Jack D. Forbes

Native American Studies

University of California, Davis

This column's focus: CORPORATIONS AS GOVERNMENTS

OF OUR MINDS

Older political studies tend to separate the study of private corporations from the study of governments, defining the latter as public or civic organizations which are not "owned" by private individuals (except in the case of royal dynasties controlled by a given family group). But the difference has always been arbitrary since many private corporations have doubled as governments. The Hudson's Bay Company in Canada, the Virginia Company, and the British East India Company are examples of corporations which also were governments. Many other corporations have exercised governmental power as owners of entire towns or as owners of entire islands or other geographical areas. Still other corporations have exercised governmental power indirectly by dominating civil governments through the exercise of their money power (bribery, contributions, control of elections, control of jobs, and so on).

What we have to be worried about today is that in any situation approaching monopoly, that is when a corporation or a small group of corporations control(s) a given economic activity in a region, those corporations can act like governments. This can affect Native People directly, as when the cable television system reaching aboriginal households is controlled by a monopoly.

The dictionary tells us that "government" has to do with the "exercise of authority" or of direction and restraint exercised over the actions of people in communities or states. The control which corporations exercise can certainly restrain our ability to have choices. It is especially crucial in the area of media and information.

In the distribution of films, for example, huge corporations now have come to exercise governmental power since they have the ability to determine what the public will be exposed to. It is true that an occasional "independent," "foreign," or Native film may reach a very small audience somewhere, but for practical purposes the vast majority of theaters, television stations, and cable systems, especially in the U.S. and points south, show only films or videos which are filtered through huge corporations which now control all major media and distribution systems.

Thus the determination of the visual images which most of us will be allowed to see is in the hands of private governments run by a few white men (usually) or by Japanese men.

We must discard the notion that those who govern us are elected officials. On the contrary, it is the unelected CEO's who are really structuring our lives in ways which are far more intimate than public agencies, since the corporations can literally control "culture" or at least the pseudo-cultures being marketed to our youth and adults. By promoting certain kinds of movies, music, dancing, dress-styles, sports activities and even philosophies of life they can manipulate, control, restrict, and "dumb-down" the life of societies.

Of course, Native Americans can resist, and many do to a certain extant. But because private governments control most large newspapers and other mass media we are seldom, if ever, able to get our message across to a large audience. The American Indian Movement, United Native Americans, and other groups have tried direct action techniques in order to force media attention, but the quality of information generated is always very poor and, in any case, is filtered through the lenses of the monopoly.

Native People are virtually frozen out of television, very few of us ever being asked to serve on a panel unless it deals solely with First Nations issues; and we have few other opportunities to create or perform. African-Americans, who now have many shows, are not much better off. Why? Because the white owners and advertisers who control the media do not allow serious Black programming. Instead, Black people have to be content with modern versions of the old minstrel show usually with over-sexed fools yelling and screaming at each other, without a serious political or social thought. At best, some good comedy is offered.

First Nations' governments need to make sure that cable and satellite systems coming on to Native land are either owned by Native People or are under strict controls which guarantee many channels to the tribe or band and to programming in indigenous languages. Native governments can establish committees of elders and parents to determine which channels should be carried by the system, so that the best possible cultural influences may reach younger children; and so that educational programming receives precedence.

In the society at large, it is not enough to have "competition" between three or four giant conglomerates, each of which is controlled by the same kind of CEO's and wealthy elites. Monopoly is not done away with until there are dozens (if not hundreds) of businesses competing in the same market, and "owned" by different kinds of people, that is, by different ethnic groups as well as social classes. Moreover, the "dumbing-down" caused by the dependence upon advertising revenue must be offset by media financed in other ways.

When we think of getting rid of "big government" we must start by getting rid of big corporations. Small governments and tribes are inevitably at a great disadvantage in dealing with international giants usually having bigger budgets than 80 to 90% of the states in the world. So it makes sense to break up the big multinationals at the same time, or even before, we try to downsize public agencies which may be protecting us, in many cases, from private greed. All rights reserved

(Professor Forbes is the author of ONLY APPROVED INDIANS,

COLUMBUS AND OTHER CANNIBALS, AFRICANS AND NATIVE

AMERICANS and other books)