Edit: I mean "dominant." I wrote a lot of this close to 1 AM, so forgive my confusion on the words.

So I'll be frank. Most of my friends are non-natives. This makes for some interesting conversations. What I am finding more interesting about them, though, is the social construct that defines the parameters of these conversations. What do I mean by this?

While I am not much one for politics, I have recently heard some clips of lectures given by a man named Michael Parenti. In one of these lectures, which is found here, he speaks of the "American Empire" and its imperialistic history. Before he gets to that point, he defines terms and gives context as to how people in society see this empire.

He states that our readiness to accept or decline a viewpoint on a particular subject rests less on the evidence and argument that is presented, but more on how it fits our background assumptions, or our "climate of opinion." The notions that do not fit are seen as too far out and lacking in credibility. To sum it all up, he likens this observation to a "dominant paradigm," which is quite similar to how we use the phrase "dominant culture." Now bear with me on this one. In what I can only guess is a political science context, he defines a paradigm as: a philosophical or theoretical framework within which empirical hypotheses are drawn and scientific theories are developed. In simple terms, it refers to the mainstream ideology. In my opinion, this can fit into the phrase "dominant culture" since that ideology stems from that culture. My thoughts are going to be coming from more of a cultural understanding rather than a political one. Please keep that in mind.

Now I digress. At times, I have conversations regarding native topics with my non-native friends. My best friend usually offers insightful viewpoints, but they always end up as a challenge to the information I present to him. A good example is what actually occurred last night. He noticed that I was reading a copy of Custer Died For Your Sins, An Indian Manifesto by Vine Deloria, Jr. He told me that he looked up some reviews about it and we began a discussion about the book. He made some statements that conflicted with how I interpreted some of the thoughts in the book, some statements that were reasonable coming from his standpoint.

One of his charges was that according to one of the reviews he read, Vine Deloria did not approve of non-FBs (non-full bloods) having a native identity. If that were true, wouldn't I be opposed to him because I myself am not a FB? I explained that even though I haven't finished the book (I'm like 3/4 of the way through it), I have never encountered that kind of sentiment or inference from Vine Deloria. This prompted him to ask what Vine's opinion would be and, while I couldn't say with certainty on the spot, I figured he would be accepting of non-FBs based on various things.

Going further, this led into a discussion on one of the chapters concerning anthropologists and Vine's explanation of them from a native viewpoint (note that this book came out in 1969). Vine tells us that many anthropologists at this time had seriously misrepresented native culture(s) and this was proving detrimental to tribes. My friend, however, made the charge that as the experts in that field with professional training, wouldn't people be more inclined to listen to them? I told him that yes, that is the exact problem. People listened to them and neglected to get the Indian's side of the story.

Now here is the major point I am making. Our conversation diverged from the book to the neglect of the Indian's viewpoint. Speaking of me, personally, my friend says that by only listening to the kinds of opinions found in Vine Deloria's book, I am now neglecting the other viewpoint, that of western society (the dominant culture). I am essentially trading one bias for another and being overly bias also presents a skewed viewpoint. I replied that while that can be true, there are two marked contrasts: 1.) the Indian viewpoint is largely ignored in society, so reading this viewpoint isn't necessarily trading a bias - it is hearing the other side of the story; 2.) I have already experienced his side (the dominant culture side) of the story. And our conversation continued on like this for a few more minutes before we both had to discontinue it.

So now comes the correlation for what was mentioned earlier. When we face the dominant culture in any aspect as natives, we are fighting that dominate paradigm - their mainstream ideology. It is interesting to see this in action because when you truly look at it, they do not defend themselves from it. Because that paradigm exists in their world and they grow up with it always exerting an influence, they never challenge it even if it doesn't have any evidence. They never have a reason to challenge it. The only time a fight is put up is when a liberal idea is proposed that directly challenges this paradigm. When they feel the need to defend the paradigm, they have these "fall backs" they use - something Parenti also speaks about. These are excuses that they have to "explain" the reality they are rejecting.

Parenti relates an example: He has been an instructor at several colleges. During one of his lectures, two students stand up and complain that he is not representing the opposing argument for what he is teaching. So he asks them and the rest of his class (this is a university, mind you) how many other classes they took that incorporated political sciences. All had taken about 3-4. He asks the class if they had ever complained about not receiving the opposite argument before. Nobody raised their hand. He asked if they had ever heard the viewpoint he was presenting them. Nobody raised their hand. He addresses the two students and tells them: so you're not complaining because you're not getting the opposing viewpoint, you're complaining because you're getting a second viewpoint! He then relates this to how America in the past wasn't viewed as an empire, although that opinion has become more prevalent.

The above example, in my opinion, demonstrates beautifully what we as Indians have to deal with. People don't challenge what is presented by the demagogue ideology. People only challenge what is different. The good thing about different ideologies is that because they are constantly attacked, they are made stronger since they actually have to have evidence to support them. What I wanted to illustrate with the experience about my friend is how this occurs even on an individual scale. I love my friend dearly, but he rarely accepts what I have to say on indigenous issues. I always have to defend my viewpoints and I always have to defeat a challenge. Every other sentence there is something he, or someone else, has to object to. But the moment I challenge the paradigm, I have to prove every complaint against it while the paradigm is just...there.

TL;DR: America is an empire and within the dominant culture is a dominant paradigm. It is interesting to experience this paradigm on an individual level. As natives, we always have to defend our viewpoints and fight a challenge against our opinions that are "different" according to what society thinks. But the moment we challenge them, we have to prove our point while what we are challenging is allowed to stand without proof.