Last Updated on August 3, 2018
As tribes across the US gear up to do battle with the Anti-Indian Movement, communications will comprise the front line of defense. Understanding how this war of ideas can be fought effectively will make the difference between winning and losing.
One of the most common mistakes of communications in conflict is to respond to attacks in a defensive manner, which violates the core principle of not repeating the talking points of your enemy. Repetition imprints itself on the public mind, and is in turn repeated by media. Developing the essential understandings you wish to convey, and sticking to them, is an effective strategy; responding to attacks allows your enemy to set the terms of discussion.
Another core principle is not to provide a platform for your enemy. Some PR people think it is a demonstration of fairness to invite your enemy to debates and discussions. What they should be doing is finding ways to discredit their enemy and subvert their operations against them. I can analyze almost any PR release and find violations of these principles; PR people study mass communication, but not Netwar.
Tribal governments will be embroiled in psychological warfare, and the Principles of Psywar are rarely understood by public relations staff. This is a separate function from investigative research, but a related one.
When developing research budgets, it might help to point out that investigative research in social conflict is not a one-off; it is a continuous flow of information generated before, during, and after netwar. This flow can begin with a briefing based on experience, proceed to an estimate of the current situation (after scoping it out), continue with a full report once researchers hit critical mass on essential information, and then generate periodic updates through monitoring media, events, communications and activities of the opposition.
This format of presenting essential understandings in short video segments is an effective way of engaging the public online. Tribal governments might want to consider producing something — in advance of announcing initiatives — in order to guide subsequent public discourse.
These guys will probably offer their fundraising and organizing services to the anti-Indian organizers. They have a lot of experience at raising money and mobilizing bigotry, and appear to be looking for a new political opportunity to use their skills. They should not be underestimated.
Across the world right now, Indigenous peoples are facing a renewed assault on their lands, rights, and ways of life.
From extractive industries pushing deeper into ancestral territories, to governments rolling back hard-won protections,
the threat is global—and it is growing.
What makes this moment especially dangerous is how little attention it receives.
Stories like this are disappearing in real time. Mainstream media
barely covers it and the coverage is fragmented. The public is left without the context
needed to understand what is truly at stake.
That is exactly why IC Magazine exists..
For more than 20 years, IC has reported on Indigenous struggles worldwide — consistently, independently, and without compromise.
We don’t follow news cycles; we trace patterns. We don’t sensationalize; we provide context.
And when the world looks away, we stay focused.
But this work is increasingly difficult to sustain.
We refuse to lock our reporting behind a paywall. We don’t sell access through subscriptions.
And we don’t answer to advertisers. IC Magazine survives solely because readers like you choose to
support independent Indigenous journalism.
Please donate today if you can. Every contribution helps us to continue this crucial work.
Thank you,
John Ahni Schertow
Founder and Editor in Chief
