what the new word that I really that really hit me in a recent interview with Steven was this word lethality. Lethality. Your ideas about what that word means to you, lethality.
Steven Schwartzberg:So the most painful aspect of this for me is seeing that the vulnerability to the lie that I perceive among the response of the native peoples to the Euro Christian Dominators is the effort to be generous and kind to them. So knowing that they're lying, there's a passage from a petition of the Cherokee Nation in, in the context of the fight against the Trail of Tears where the phrase is in Cherokee, it's not translated this way in English, but in Cherokee, it translates to something roughly like brother, I think you mean to murder me. And that's what lethality conveys to me is the sense that somebody whose intent is to murder is still seen as a brother from a native perspective. I don't know how I can convey in words the pain of that from any kind of perspective that recognizes, truth, justice, honesty, within, even a Euro Christian culture, It is a denial of life. It is an assault on life.
Steven Schwartzberg:I mean, I guess any murder is, but particularly to be murdering people who are being kind and generous to you and are only trying to help you live on their land. And when I say their land, I realized that that that itself is a dishonest usage on, with the earth, trying to help you live with the earth.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:No. These are these are things that are very heavy to many people, deep sometimes, and they they rather not visit it or talk about it or hold even this long of a conversation, let alone David Graeber and and Wingra write about it in the dawn of everything. But I seem to see in my years more people like you, like the Wingro and Graeber's coming out with what they call the interlocutors that we need to bring this within so that we can at least, bring it to the surface and tend to those wounds, but actually the source rather than the band aiding of those wounds. And I think that's what it's gonna take because as the earth moves, so will the people move. And and I think this is this this interview is very important to ensure that the future was based on truth rather than lies.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:My reference to why I wanted to bring you here was not only your book, but the the, article you you released on March 23rd this year in reimagining nationalism and democracy with a view from the shore. That context, a view from the shore, really gives, you know, native people this this view, this perspective. The the mix is, Steven, is that oh, we're all here now. We must get along. And, of course, that that reasoning could be a human being feeling, or it could be the fact that, wait, if we lied to these people and our benefit from the lie, what would have would have been if we told these people the truth?
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:That's where I think we need to bring that to a point of discussion and, form a, I don't know, intercultural, spiritual think tank. Bring all of those laws that were brought here that didn't belong to us. We didn't touch them, but we had we were forced to to live them, all the religions that came here that we didn't have here. And yet, as this, Ojibwe elder said, but the one thing that we didn't see the Europeans bring is land, and we're still how the land became theirs.
Speaker 4:1st Voices Radio. My name is Tiokasin Ghosthorse. We were talking with Steven Schwartzberg, author of Arguments Over Genocide, the War of Words in the Congress, and the Supreme Court over Cherokee removal. We'll be right back.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:This is Jenny Lewis with psychos from her 2023 album, joy
Speaker 5:I've been working off at jujube from my hometown. Come around for? I'm not a psycho, I'm just trying to get laid. I'm a rocking Turn down the triple, drop the face. Respect to
Speaker 4:And thank you for rejoining First Voices Radio. My name is Tielkerson, Ghosthorse. We're talking with Steven Schwartzberg, author of Arguments Over Genocide, The War of Words in the Congress, and the Supreme Court over Cherokee removal. Here's Steven Sportsberg.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:Bring all those laws that were brought here that didn't belong to us. We didn't touch them, but we had we were forced to to live them, all the religions that came here that we didn't have here. And yet, as as, this this, Ojibwe elder said, But the one thing that we didn't see the Europeans bring is land, and we're still wondering how the land became theirs.
Steven Schwartzberg:Yeah. It's it's not it's not theirs that they they are engaged in ongoing theft. It doesn't really belong to them. It belongs the earth belongs to herself. And to the extent that anyone has a claim in Western law to the land, it's the native peoples of this turtle Island, not the Euro Christians and their heirs and successors.
Steven Schwartzberg:And as I say that for euro christians and their successors is something that in the first place We just have to sit with It is the truth of our own violence, dishonesty, depravity, and I'm not trying to make people feel guilty. I don't I don't think there's any point in feeling guilty, but I am trying to say there is a responsibility that all living things possess. And within that responsibility, that set of responsibilities, we have to find a way to to live together that is respectful, that is based on truth, that is based on honesty, that is based on the the 7 Anishinaabe teachings would be a shorthand way of referring to it. The international laws and usages of turned a lot on before the Euro Christians showed up is the way I like to talk about it. It's part of the view from the shore that maybe is accessible to European thinking or or American thinking, and that people could see that Americans and Europeans, and I think the planet as a whole, all of the inhabitants of the planet as a whole, would be better off if we would root ourselves in the truths of the earth.
Steven Schwartzberg:This technologic civilization that we're living within, is on on a death path, and as you say, it's crumbling. It it can't be sustained. We have to think about how we, as peoples, can get back in touch with our own true selves. So I think of and in the essay that you mentioned on, rethinking nationalism and democracy with a view from the shore, I talk about peoples and nations and states as being very different concepts. And even to work with concepts is problematic, but I think of people as the sense of affinity that we all within a nation feel for one another.
Steven Schwartzberg:The sense that this is this is somebody who belongs as I belong to this larger collectivity. A nation is the collective self consciousness of that collectivity and a state is the ego of that collectivity. It's the part of the mind that thinks it can dominate the whole. It's really just a small part of the mind. It's a small part of the nation, the state, but it thinks it's everything.
Steven Schwartzberg:And when the nation gets confused and it thinks of its state as itself, when it focuses on the political, especially and on, power and domination as though that's its story, instead of the people, that's messing up. And that's what the American people have done, in a big way since 18/23. But even before that, there were always people who were fighting for truth and justice within the context of what what what looks like the sovereignty of the people to the framers of the constitution and those who are working within that as a promissory note that could be appealed to for reformist movements. But what is the sovereignty of the people? It's not the sovereignty of the state.
Steven Schwartzberg:It's not the sovereignty of the nation. It is our responsibility to act in harmony and balance with the beloved community that is constituted by all of us, by all our relations.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:Steven Schwartzberg is the author of the new book, Arguments Over Genocide, the War of Words in the Congress and the Supreme Court over Cherokee removal.
Steven Schwartzberg:But but
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:I think, Steven, is like, wow. There's they're still talking about something that happened in way back in the early 1800, and they still can't get it right, which reminds me of the language. You know? It just keeps quibbling over something that was done, and it's true, but they are trying to soften the blow, so to speak. And, and then we go back to the what you quoted earlier, we, the, someone included, either you or I you read it.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:We, the Indians, basically, my words, the Indians are not included in the domination, and then we are really not included in the guilt because we don't know that guilt. And and we can, appeal that guilt. We can assist and support the the trauma of not being able to to look at that guilt. And the words that we're quibbling over, whether or not it's legal or not, is is that that's those laws that came here. So, again and I I know this way back in time, all human beings were able to to be in communication with Earth.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:You know? And this gets a little nonpolitical for a lot of people and gets to be into the spirituality and even religions or cults. But, really, the Earth cultures that we need in order to not dominate, but to be in a relationship so that earth herself continues to basically continues. And, I wanna thank you for being here. I just I know you have so much to say, and just an honor to hear your heart, your mind, and those 2 working together.
Steven Schwartzberg:Thank you, Tiokasin. Let me say in 3 minutes that there's another book that I would recommend which is, the matter with things, our brains, our delusions, and the unmaking of the world by the Scottish philosopher, Ian McGillchrist. And he says there are two forms of attention. There's an attention that is aware of the presencing of the whole and there's an attention that seeks to grasp and to manipulate and to control and to dominate. And both of these he thinks are in the in the brain, one more close to the right hemisphere, one more close to the left hemisphere.
Steven Schwartzberg:He thinks both are necessary for an organism to survive, but that the balance has been grossly shifted over the course of the last 1000 of years, particularly the last 100 of years, particularly in the West to this grasping, dominating, manipulating form of attention. And we have to get back to an awareness of the presencing of the whole. And that is a spiritual reality, that is an economic reality, that is a political reality. We are all in this together and we need to work together recognizing our different and our commonality. There's a phrase from Brazilian philosopher, Denise Ferreira da Silva, that I really like where she says, we are each unique expressions of everything else in the universe.
Steven Schwartzberg:So we are all distinct, and we are all 1.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse:So I'll say thank you for your knowledge, your intelligence, and your wherewithal to really move forward, not in a progressive led way as the West says, but to move forward to the center where we all, you know, understand what that means, that it's everywhere, and one or the other does not dominate or is in control of that. Again, thank you, Steven, for being here on First Voices Radio. You're welcome. It's an honor and a pleasure.
Narrator:We were told, long ago that we would see America come and go. I often wondered what generation that would be. What would be the signs that we would see America in its failing times. And I think we're in that, and I think that this kind of exploitation is more recognizable and identifiable. The cultures are getting stronger, and you're getting to realize it's about your own survival.
Narrator:It's not about America so much. But the more pollution there is, the more cancer there is. So you begin to see a nation dying from within.
Speaker 5:So what you know about the life of a stand up. I want you to know about the life of a native, going up to generations of old saying it. Every day my people
Narrator:And in a world where we need to build on mutual respect, It's moving slowly across this country and educating people. So I think there's a time when all racism will be about us.
Speaker 5:Sunflower child pocket, it's needing release.
Speaker 4:Life of a Native by Okima, followed by 14/92 with Dakota Yazi and Earth's surface people, and finishing up with Enough by Kingfisher. And you have been listening to First Forces Radio, and I'm Teo Kazeen, Ghosthorse. Thanks for listening to us all these years and paying attention. We appreciate all of you for listening. It's meaning when an elder speaks, listen to them carefully.
Speaker 4:I listen to them. We'll see you again eventually and surely.
