Listening to clips on TV about Texas Gov Rick Perry's thoughts on Texas secession and the 10th Amendment and what-not, and then hearing Tom Delay's somewhat strained defense while dialoging on the matter with Chris Matthews, I couldn't help but recall the Ross Barnett era in the Mississippi of the early '60s when such talk sounded infinitely more sincere, and not all that unrealistic.  I remember when the Magnolia legislature took up the question of secession and chewed it over for a day or two.  In the end, it was sort of back-shelved -- not rejected -- primarily because so many of the Big Mules [an Alabama term], such as plantation man and U.S, Senator Jim Eastland were drawing heavy Federal agricultural subsidies.

 

Those were also the days when the [White] Citizens Council leaders, vacationing abroad, almost always went to the Union of South Africa.

 

In any event, Ole Ross orated far more fervently and convincingly on all of this stuff than these Texas pretenders. He was, after all, a bona fide true believer.

 

Long, long ago I realized that I, myself, have always been shaped by two broad and basic and distinctive currents:  a complex blend of several Native tribal cultures -- and another river made up of a number of component strains emanating from the Real Rural American Southwest. [ If those two basic currents find themselves in opposition on some point or another -- and they do from time to time -- I always go, of course, with the Indians.]

 

The Southwestern complex within me can produce some interesting, well -- tendencies.  A Mississippi journalist, not really a foe but not a friend either, very curious about my "value set", engaged me once in a long conversation.  It concluded in a truly amiable fashion.  "You know," he said, "There's something about you that makes me think that you're really a Mississippi boy at heart."  He couldn't understand it quite, nor could I.  But I couldn't  brush his assessment aside.  I didn't, however, let on to him that, absent the slavery issue [which could never, of course, be "absented"] , I've always thought, deep in the recesses of my soul, that the Southern Confederacy had the better case when it came to the matter of secession.  I could have also told him that, again deep in the recesses of my soul, I thought the Articles of Confederation made more sense than the Federalist/Federalism set-up.  I'm sure my Magnolia conversationalist would have embraced those heretical tendencies of mine -- which, though not exactly quarantined "'way down in", are kept somewhat corralled -- somewhat.

 

Those were topics, however, with which my good old courageous lawyer friend, the late Dixon Pyles of Jackson, and I used to toss back and forth in an atmosphere of mutual empathy at his law office on Pearl Street.  When we'd exhausted, for the moment, those matters, we turned to our mutual admiration for the military strategies of Jenghiz Khan and his legion.  John remembers, I'm sure, some of those rich discussions -- which always returned, of course, to the perennial challenges of Mississippi.

 

Once, while we were living for several years on the sovereign Navajo Nation, I received a very strange -- but intriguing -- letter from a guy located in another Western state.  I had never heard of him but, some way, he knew a little of me.  With no racial connotations but an obvious bent toward his unique perception  of freedom, he had a not badly drawn up proposal for the secession of the Western states.  His boundaries included the Great Plains region -- but split Texas down the middle.  He excluded California -- but wondered if, maybe, the northern third should be included.  [If I'd gone with him, I'd have agreed to that as well as eastern California generally.  I would have insisted, of course, on guarantees of full sovereignty and reparations for all of the Indian nations involved.]

 

But, in the end, despite the stirrings down in the recesses of my soul, I didn't respond.  But when I occasionally think of the projected venture, I think of a kind of mirage.

 

And it does glitter, 'way off yonder.

 

Yours,

 

Hunter [Hunter Bear]

 

 

HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis
Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk
Protected by Na´shdo´i´ba´i´
and Ohkwari'

Again, very good to hear from you.  It certainly sounds like
you and your colleagues are off to a promising start.  My basic advice with
respect to a group would be to "hang loose," avoid rigidity (this can keep
people away), take your time in developing an affiliation with a national
organization.  On that score, you're "shopping around" and that makes good
sense.  There are many very good national groups -- none of them especially
large at this point -- but certainly honorable and committed. Some of them
have specific youth groups within and around their basic structure. Again,
taking your time and shopping around makes very good sense. And there's
nothing wrong with being "independent," either.

Local issues are always extremely important -- both to the "cause"  in the
sense of serving Humanity and, in close and obvious conjunction with that,
stimulating the positive growth of your group.  You can give the local
issues your basic philosophical/ideological thrust -- but you don't want to
lay the ideology on too thickly.  Blend it in in creative and effective
ways.

In the "old days," a developing radical newspaper was done on mimeograph
machines: messy ink, breakdowns, etc.  Now, xerox approaches make it much,
much easier -- cleaner, faster and essentially less expensive.  A developing
paper should, as a I mentioned a moment ago, focus primarily on local
issues -- with your ideological viewpoint blended in creatively,
effectively.  You can also have a piece or two dealing directly with the
"bigger picture:"  national and/or world events -- or even, going "over the
mountains yonder," to the utopian goal you envision.

It's critical, with any paper, to avoid packing it too full of things.  The
stories should not be overly long,  must be well written (good organization
and grammar), and, in my opinion, should avoid profanity -- at least the
crude stuff. While dealing with issues, it's always good to avoid really
personal attacks on adversaries -- tempting as those sometimes are! [Always
try to take the High Road.] The paper should have a small, working committee
and an editor who can edit -- do rewrite, if necessary.  A general image of
neatness -- adequate margins, etc -- is critical.  The paper should come out
with fairly predictable regularity.

Don't worry about religion or the lack of it. I'd view it as a personal
thing. Marx was (is) charting general directions. "Opiate," as I've
understood it, meant to him the machiavellian use of religion to dull the
concerns and block the action of the people.  Like I think he was shooting
at the oppressive Church: e.g., the Church in pre-Revolutionary Mexico or
Russia -- and many other places, then and often now. On the other hand:  the
very indigenous and radical American movement, the old Industrial Workers of the
World (Wobblies), while attacking the misuse of religion as "pie in the
sky", always viewed religion as a purely personal matter -- and many of the
IWW members were believers of one kind or another.  Others were agnostics --
simply saying they had no basic position one way or the other. And others
atheists.  A fine old union in which I was deeply involved -- International
Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers -- was very radical in traditions
and certainly had a radical leadership.  Most of the Mine-Mill members in
the West  were church members: frequently Catholic, often Mormon. In Alabama,
the Mine-Mill members were frequently Black, and Baptists or Methodists.
Again, a personal thing. The Southern Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and
'60s had very substantial radical dimensions -- and was also explicitly
religious for the most part!  Liberation Theology in, say, Latin America
today, blends Marxism and Marxist-Leninism with radical Christian thought.

One of the very best American radical films is "Salt of the Earth" -- made
by my old union (Mine-Mill) back in the mid-1950s.  Based on a very long and
bitter zinc miners' strike in southwestern New Mexico, it deals very
effectively -- using a somewhat fictionalized approach but sticking to the
essential historical facts -- with worker issues, minority issues (most of
the strikers were Mexican-American), and women issues (women took over the
picket line -- and the strike was won -- after a court injunction was issued
against the Union itself.)  Salt won many awards -- including some of the
very top international film awards -- but, for many many years, was
blacklisted in this country and is often termed, "the only U.S. blacklisted
film."  It's a genuine work of art, can't be found at a video store, but can
be easily gotten now on line for a little more than $20.00.  It's one
of the finest organizing/educative films. I've used it several hundred
times.

The best single piece of advice I ever got on radical matters came from an
old friend, the veteran IWW (Wobbly) editor, Fred Thompson -- a great guy.
I was hot-eyed, just barely into my twenties, a developing organizer and
doing, also, a lot of radical writing.  To me, Fred said, "To be really
radical, you don't have to rant and rave.  Just describe accurately the
massive injustice that exists all around you and sensibly discuss basic
curative approaches and solutions."  I pass that along with a tip of my
Stetson hat to Fred (who died at almost 90, in 1987.)

Again, certainly good to hear from you.  You all are off and rolling.
By all means, keep in touch. 

 Fraternally/In Solidarity --

Hunter Gray [Hunter Bear] 

 

 
 

PREVIOUS

INDEX

CONTINUE