Leanne,

I echo your feelings of anger and disgust at the Arizona state government, and too want to "work out the best ways to protest against a state machine that seeks to destroy everything we stand for as educators, artists, and scholars." As someone far away in NDN country north of the 49th parallel, but with deep ties in Oklahoma, I have been watching the events unfolding down south closely.

I join you too in disappointment over the rhetoric and choices by individuals I respect and admire. It's not for me to say why these people have pursued these actions (they can speak just fine for themselves), but I am left feeling concerned and dismayed over where all of this is headed. In an organization with such an ambitious and diverse vision and membership - not to mention in its infancy - the trail in which future members will follow and inherit is being set, after all.

There is, though, one important part of this debate that is worth remembering, however. The divergent opinions and thoughts shared on this site are evidence that free speech, in all of its valuable slivers of agreement and dissent, exist here. In this, NAISA has done something to be proud of. I believe that this is one of the biggest successes of our organization so far - that the diverse range of ideas that represents us as Indigenous peoples are accepted and desired here. For instance, I can see many Indigenous members who feel that the current actions of the NAISA council are suitable and appropriate in decrying the AZ state government. I see those who believe that holding the conference in the original spirit in which it was organized and given to the host committee is a powerful statement of activism and power that flies in the face of a hegemonic force who wants to erase diversity and pluralism. I also see those who want a refocusing of the conference entirely, a more direct activist action. In the end, we are not uniform in our beliefs as a membership on what to do about this. And this, while discomforting, frustrating, and upsetting for some who want change immediately, is a collective decision onto itself.

I do not envy the NAISA council, who has to represent and be responsible to such diverse views all at the same time, but I will support their decision because I see such promise in this commitment to open discussion. I don't know many of them, but I trust in the membership that voted in them in - many of whom I do know.

In the end, as I read posts of boycott tonight, what I do believe that in the end we are a weaker and fractured group without these individuals' important presence, knowledge, and thoughts. Like I said, these are people I greatly respect and admire, both as a young Indigenous scholar and member of our community of Indigenous intellectuals. Simply, they are teachers and elders whose words I will honour and listen to, just as I would with the members of the NAISA council.

I believe that a discussion regarding these issues with all participants present (such as provided on the first day, May 20, if I read the NAISA council email today properly) could have enriched our collective knowledge and at the same time confronted the issues that these racist and hateful actions present. Unfortunately, those of us who will still be participating in this discussion will miss them, and I hope that the dialogue will take place in a good and meaningful way. I also hope it is as divergent and complex as the postings on this site. What I would hope is that all interested parties continue to share their important contributions, instead of letting absence speak for them.

Because it is, ironically, these kinds of processes that SB 1070 and HB 2281 seeks: division, atrophy, and eventual erasure of Indigenous peoples and people of colour from the American landscape. We will speak to this imperialism at NAISA 2010, it only remains to be seen now on how we will.

Miigwech Leanne. See you in two weeks for more.

In a spirit of collaboration and activism,

Nii