Communicating culture through leadership: One view from Indian country¹

It is important to note here that we do not intend this single analysis to encompass all of the experiences of all American Indians, who number over one million people, who are members of over 550 federally recognized tribes, and who have a variety of beliefs and attitudes. Not only does this group represent a broad array of interests and ideas, this diversity extends even to group labels, with some preferring “American Indian,” some “Native American,” and some “indigenous peoples.” We generally use “American Indian” throughout this essay, but respect the other uses in other contexts and the issues that underlie the choice of labels.

Abstract

Generally speaking, both the practice and study of political leadership in the United States depend upon assumptions that are specific to the dominant culture. Yet the United States is, and always has been, an extraordinarily diverse nation. While scholars are taking the perspectives of previously marginalized communities increasingly into account, there is still much to be learned from the critiques and examples of those cultures. This paper seeks to contribute to our understanding of political leadership and its attendant communication by offering an analysis of the existing mainstream research and an explication of an opposing view, relying on Russell Means' speech, “For America to Live, Europe Must Die!” It is important to note that this is one perspective; it does not cover all alternatives to the mainstream, nor does it cover all possibilities of alternatives derived from indigenous sources. The essay concludes with a brief discussion of how we can profit by the inclusion of this view.

Notes

It is important to note here that we do not intend this single analysis to encompass all of the experiences of all American Indians, who number over one million people, who are members of over 550 federally recognized tribes, and who have a variety of beliefs and attitudes. Not only does this group represent a broad array of interests and ideas, this diversity extends even to group labels, with some preferring “American Indian,” some “Native American,” and some “indigenous peoples.” We generally use “American Indian” throughout this essay, but respect the other uses in other contexts and the issues that underlie the choice of labels.