Subscribe

Interview of Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz ― Resistance Radio

Download mp3

Derrick Jensen: Hi, I’m Derrick Jensen. This is Resistance Radio on the Progressive Radio Network. My guest today is Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. I love what James Tracey said of her: “Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz has defined the term engaged intellectual through a life spent on the front lines of the past four decades of social struggles. She has never abandoned her roots through the process of becoming one of the most respected left academics in the United States.” She is the author of Red Dirt, Outlaw Woman, Blood on the Boarder, Roots of Resistance, The Great Sioux Nation—which has just been re-released— I guess for my first question… When I was preparing for the interview I just kept thinking about all the different aspects of your work, and one of the things I just absolutely love about your work is the way you bring together so beautifully: class analysis, feminism, indigenous struggles, militance, a critique of capitalism, the importance of storytelling, and everything else. So this is really great, but it left me sort of at a loss as to which one of these threads do I want to pick out. So what I’m going to do is just completely punt on choosing a thread, and instead, my first question is going to be: Can you tell me how your own thought has developed through your life time to bring together all of these concerns?

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: Well, you know I’ve thought about that a lot because it’s a little mysterious even to me, and I’m not religious at all, but sometimes I believe in some kind of predestination because of how I got where I am now. But I think the seed for social justice was planted in me very early. I mean beyond just the…well I should explain that I grew up extremely poor, rural, and isolated. My father was a sharecropper, we moved around in a county in Oklahoma working on different farms. Sometimes renting farms, sometimes sharecropping. A very, very, rugged childhood. And there were no books, there was nothing to bring us news of the outside world. Except maybe soldiers coming back from war pumped up with an Americanism, and the Preacher in the Baptist church we went to, who usually came from somewhere else. A state over somewhere else in the region, but not from our town. So it was a very isolated world, but my father was almost a shrine in our cabins that always moved with us to my grandfather, my father’s father Emmit?? Dunbar, because he had in that farming community where I grew up, my dad had grown up, my grandfather had been in the Socialist party and the Industrial Workers of the World organizer. My father was very proud of him, my father was not politically progressive at all, he was fairly apolitical—I call the first chapter in my memoir of growing up in Oklahoma ‘Red Diaper Baby?” with a questions mark, that later when I would meet Red Diaper babies of Communists of the 40’s and 50’s, I would see they had a real ambivalence about how they grew up seeing their parents go through what they did in the McCarthy era. And of course the Socialist party and the Industrial Workers of the World which were very large in Oklahoma. Actually, the largest Socialist party members per capita from 1900-1922 was in Oklahoma. So it wasn’t a fringe group. They controlled almost all the school boards, and towns, and almost controlled the state, came very close to it.

And then it was destroyed very systematically with the Woodrow Wilson’s Red Raids/Red Scare concerning WWI. Those who opposed the war, and the Socialist party notably in the United States—unlike Europe—was fiercely opposed to the war itself, and U.S. entrance into it, and conscription, and went to prison for it, were beaten up by goons, by the Ku Klux Klan was born again??. So my father suffered a lot watching that. He was a kid, so when the final blows came and his father was more or less run out of the area, moved to the Real Grand Valley, took the family to the Real Grand Valley, my dad stayed behind in the town but he was only 15 at that time. So in the whole time that his father had been active, well my father was born in 1907 and my grandfather was already extremely active, so it was his childhood.

But he talked about it, he talked about his father all the time in the most glowing terms, and just told the stories, he was a great storyteller, and he told the stories of that time. I was a sickly child with asthma, well my mother and father were both good story tellers, and my older brother and sister too, so I was filled with stories, but these were the stories that I identified with most. I wanted to grow up and be like my grandfather. I saw him as a super hero—you know what kids think of as superhero now—I wanted to be like him.

And of course, when I left home I didn’t know how to do that at all. I had no prescription for it, there were no models for it in my world. Even when I moved to Oklahoma City there were—I mean I found out later—there were protestors, but they were so isolated by that time. It was a complete oil monopoly, right wing, oligarchic place. No socialism to be seen anywhere. But it seemed I was like a magnet being drawn to the magnets of radicals because they came out of the woodwork. I wasn’t looking for them, but they just appeared before me.

My house mother my first year on scholarship at the University of Oklahoma, turned out to be a socialist, and a lesbian! She told me about it, she’s quite open. She got fired. Almost everyone I knew would get fired. Well I knew them because they were outspoken, but I really admired that outspokenness. So I started speaking out.

First and foremost my senior year of high school I was at a trade school at Oklahoma City, it was a first year of integration, and I didn’t have any opinions really before that time on race because, well, our only connection, interchange, with African Americans was when we would go picking cotton. Certain times of the year poor families would go pick cotton, and there were black families picking cotton and there was not that much interaction. Just seeing black people like us, just poor and picking cotton. But I didn’t have any opinions and much knowledge about the civil rights movement this was ’55, ’56 I was at that school, but there were sit-ins in Oklahoma. There was a sit-in at the big coffee shop like Woolworths only it was called Cats?? Drugstore. And that happened in 1955, so it was long before the big wave of sit-ins. I’ve since learned that it was very advanced in Oklahoma and this great woman leader Clara Luper, but I knew nothing about that at the time. But I did find that again, I had a sense of justice and this was wrong. The white kids in the school beating up and really, really, harassing the few black students who had been brought in to integrate the first school in Oklahoma. Fights in the hall, so I took the side of the blacks. I didn’t really make any black friends, I just would argue with people about racism. I even wrote about it. I was on the school paper, and there I also got influenced by my teacher. I was just drawn, that’s the only way I can explain it and its very haphazard because I felt like I was this vessel that had to be filled, so I didn’t know how to actually go out and find my own way.

When I moved to San Francisco, I was 20. And there were demonstrations.The HUAC demonstrations, the anti death penalty. I had become very anti death penalty—I can’t remember who put that idea in my mind—but I was very anti death penalty. And I so wanted to go and know those people. I actually thought that you had to be invited to go to a demonstration, you know, being raised that you don’t go where you don’t belong, and you can’t ever assume that you belong, that you had to have an invitation to go to a demonstration. So it all made me very sensitive to how to organize. Not to assume just because you have a big demonstration, even a huge one, that ordinary people will necessarily know what it’s about, know that they can join you.

I didn’t join a demonstration until 1965 when we had our first Vietnam War demonstration, and I was dragged to it by a friend. It was very small at that time, and it was kind of scary, and there were only about 10 people, mainly the organizers there. But it was a definite shift. After that I knew I had the right to be in those places, and even started organizing things like that.

But my feminism…I was very proud to be working class. My dad instilled that in me because my grandfather died fighting for the poor and working class. I assumed that every kind of rebuff I had or put-down or discrimination—which I experienced a lot—I always assumed it was class. ‘I don’t talk like them’, or ‘I’m not as educated’, or ‘as good’, but I kept the core of my pride in being working class, and just dismissed it as elitism. So it wasn’t until I was a graduate student at UCLA in history—a doctoral graduate student—that I was out the realm where I felt I could be put down for class. I had achieved an equal status, and I had also learned how to respond to elitism. But something else was happening, and I realized it was because I was a woman.

You know, when one of the male graduate students who wasn’t married—they all had wives who typed for them and everything, and I did all my own work—and one single graduate student reached out with a hand-written thing and said “could you type this up for me?”, and I said “why, why would I do that?”. He wasn’t even a close friend or anything! Certainly not a boyfriend. And so things like that happened. One professor told me outright—one of the professors that had to be on my committee because I was doing Latin American history and he was the historian of Spain. He was not Spanish, he was a white guy—but he actually told me that he was going to do everything he could to keep me from getting a PhD because women did not belong in the history field. So that was pretty obvious.

And so I got angrier and angrier, and at the same time I was getting more and more involved in movements. And then I started seeing it in those movements, which I assumed were immune from that—the same kind of treatment—as I got involved. So that’s really what made a feminist.

I can’t say that I had any kind of…women talk about they were tom boys—I was a sickly little kid, I was a little girly girl. I played with dolls and loved it. I didn’t have any of the things that other women often talk about that they could see why they became feminists. For me it was just pure outrage and anger at how I was treated.

By that time I already had in my mind that liberation only came collectively, so I didn’t at all look at well, ‘how can I achieve as a women’ then. It was ‘how can I help liberate all women’. So that came kind of naturally. Around that time I read Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, and Dorris Lessing’s The Golden Notebook, and I didn’t even know about Betty Friedan’s book A Feminist Mystic, it was sort of, I don’t know, just outside the world of radicalism that I had gotten involved in. I’m not sure what I would have thought of that, I think, had I read it when it came out, I think it was 1962, or ’63. I kind of shudder to think that it might have made me more of an individualist feminist because I wasn’t yet quite cooked as a radical, so I’m glad I missed it.

DJ: I think, is there more? Or do you want me to ask you another question?

RDO: Well, that’s kind of how everything came together, and then how it all integrates into me I’m not sure. Because the way things are segregated into issues and identities and all, I sometimes feel like I’m many personalities, that I can fit in to all these different groups, but I can’t really bring…I feel now I can bring my feminism with me anywhere, I can bring my class stance anywhere, what I can’t bring is the other part of me, my mother’s part of, a more troublesome part. My mother being an alcoholic and all, having been an orphan, the Indian part. I find that’s the most difficult for me to bring into any space that’s not specifically Indigenous without getting kind of just patronized.

I’m fine with my students, or when I’m in a teaching situation I love it because it’s a real challenge. But in the movements I feel that its never quite grasped or understood. It’s kind of ‘oh yes’, there’s always agreement. No push back, as my students do, and you know it’s a challenge, just that kind of politeness, politely ‘yes’, ‘uh huh’, and then going onto another subject. Which is how feminism was treated at first, but this seems far more difficult problem because it gets to the root of settler colonialism and the whole history of the United States.

The whole accepted version of what the United States is or could be, the kind of Howard Zinn peoples history of great triumphs of resistance, and Native Americans as an add on to that and it just doesn’t fit because of settler colonialism and labour movements. Even in myself I can talk labour forever, I can talk feminism forever, I can talk African slavery and racism forever, in any situation, and I can combine all those. But the basis to my thinking for the last 40 years has been understanding of settler colonialism, and Indigenous peoples rights and aspirations. And I always feel like I have to leave that aside… so that’s the real dilemma for me of integrating what I can do and what I can write and make sense. So one solution for that was a book I just finished called Indigenous Peoples History of the United States.

DJ: So there are a bunch of directions that I would like to go with this, and I guess, I want to, before I go to the directions that were raised by all the other comments you were making I…Ok here’s the deal, is that you were saying all the stuff early on and one of the things I wanted to talk about was it seems that, one of the things I think is very important that we often forget is the importance of intergenerational associations, or the intergenerational nature of resistance movements. That your grandfather passed on, things passed through your family down to you, and that resistance, we don’t know if it would have been possible, or if your resistance would be as strong as it is without your grandfather, and we see this in so many resistance movements, and that was one of the directions I wanted to go with that.

But then I realized as you were talking about the way that the indigenous resistance gets shunted off to the side that if I were to ask that question now, I would be doing the same thing that we were just talking about. So I really want to come back to that because I think it’s so important, but I would also like to ask you about, I mean you said some, but I guess I just would like to hear more, and understand better. Why do you think it is that it is harder to integrate that? Over the years I’ve had a number of indigenous people say to me that they just feel like indigenous and settler mindsets are so different that they can’t understand each other at all. It seems like if one were to really open to even the remotest bits of indigenous understanding… So many indigenous people have said to me that the fundamental difference between western and indigenous ways of being is that even the most open minded westerners perceive listening to the natural world as metaphor, as opposed to the way the world really is.

Vine Deloria told me that from his perspective, his understanding of the point of life for an indigenous person would be that the entire world is a beautiful symphony and your role is to figure out what your role is in the symphony and to play that role at the right time and the right place, in the right harmony with everybody else. And that’s a completely different perspective than anything associated with capitalism or with the dominant culture going back thousands of years. So is that why it’s so much harder to bring in, is because the mindsets are so different? Or is that completely off? I see it too, from my own white perspective. I see it getting shunted off all the time. So why do you think that is? How is that?

RDO: That’s a beautiful quote from Vine Deloria. He is a mentor of mine but I’ve never heard him put it quite that way. I’ve heard it put by Henry Crow Dog??, Thomas Banyacya??, Hopi, from so many different elders from different nations that comes down do the same thing, but that’s a beautiful way of putting it. But the way it’s explained to me is that the problem is that, the objectifying of human beings as irrelevant, the environmental movement does that a lot. It says that we want to save the earth, save all of nature, be in harmony with nature, as if the human being isn’t an integral part of all that. That somehow the human being is devalued because of our specific capabilities of destruction outside of our necessity for existence. We have these minds that can destroy but this mind is really meant to be finding our place in the order of things like Vine says, and our place in the order of that symphony.

But individualism, which is a product of capitalism, the atomization of human beings is the… I used to, you know as a feminist, really attack the nuclear family because I do think the nuclear family is where that individualism is nourished, where you practise and pull the knives out and fight each other and all, in this kind of training for what you’re supposed to do in life to be top dog. So, I think it’s the self degradation. I hear it over and over, “well the earth will be fine, it’s human beings who will be destroyed”, but that seems like it’s kinda giving the earth a character that is somehow superior, or that human beings are just no damn good. It comes down to that. And this reverence that you learn as an indigenous person, or from indigenous mentors…

I mean I never learned these things growing up, I would say we certainly had to have a lot of mutual aid as poor people to survive, and I think most poor people exhibit the character of individualism much less than people who can afford to be autonomous, and to be individuals. But probably, most people if they got the chance would get out of the situation of survival and the that better our people strive for that, or they’re told they should, and fortunately many fail to do that so they retain their humanity.

But I think that human beings are sacred, just as all of nature and all the other creatures are sacred as part of sacred life. And all languages are sacred. No language is a colonial language, like English or French, or Spanish, yes some colonizers use those languages, that doesn’t mean the language itself is evil or inherently corrupt. There is certainly a lot of corruption of each of those languages, but there is something deeper than those corruptions that is sacred. So I think there is a kind of self hatred that goes along with the extreme narcissism in the culture that, it is very hard… I understand it because I’ve been around it. It’s hard to say I grew up with it because it was such a different world of survival. But once I became on the track of getting a BA, and then getting an MA, and then a PhD, and working in situations where I wanted to, you know, that kind of ambitious thing, before I got with the American Indian Movement in 1964. Up until that time, even the movement I think… the feminist movement had a big impact on me, but a lot of it was superficial I found later. The kind of collectivity and all. Everyone was still knocking each other over for the book contracts, or the tenure, or whatever… A lot of individualism, but that not seeing oneself as a sacred being is something I think even people involved in New Age things, or like Buddhism, and everything, they want to lose themselves, rather than to enhance themselves, kind of lose themselves, into themselves. Not really into the community.

The thing is that an Indigenous person doesn’t lose him or her self, or their self, in this symphony. They have a very distinctive relationship with everything. And it’s not necessarily static, it’s different things at different times in your life. I think most Native Americans are more vivid personalities than most… most people rarely forget a Native American they meet because very vivid personality. Negative or positive. It stands out as a fully formed personality. Where as a lot of people I meet, I forget… they all start looking alike sometimes.

Like at a conference I was just at last week, I was having a hard time distinguishing people form each other because they didn’t present like a full person. So that’s all kind of rambling around.. I do think I had… Now what’s the cause of that? I don’t think it’s something racial, or DNA, or inherited, although I think a lot of indigenous people start thinking like that because it just seems so unbreakable or such a divide.

But I do think it has developed historically that everyone was once indigenous, and everyone was once part of a collective. And class relations developed, suppression of women probably came before class relations. And then Modern Times and the 14-1500s racism based on skin colour developed with the re-introduction of chattel slavery that was no longer based on a life time of bondage labour, rather as an inherited racial characteristic. That was new under the face of the sun in the 14th-15th centuries when modern colonialism began.

So these are historical developments, and I’m not sure it’s transferable that indigenous people are often asked to give this knowledge, but it’s sort of taken as pieces of things rather than something that, I’m not sure can be changed without the conditions for change taking place. And that’s kind of a catch-22 because the kind of social movements it developed that do not accept some fundamental things about the United States—that is it’s settler colonialism—and what settler colonialism does to the mind. They read Fanon but they don’t seem to get Fanon’s point about black skin, white mass, about settler colonialism. And they accept the effect it has on the Native, but they’re not looking at his, well studies in a dying colonialism, his psychoanalytical work on settlers. White settlers, French Settlers. And there the mentality is very deep stuff. I wish he could have done more of it because no one else does that work now, to understand what happens to the settler, and in denial that there’s any such thing. People throw around the term now but they kind of see it as a kind of substitute for other words that have been used in the past, like racism, of white supremacy. You can have racism, and white supremacy, and of course misogyny, and every other horror in the world, without having settler colonialism.

So settler colonialism, colonialism, capitalism in general, create a certain mindset. And I think what’s troubling about Native Americans is not the culture, language, all that’s fine, that’s really interesting, and people can do their own thing now, but the land. Land and Sovereignty. This is what is very troubling.

I pose the question always when I’m talking about this—but I’ve been talking about it quite a bit lately because my 1977 book The Great Sioux Nation came out in March—a new edition—so I’ve been doing book talks, and its about the restoration of the Black Hills, the sacred lands of the Sioux, to the Sioux people. And about lots of land regaining the original land base under the 1868 treaty. And that’s just one case out of the different Native nations’ aspirations, and I just lay it out like if we just started with one thing like returning all the sacred sites to Native people, would anyone here really find that bothersome? Why would it be something you might be against? Or people would be against? And they all said “oh, there’s no reason, it should be done!” I said “ok”! Let’s start with Yellowstone Park that’s a sacred site, Yosemite. The Grand Canyon, the Black Hills, all the National parks are sacred sites of Native people that were very consciously taken as such. They knew very well that this was the Spiritual basis of Peoples. Vine writes about that a lot, how you can’t carry out your duties as a Lakota if you couldn’t go up into the Black Hills, the certain geographical places to practise. So it doesn’t mean that other people couldn’t be invited in too, but then they kind of balk, they say hmm they’re not sure they wouldn’t like to just go camping in Yosemite whenever they wished, or Mosoreirte??, or the Black Hills. So it then begins to seep in, the implications of how that might be turned around and really humanized.

But if it’s not put into really concrete terms like that, if it stays in the cultural and dances, and handicrafts and things, then it doesn’t really… I think the mascot thing is very significant. People try to brush it off as “oh it’s just a stupid thing”. Now people are saying, ya redskin. But they’re not really getting to the why. Most people call it trivial, even a lot of Native Americans said we have a lot of bigger issues, and it’s true. Land, and the treaties, and the poverty, and the alcoholism, and all of the vestiges of colonialism are, they’re all there and they’re horrible, and they’re killing people. Native Americans have a life span of 47 years. But it is important because it’s bringing out into public discussion, genocide.

Because that red skin is the blood filled bodies of the Pequot that the Puritans called redskins because those they didn’t kill but captured, they flayed them. They took their skin off. They were always, in through the 19th century, skinning the Indians they killed and making lamp shades, and tobacco pouches. Including Andrew Jackson probably carried his stash, tobacco pouch made out of Creek skins. When you skin a person you end up with blood. If you skin an animal, you skin anything, you end up with a blood soaked body. So here are these blood soaked bodies all over the place, so they’re the redskins. And ever after that, redskin refers to a dead Indian. And that’s coming out now. It’s not just the use of the name, it’s what’s behind it and that people thing it’s ok to keep using that word as a reference when it turns the blood of living Native people to ice when they hear it, or boiling over with anger.

And its true that 49ers—that seems benign—our football team is called the 49ers. Well these were the genocidal settlers of California who wiped out—very intentionally—the Northern Californian Indians in the gold rush. These are the 49ers.

DJ: And were paid a bounty for individual…

RDO: Oh, from the beginning. For heads at first, and then as it came down for scalps and various body parts, ya. And we see that happening in Vietnam with the ears that were collected. The souvenirs that were sent back, body parts from Vietnam. This is not normal in war, it’s a settler colonial mentality. And then the militarization: this war, this country being founded on war and genocide, settler wars against the Indians, has so many implications—as as Richard Slotkin puts it—regeneration through violence, that every generation there has to be a war to kind of psychologically justify that genocide, that it’s just no accident.

In the present, and for the last 20 or 30 years, there’s this insistence on the Left that always dates to 1948 and the National Security State that before then, everything was ok. It was FDR, everything was ok, and that is so Ridiculous. Historians never have dated Imperialism to 1948, but they date it to 1898, overseas Imperialism, not to the continent, or even the taking of half of Mexico.

DJ: Well that’s just crazy because, I love the line by the anthropologist Stanley Diamond that civilization originates in conquest to pride and repression at home. If you go back to the cradle of civilization that civilization has been the story of conquest. That’s how you gain, that when you destroy your own land base you are of necessity forced into conquest. Either that, or collapse. And from the beginning this culture’s been doing that. There were indigenous peoples all through the near East, there were through North Africa. The forests of North Africa went down to make the Egyptian Phoenician Navy. It’s amazing to me that people can start to process at 1948, or 1898, the Pequot say hello.

RDO: Well the thing is that when you then go back to the origins of humanity to talk about it in that context, I think it’s a big distortion. As a historian, I think there was a clear break with history in a different direction in, symbolically, 1492, that we are a part of now. Ya those elements are there, but the monster that the United States is, would not have come from that had it not been for a totally different era of capitalism, colonialism, and slavery and settler colonialism, and of course race based slavery. So I think it’s often used, you know, Guns Germs and Steel, and all this, to actually…

DJ: I was saying Stanley Diamond, not Gerard Diamond. I actually disagree strongly with Gerard Diamond.

RDO: Oh, no, I’m just referring to Gerard Diamond, I know you were referring to Stanley Diamond.

DJ: Ok, great.

RDO: But I hear it a lot that, you know, also like the invasion of Iraq in 2003. People started talking about the Roman Empire. Let’s talk about the U.S. I mean, ok, the Roman Empire existed, and definitely the Holy Roman Empire. But what we have to look at is the Holy Roman Empire and the crusades, and that is the fundamental basis for what came. How settler colonialism and racism developed.

So I think we have to be historians, and get to the specifics of the United States, because when we generalize, you’d be surprised. It’s a thing that students are taught in school since the 60’s when all of these issues had been brought up. This Imperialism, one can no longer rationalize that there’s not something to it, as the powers that be started—or their minions in academia—started hustling to get with the program and get on top of it, and keep what I call the origin narrative of the United States… They had to broaden?? the U.S. in world history and yes making a lot of the same mistakes that human beings have always made repetitively.

But there’s something different going on. We’re now on the edge of total human annihilation that is mostly caused by the United States! I mean, it had other participants. Now that is where 1948 maybe becomes an important marker because the European powers pretty much destroyed each other, and are no longer the biggest factor in the world, or collected factor along with the United States.

But we have such a responsibility here, and that brings the Native question into even more of a central, should be centred, because U.S. history without that is always wrongly, however liberal…I mean Howard Zinn is, I love him dearly, and he’s a great person but I think he made things worse with his revising history to say “the beautiful thing about the United States is resistance”. And that is always beautiful in human beings, but it depends on the resistance. Resisting what? The Confederacy resisted the union annexation, or the union demanding a change, they resisted with a war, but that doesn’t really… the word in itself is not a… and it sort of makes it that, and I call it the old settler colonialism resistance. It’s produced a labour struggle, it’s produced feminism, it’s produced all kinds of important situations we have now, but it hasn’t really gotten to, we haven’t really changed the core. We haven’t changed the origin narrative. We’ve altered it, revised it.

There was a time, of course the main theme of the new origin narrative that simply leaves the settler colonial one in place, is that we’re a nation of immigrants. And people sometimes will say you know except for the Indians, like the Indians don’t count, we’re a nation of Immigrants. Text books in the early 90’s—I’m not sure, I haven’t looked lately—but they actually went so far as to identify Native peoples as the first immigrants. So they integrated Native people into this nation of immigrants conceptualization, and it’s still a very strong conceptualization.

I think Native people of Canada erroneously and mistakenly call themselves First Nations, because they’re original nations, they’re colonized nations, and not first, you know, in a line of legitimate nations of Canada and the United States.

DJ: Right, what you’re saying is incredibly important, and I’ve loved this whole conversation, the thing is we’re overtime.

RDO: Oh, we’re overtime. Well it’s so great talking it really went fast.

DJ: I’m so sorry because…We should do this again, we’ll do this for another 45 minutes another time. So we’ll put it on pause…

RDO: Ok.

DJ: ‘Cause once again this is all fabulous, and I’m so grateful for all your work, and I’ve been going oh my god, I don’t want to interrupt her, but we are overtime. So, I need to close off now.

RDO: Well thanks Derrick, and let me know when it’s going to play, and I really enjoyed it.

DJ: I did too. Thank you all for being on the show, and thank you for listening, and my guest today has been Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. This is Derrick Jensen for Resistance Radio on the Progressive Radio Network. Thank you.

Filed in Interviews by Derrick Jensen
No Responses — Written on January 5th — Filed in Interviews by Derrick Jensen

Comments are closed.