So, I'm an archaeologist for a Native American tribe out here in LA (I won't name it for the sake of my privacy and their's). And no, I'm not Native American. I was talking to one of my coworkers, who is also not Native American, about how there must be a way for California tribes to sell tobacco without being forced to charge state tax to charge state tax to non-Native Americans, which is the case out here in CA. CA wants to gets the biggest piece of every pie it possibly can. As a smoker in a state with very high tobacco tax, this would be good for me. And, it would also create much needed revenue for tribes who don't want to or can't go down the casino route.
My coworker said that for a tribe to sell something which it considers sacred as a commodity to non-Native Americans would be an absolutely disgusting thing that she would never be apart of. Ok, there's a few things wrong with this.
1. We use terms like "tribes" and "Natives" to make communication easy. But, tribes should be spoken of by name, not generalized as one massive culture. This is precisely what she did by assuming that all tribes consider tobacco a spiritual substance.
2. Most tribes have many uses for smoking tobacco, not just spiritual (political, recreational, commerce, solidarity etc.)
3. Corn has spiritual qualities to a number of tribes. Would she seek to stop the sale of corn to white people? No! Her logic is inconsistent.
She then said that she only had a problem with unhealthy substances. So, what she's doing is holding tobacco in high regard for having sacred qualities and then spitting on it for being harmful to one's health. What I think is really going on here is that she is against tobacco use on emotional grounds (concern for the health of OTHERS) and would not like to see access to tobacco eased.
Your thoughts?
My coworker said that for a tribe to sell something which it considers sacred as a commodity to non-Native Americans would be an absolutely disgusting thing that she would never be apart of. Ok, there's a few things wrong with this.
1. We use terms like "tribes" and "Natives" to make communication easy. But, tribes should be spoken of by name, not generalized as one massive culture. This is precisely what she did by assuming that all tribes consider tobacco a spiritual substance.
2. Most tribes have many uses for smoking tobacco, not just spiritual (political, recreational, commerce, solidarity etc.)
3. Corn has spiritual qualities to a number of tribes. Would she seek to stop the sale of corn to white people? No! Her logic is inconsistent.
She then said that she only had a problem with unhealthy substances. So, what she's doing is holding tobacco in high regard for having sacred qualities and then spitting on it for being harmful to one's health. What I think is really going on here is that she is against tobacco use on emotional grounds (concern for the health of OTHERS) and would not like to see access to tobacco eased.
Your thoughts?