As an extension of Scott Lyons' (2000) work on rhetorical sovereignty vis-à-vis the writing of two 19th century American Indians, an investigation of American Indian multimedia writing reveals the importance of digital rhetorical sovereignty. However, considering the limited access that Native Americans have to the Web (and according to some estimates, only 10% of Internet developers are people of color), more needs to be done to facilitate the efforts of indigenous people in gaining digital rhetorical sovereignty, where American Indians can share their own stories in their own words. Digital rhetorical sovereignty not only gives Natives a reason to be wired, but more importantly it serves to preserve cultures, languages, memories, and historiesóand promote accurate, complex, and multiple representations of indigenous people that work against dominant static and monolithic representations of "the American Indian." Digital rhetorical sovereignty works as a survivance tactic, as it assists in the survival and resistance of American Indians. The Cherokee Nation site is a result of an effective employment of digital rhetorical sovereignty, and it showcases the distinctive and effective survivance tactics American Indians employ when engaging with new technologies; as the Seminole-Creek art historian Mary Jo Watson puts it, “what makes Indian people so unique and so persistent is their ability to take foreign material, or a foreign technology, and make it Indian” (qtd. in Twist, 2000, Four Directions).

However, most American Indian Nations do not have access to the resources to go it alone. But how can this message be heard if research on the digital divide and the online pursuits of Americans do not recognize how American Indians are affected by their digital access, or lack thereof? And how can American Indian Nations know how to serve their communities without understanding how individuals tied to their communities are engaged with the technologies? Even those without access—indeed even those who may not want access—can shape the content that is provided on the Net. But tactics and strategies for how others have negotiated the cultural, social, economic, and political constraints must be shared in order for American Indians and allies to know how all Americans can best benefit from the Web—and this can be done via inter-tribal and interracial sharing between the “haves” and “have nots," between the techno-limited and the techno-savvy, between those with accurate content knowledge and those with agency and skills. Such outreach efforts have the potential to encourage alliances, which in turn can cumulatively prove to be an impetus for digital diversity. As Powell (2004) notes of American Indians: “Our strength was, and is, in alliance and in the ability to adapt to rapidly changing worlds. We borrowed European goods and ideas, and these became part of our cultural traditions. After all, all cultures must change if they are to survive” (p. 39).

In response to a need to promote digital rhetorical sovereignty, the remainder of this discussion will focus on ways to cultivate alliances that will result in making the Net more native to American Indians, which will subsequently promote digital diversity that is inclusive of American Indians. Although I certainly cannot possibly generate all the options for engaging in such alliances, I can offer the following recommendations:

• Include indigenous websites in your online documentation and visual rhetoric pedagogy, and not as “good examples of American Indian sites” (or just a token of digital diversity), but instead as sites worth exploring, studying, modeling, etc. based on standards of smart web design. Not only does this make a current absence present in our own disciplinary discourse and promote a digital diversity that few acknowledge, but it will expose students to more complex and dynamic representations of "Indianness" and may inspire Native and non-native students alike to be more concerned with digital rhetorical sovereignty. (And don’t assume that you don’t have any indigenous students in your class just because no one “looks Indian”, as I sat in many classes where my professors didn’t know that I identify as a mixed-blood Cherokee.)

• Assign critical readings on the digital divide and how non-white communities are affected by the persistent divide (Monroe, 2004; Banks, 2005) and share them with your colleagues interested in computer literacy, community literacy, and digital rhetoric.

• Ask a tribe with a web presence in your area to share their stories about the process, the promises and perils, content ideas, design considerations, personnel and budget considerations of crafting an online identity with your classes. Or ask an indigenous colleague. There are several in our discipline, and you may consider familiarizing yourself with the American Indian studies program on your campus to meet contacts adjacent to our discipline.

• Seek more funding for tribal college, reservation, and Native community technological initiatives (e.g. Grants.gov, the Foundation for Rural Education and Development, the Gates Foundation, etc.).

• Consider collaborations between the university (both tribal and non-tribal colleges) technology, professional writing, and rhetoric programs and the Indian Nations and Tribes.

• Network with American Indian web developers.

• Seek ties with allies who can offer technological assistance to indigenous communities, such as university technological initiative offices and/or programs (perhaps similar to MSU’s Writing in Digital Environments Research Center, or WIDE Center).

• Write your local congressperson about the technological progress being made in Indian country—as well as about the digital divide that still persists in American Indian communities and the need to be included in subsequent digital divide reports.

• When asked to complete Internet use surveys, forward them on to American Indian communities and colleagues for their completion, and write the survey sponsor to inquire about their efforts to seek and include data from American Indians.

• Generate ways to collaborate with American Indian communities in their efforts to build sustainable digital networks for communicating indigenous rhetorics (e.g. In spring 2005, Ellen Cushman and her students in her multimedia writing class worked with the Cherokee Nation to create an interactive multimedia resource on the allotment period that followed the Trail of Tears, thereby facilitating the Cherokee Nation’s efforts to tell their own counterstories to the hegemonic and limited stories presented in most history books).

• Support your indigenous students' interests in technology-related careers.

Ultimately, such efforts have the potential to encourage alliances between American Indian and Computers & Writing communities, which in turn can cumulatively prove to be an impetus for digital diversity. If we in the Computers & Writing community are as concerned with the digital divide as we have purported in the past, we must continue to work to bridge this divide (as cyberfeminists have with women), as it is clear that the government won’t without being led—after all, the titles of the Internet use reports have shifted from titles such as The Digital Divide to more recently, A Nation Online.

Perhaps together we can dismantle the technological barriers American Indian communities experience by communicating “the benefits of diverse and legitimate Indian-created, Indian-focused Web content . . . the cultural, social, political, education, and health benefits that can be provided via Tribally-created Web content. Tribal leaders need to see examples of how IT can be culturally appropriated—made to fit the cultural will of their respective tribe—and used for the benefit of their people. Tribal leaders need to see how the Internet can be made to fit their culture, rather than see how their culture can fit the Internet” (Twist, 2000). Perhaps members of the Computers & Writing and Digital Cultural Rhetorics communities can become participants in these alliances, as the promises of appropriating the Net are many for American Indians, just as the promises are many for our scholarly communities to learn more about digital cultural rhetorics by including American Indians in the discourse surrounding information technologies.

Acknowledgements

I'd like to thank Tonia Williams, the Cherokee Nation webgoddess, and her web development team for their time and energy in building of the award-winning Cherokee Nation site from a one-page site to one with over 1,000 nodes. I also appreciate how gracious she was to spend time with me on the phone (personal communication, September 16, 2005), making sure that I had the history and details of the site's development correct. A grant from the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) helped to finance the work it took to build, maintain, and upgrade the infrastructure of the site.