Conflicting Values And Behavior

The values of our Peoples occasionally reflected different perspectives, but they were conveyed in the same manner. Oral heritage; stories, songs, and ritual all sought to instill in our young a common view of the world and our relationships to it and to each other. In many places, leaders were expected to exhort the people daily in the morals and good behavior expected of them. Certain people lived according to these values and were singled out and pointed to as examples of living virtue. Often they became the Great Ones of their Nations, but that did not guarantee their economic fortune. Since generosity and sacrifice were among those virtues, these “examples” often gave everything of themselves and lived in poverty. Sometimes it was even expected of them, as evidence of their virtue.

Honesty, integrity, honor, bravery, self-discipline, sacrifice, generosity, modesty, humility, family kinship, sharing, cooperation, humor, compassion, avoidance of conflict, respect for elders, nature and each other, gratitude, and an abiding spirituality were all deemed virtues of higher character.

Talking about Native values can be a slippery slope to controversy. Values, methods of transmitting values, and resulting behavior can vary from Nation to Nation, Band to Band, Family to Family. Any attempt to generalize about these values in order to create a pan-Indian perspective, must be seen as what it is—an attempt to “begin” a discussion of the issues. Native people are often reluctant to discuss such personal and important issues in a public forum—if at all. Why then should we push the issue and create a written discussion or record? This is important because for at least two and one half centuries, western civilization has judged Native values to be inferior and have demanded we replace them with Judeo-Christian ones. Despite these attempts, Native people have resisted abandoning their traditional values to assimilation. The need to interact on a daily basis with educators, law enforcement, social servants, health workers, etc., has resulted in those entities forming misguided observations and judgments regarding Native behavior based on western standards of value and action. With little understanding of Native values, motivation, and perceptions—these misinterpretations continue to cause problems for twenty-first century Natives.

Throughout the last six hundreds years, Europeans and their descendants have been examining, and making judgments, about Native culture and behavior. Due to a natural Indian reticence to discuss personal, cultural, spiritual, or family beliefs and issues, western society has been forced to rely on their own opinions as to why Native people respond and act the way they do. Hence we have some of the more familiar terms and racial epithets that have come to symbolize and stereotype the Native character: lazy, shiftless, no account, stoic, backward, ignorant, unresponsive, unemotional, uncaring, permissive, dull, listless, humorless, uncooperative, withdrawn, silent, slow, unorganized, irresponsible, etc.

Values are more than moral guidelines; religious commandments, public laws, or social constraints. Values may be simple modes of behavior that dictate our responses and reactions to the elements and personalities in our environment. They form the fabric of our cultural reality. They establish the basis for our perceptions of the world around us and of ourselves. Values often reflect the learned behavior of many generations, and are exhibited unconsciously in physical behavior. These perceptions are rarely passed through verbal expression but are learned through observation. Because of this, values become so ingrained that people are unaware that their judgments and perceptions are being guided by their personal experiences. The potential for misinterpreting the motivations and behavior of others is high when conflicting value systems interact.

Many Native people still enjoy at least a semblance of tribal life. Reservations and rancherias, once prisons and concentration camps, have acted as insulating environments where extended family relationships and safe environments still contribute to the passing of traditional values. Native people will often prefer to stay within those boundaries, venturing forth only when necessary, except when attending other Native events or environments. This reticence to experience or participate in non-Indian environments and society is the result of generations of racism and negative criticism. Indians have endured generations of people telling them how their ways are inferior, how they must change, what they should and should not do, how they should and should not act, what is good or bad for them, etc., etc. Well meaning crusaders pummel them with unwanted advice, praise, or criticism. As you will see in our discussion of traditional values, this is hard for Natives to endure and they avoid the experience at all cost.

In discussing values, we must admit the partial success of assimilation, with a resulting adoption of formerly unfamiliar values, particularly since World War Two. Many of the members of those early and middle twentieth century generations were convinced by the dominant society that the old ways were limiting, even harmful to their children’s opportunities and chance for contentment in the modern world. Nevertheless, some of the more traditional families did develop the ability to operate successfully with two sets of values, within both modern and traditional society. They balanced the needs and expectations of both worlds. Perhaps this is the trail we need to take.

Native communities will have to answer the question individually as to whether it would be beneficial, or not, to have internal discussions about native values and behavior—but there is no question that educating non-Indian communities, especially institutions which serve or affect Native lives, will have beneficial results. Correcting the misinterpretations and false perceptions regarding the behavior and interaction of Native students and members in a modern setting might do much to relieve the tensions and frustrations Indians have in dealing with modern institutions and society on a daily basis.

Certainly, understanding is better than ignorance, and since it is obvious that many Native families and communities are continuing to pass on traditional values, it seems prudent to make all our neighbors aware of the differences between us

I would like to acknowledge one of the first (and best) attempts to address this issue. Primarily for educators, the 1982 volume, “The American Indian: Yesterday, Today, & Tomorrow”—produced by the California Department Of Education, remains a timely, and definitive resource on this issue.

Because we are only partially finished with our preparation of the pamphlet relating to Native values, we will publish only a portion of that publication here.

“Being an Indian is not a problem, being Indian in a non-Indian world can be.”

In a multi-cultural environment, the concept of the melting pot only goes so far. While acknowledging the dominance of Anglo-American language, religion, history, and culture, we must also remain acutely aware of the continued immigration of new cultures and perceptions into the mainstream. In the case of this document, we are continuing the long overdue effort of educating the mainstream into the oldest and hardiest cultural perceptions in this hemisphere. The danger of not knowing, or making an attempt to know, the different cultures around us poses a danger to the more vulnerable and powerless within our society. Culturally learned values play a part in every judgment and perception we make about the actions, behavior, and beliefs of our neighbors.

Here is a case in point.

Law enforcement officials often rely on the value of establishing the honesty and forthrightness of a person by observing their body language and behavior. But upon whose standards of behavior do they base their observations? Many officers will tell you that if a suspect does not, or cannot, hold to direct eye contact during questioning, their conduct demonstrates insincerity at the very least, or a more overt dishonesty and suspicious behavior. But what happens when they are faced with an American Indian who has been taught that to hold a direct gaze is at best rude, and at worst—purposely disrespectful? Without that knowledge, the Indian has been placed at a serious disadvantage.

These kinds of misjudgments happen frequently between Native people and the mainstream institutions they must interact with. The next few paragraphs will illustrate this point.

A social worker, observing a Northern California Native woman walking on the street with her young children, observed the woman walking ahead of them a number of yards, seemingly disinterested in their progress. “Look at her,” she said, “she doesn’t care about her children at all!” What that worker didn’t know, being unfamiliar with California history, was that many Native women, generations before, developed that habit in protection of their children. During the time that California mercenaries and slave traders were stealing children for the southern California slave markets, it became a necessary habit for Native women to walk significantly ahead of their children—often leaving them in hiding—until the safety of their course was confirmed. That behavior became an ingrained habit and eventually evolved into learned behavior. While not a “value” in the traditional sense of the word, it was still passed down and learned by successive generations of mothers. When informed of this fact, the social worker reacted by saying, “Well, doesn’t she realize how dangerous it is today?” Once again, a reply was necessary. This woman lived on a local rancheria. The small insular communities found on most California rancherias are typically safer from predators than elsewhere. Part of that relates to extended family and tribal relationships that become immediately conscious of strangers or dangerous members in their midst. The predators from within are generally watched carefully or forced off-rancheria, as are unidentified strangers. The safety of the rancheria did not require the vigilance that off-rancheria society requires. The woman rarely ventured out of that familiar and secure environment. She had yet to learn the necessity for changing her ingrained behavior. Simply to tell her it was dangerous would not be enough. Like many Native people, abstract information is not enough. Concrete examples would be necessary. Remind her of a child run over in the street or point to an example of a child stolen in a local store and she might begin to think about it. But the ingrained habits would remain and unless she had a personal experience which caused her to consistently and consciously change her behavior, she would most probably continue to walk ahead of her children on the street.

In the previous paragraph, we have discovered three or four important characteristics, or “values”. The woman’s walking habits are traditionally learned behavior. Her preference for staying within the familiar, insular, and safe community of the rancheria is common. Many Indians, faced with the reality or memory of racism or danger from outside, prefer to stay where the experiences and attitudes of people are familiar. They don’t want to risk appearing out-of-step with Anglo neighbors. They may be embarrassed by the fact they don’t own a car or have a driver’s license. They may not read or speak as well as others. There are so many reasons for their fear and reticence about venturing beyond the safety of rancheria life, that some people don’t even want to leave for a reason as simple as going to the store for food.

As far as helping her “understand” why she had to change her behavior, which the social worker suggested was necessary, I pointed out that she would undoubtedly have difficulty making her point. Many Natives have significant difficulty and reticence in processing advice or criticism from an outside source, particularly if that advice is presented as a verbally abstract opinion that she might not be able to tie to a concrete experience in her life.

Understanding the Native woman’s behavior actually requires a knowledge of historically ingrained physical habits, present day emotional perceptions of security, methods of learning as applied to developing new behaviors, and understanding the Native response to criticism or advice from non-Native sources.

The same social worker commented on how another Native woman allowed her children to “run wild” in a local grocery store. She was appalled at the “lack of discipline” the woman allowed them without immediate correction, criticism or punishment. It took more than forty-five minutes to “educate” her about the myriad number of value differences involved in her “judgment” of the woman’s behavior.

Native people traditionally have a wholly different view of childrearing. The Native approach is relatively non-verbal, relying on allowing the children to grow through experiential and exploratory learning rather than through verbal direction, rules, and constraints. Children are allowed to endure the consequences of their actions rather than be criticized or punished. Harsh criticism and punishment is considered damaging to a child’s psyche. Native children are rarely struck or physically reprimanded. Since Native people are not overly verbal, raised voices are a new phenomena in childrearing. Expressions and body language might be used to convey criticism. If a direct criticism needs to be made, another relative is often expected to participate. Since children are given as much respect and importance in the community as adults, their autonomy is seldom challenged and they are allowed to mature more quickly with few of the restraints non-Indian children endure. Public praise or criticism is considered rude, as are rapid responses and judgments. A high degree of tolerance is practiced and children are given, what seems to many Anglo outsiders, an inordinate and excessive amount of freedom. The Native woman, in the situation described by the social worker, was simply exhibiting a time honored traditional value of quiet, silent, self-restrained behavior--even in the face of her children’s “misbehaving”. In reality, she probably did not even consider their behavior inappropriate, not having experienced all the time honored European values of behavior that determine what is appropriate and what is not Indian people often cannot grasp what all the fuss is about. The children are just finding their way. What’s the problem?

Our next example demonstrates how damaging stereotypes have become to Native adults, teens, and children.

Recently, a local community was engaged in a controversy about whether the school mascot should be changed. One of the arguments for keeping the name “Indians” was the perception that Indian people had always been fierce and effective warriors—which the writer considered an appropriate image for the mock battles of high school athletics. The author of that argument felt it was an honor for Native peoples to be remembered for what he considered one of their more admirable traits. The fact that California Tribes were not known for a war-like disposition did not dissuade him from his opinion.

Unfortunately, Hollywood has firmly grafted the image of a noble but warlike and savage nature onto the shoulders of all of the Native Nations. Indians grow up with little of their own history in school textbooks, and almost all that history deals with the glorification of war carrying through the Indian Wars of the nineteenth century. Every stereotype they see reinforces the perception that Native men were warriors of violence. Our roles as responsible fathers, statesmen, and peacemakers are rarely mentioned.

The insular nature of rancheria and reservation life over the last five generations has resulted in a delay of social progress, at least as it applies to understanding and participating in the modern world. While Native people may be up to date in their style of dress, knowledge of contemporary music, etc., attitudes regarding what contemporary society regards as appropriate behavior may lag as much as a full generation. Here is the case in point.

Having grown up with the self-image of a stereotypical Native “warrior”, adolescent boys and young men, (even girls and women) believe they must be tough and ready—even eager—to fight. The difficulties of establishing their Native identity and self-image in a world where those values are continually undermined may imbue them with low-esteem, even self-hatred. They are told by teachers, counselors, social workers, and others how they should act, what their goals and expectations should be, how they should prepare for the future, etc. without any regard for the way in which their ingrained values conflict with those admonitions and advice. They become confused and angry. The society of the rancheria and reservation, lagging behind the modern social environment, still accepts a modicum of violence in its young men in the way that American society did in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. No one thought much about it in those days. Boys, teenagers, and even men—fought occasionally. It was no big deal.

Jump forward into the twenty-first century where even minor violence in society is no longer tolerated. A young Native man gets into a fight in town. He is arrested for assault and put on probation. The judge, having no knowledge or interest in the special conditions and values that exist in contemporary Native society; and being unaware of the debilitating effects of stereotyping and generations of horrendous post traumatic stress syndrome on Native teens and young people—does not require him to attend crisis counseling, anger management, cultural awareness or identity development classes. Consequently, the young man gets in trouble a second time and is summarily sentenced to five years in prison. A fairly responsible and intelligent, but troubled and confused young man is placed in a closed environment with violent and hardened criminals. When he returns to the rancheria, toughness has become his permanent persona, and he may be perceived by his younger peers as having achieved something important by his incarceration. He becomes a role model of sorts, and the circle of violence and stereotyping continues. One has only to look at the statistics of how many Native people go to prison to see the correlation.

Teachers, health workers, and social service providers probably face the most difficult task of becoming educated to the difference in values and culturally specific behaviors exhibited by Native people in conflict with the mainstream.

My daughter told me how difficult it was for her in a speech class where the instructor demanded that they debate each other on contemporary issues. After our discussion of the paper I was preparing, she came to an understanding of why she had so much difficulty in living up to her instructors’ expectations. Obviously, the instructor had little knowledge of Native values or culture.

Educators, along with Native students, face a mountain of problems resulting directly from conflicting cultural values and behavior differences in the current educational environment. Natives, recognizing a cultural conflict of values, have even abandoned the pursuit of educational degrees, often with only a dissertation to write. They become uncomfortable with even the idea of having a degree. They perceive the pursuit to reflect a lack of humility—they don’t want to be experts, better or smarter than anyone else.

We’ll finish this with a discussion on the accumulation of wealth, one of the main tenants of current values. Native people have always shunned the idea of possessions. The value of generosity compelled those with “too much” to “give-away” what they had to those around them, often rendering themselves without--and usually others immediately “gave-back” to them and the balance was restored. This accumulation was recognized as an sickness that was contrary to our values. The introduction of European concepts of ownership brought the issue to a head and Native Peoples were forced to accept this value as the new norm and living with that traditional value was denied. This change resulted in the contemporary sickness that has overcome the world. Greed has always tempted mankind wherever feet have trod, but this one aspect of our nature and the choice of the pursuit of wealth has turned out to be one of the more disastrous traits of our modern cultures.