Dear HCN,
In Dustin Solberg’s story
about alternative forest products on the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation – where one-third of the people live below the poverty
line – I was angered by the author’s comment, “whether (earnings
from the sale of coneflowers are) spent on school clothes or
12-packs, everyone seems to like the new cash” (HCN, 2/15/99). I
didn’t expect High Country News to contribute to the stereotype of
the drunken Indian squandering his family’s meager cash on alcohol.
This kind of gratuitous racism is ubiquitous, but it certainly
doesn’t belong in the paper.
I don’t doubt that
some of the money from the sale of coneflowers is spent on alcohol,
and I appreciate your dilemma as a writer: Should a writer
self-censor and leave out part of the truth, in order to avoid
offending someone? In this case, I don’t think the comment was
germane to what you were writing about, and because racism is so
insidious and pernicious, I think it’s worth being extra careful to
avoid contributing to it. Much of the environmental movement has
been insensitive to the concerns of minorities, and that is
something I would like to see
change.
Bertie J.
Weddell
Pullman,
Washington
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Lose the gratuitous racism.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
