Spoiling for a fight

Page 6

There's something romantic, something that appeals to us about the outsider. We support the man who stands up against big government, big business, big religion, for what's right.

Hollywood has made a basket full of underdog movies. We all hope against hope for the underdog, especially when he's one of ours.

That does not mean, however, that any underdog, that any armed resistance to the law, is legitimate. Some underdogs are just criminals.

The cause of the so-called "free-men" in Montana, for example, is not legitimate. They do not identify one issue that is a long-standing problem; they don't have the support of the local community. They simply reject the authority of the U.S. federal government to say anything to them (but they take the feds' money).

These are outsiders and losers. Arming themselves and pretending to be some kind of outlaw folk heroes appeals to them. It makes them feel important.

Neither do the armed rebels at Waterhen have a legitimate cause. They have contested - and lost - a number of band elections. They do not have the support of the community, most of which ran away when they seized power. When they claim to be poor, hard-done-by, discriminated against victims, it's time for the community - a community that has had the strength to support Oka and Wounded Knee - to stand up and say "NO."

Not every Native person behind a barricade has a legitimate reason to be there. Some of them are simply criminals. They should be dealt with as such, and they should be dealt with harshly.

And, while it's worthy to support a cause, we have to be careful of what we support. Each cause must be judged on its own merits and, if possible, away from the rosy glow of romanticism given to underdogs. Legitimate causes are damaged by the illegitimate actions of others.

Really oppressed people don't need this kind of ally. Native people with real problems must say strongly, clearly: "Get off our side!"