Rob shouldn't criticize "redskins"?!

In Wassegijig Doesn't Respect "Redskins," reader Kalisetsi took me to task (again) for criticizing a Native:I often wonder why someone apparently so concerned that Native peoples be treated with proper respect would continually spend so much time writing about issues of Native identity, authenticity, and what we choose to call ourselves.Because they're key issues, obviously. And because they're inextricably entangled with the other issues I address. It would be impossible to write clearly on many Native subjects if I didn't address these issues.
In this case, my issue is not the magazine title "Redskin," but the propriety of you as a non-Native putting down Natives who choose for their own reasons to stand behind that name and use it however they want.Well, my issue is the magazine title "Redskin." Why don't you tell us where you stand on that? If you think it's a good idea, then we'll discuss it. If you don't think it's a good idea, then what's the problem with my agreeing with you?
Clearly, many well-known Natives have associated themselves with Redskin magazineAppearing in the magazine doesn't necessarily mean endorsing the title. As I said before, someone may feel that the good of promoting their art or cause outweighs the bad of appearing in a magazine named "Redskin."
are you really ready to say they are all ignorant?No, and I haven't said that in the past. What little I've said about the people appearing in the magazine includes this:I know all about Irene Bedard and Nathaniel Arcand, since I report on them frequently. Are they "traitors" for appearing in the magazine? "Traitors" isn't the word I'd use, but it's a legitimate question. Should they (and you) tacitly endorse the "Redskin" name and concept by appearing in the magazine?Who can judge "redskins"?And that you, as a non-Native, are a better judge of the word "Redskin" than Native people themselves?Here's where you're sadly mistaken. I must've explained myself half a dozen times, but I'll do it once more so you can't miss it.

The word "redskins" doesn't offend me personally. I have no strong feelings about it. My position reflects only what I've read and heard from thousands of Native sources.

If the Native population were to "reclaim" the word "redskins" and declare that it no longer offended them, I'd be happy to support that outcome. Until that happens, I support the present situation. That position is that most Natives consider "redskins" an ethnic slur.

Repeat: I'm not imposing my belief on Natives. I'm reflecting what most Natives believe. If you disagree with these Natives, go argue with them. Quit wasting your time and mine when Native leaders throughout the country are trying to eliminate team names and mascots they consider offensive.

In short, your assertion that I don't understand or sympathize with what most Natives think and feel is flatly wrong. You may not understand or sympathize with them on this issue, but I do.Do you not see the irony, hypocrisy, and assumed privilege on your part when you talk down to us Natives and try to "enlighten us" as to how our own grandparents were treated?"Talking down" is your opinion only. It isn't worth much when you don't cite and quote what you're talking about.

I don't recall ever saying how anyone's grandparents felt about anything. The only irony I see here is your making up stuff about me and then taking some imaginary high road about it. Nice trick if you can get away with it.

Who speaks for Natives?

Let's note a few more facts. You and Wassegijig come from two widely separated Native cultures. There are thousands of Native cultures in North America that you two don't belong to. As far as I'm concerned, neither of you is qualified to speak for all Natives--to tell me how should I deal with them.

Moreover, "redskins" isn't a term particular to one Native culture. It isn't a matter of private or sensitive cultural lore. It's an ethnic slur applied to Natives in general. When it comes to a question of English word usage, anyone can judge the issue as well as you can.

And I'm not telling people how they should feel. I'm telling people that most Natives consider "redskins" an ethnic slur. You can feel however you want as long as you acknowledge that I've accurately summarized the situation.I'm pretty sure that you've never been called a "tree n*gger" in your life.You're right about that. So...what's your point? I've never said anything about or even heard of the phrase "tree nigger." Is this another of those irony things you mentioned? I've never mentioned something and you're chastising me for it anyway?

If your point is that I've never been called a "redskin" either, you're right about that too. But many Natives have and they object to the word. Since Wassegijig is too afraid to address this issue, feel free to do it for her.

Let's recap: You defend Wassegijig's right to use "redskins" but have yet to say whether it's an ethnic slur. So is it or isn't it...yes or no? Answer that question so we know where you stand on the underlying issue.

Does anyone here want to take the Redskin challenge? If you don't think the word is an ethnic slur, use it in a room full of tribal leaders and elders. Let us know how they feel about being called "redskins."

The best animated Star Trek

As long-time readers know, Kiowa science-fiction writer Russell Bates co-wrote How Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth, an episode of the animated Star Trek. The Star Trek franchise won its only series Emmy--for children's programming--when this episode was submitted for consideration. It's probably the greatest achievement by a Native on Star Trek and the greatest achievement of Bates's career.

Recently, David Wise, the non-Native co-writer of this episode, responded to an old posting about it:Russell co-wrote an episode that is still remembered and discussed today, 35 years after it first aired. He played a crucial part in the only Emmy the original "Star Trek" ever won.You can follow the link to see what I said about that. But since Bates and Wise keep talking about their achievement, I feel free to offer a reality check.

The viewers at TV.com have rated all the animated Trek episodes:

Star Trek: The Animated Series

I'd say they rightly picked Yesteryear and the The Slaver Weapon as the two best episodes. Here's how they rated them all, including the one by Bates and Wise:  1 Yesteryear  9.26
2 The Slaver Weapon 8.38
3 Albatross 8.17
4 The Pirates of Orion 8.03
5 The Practical Joker 7.99
6 The Survivor 7.85
7 The Jihad 7.80
8 Beyond the Farthest Star 7.77
9 The Eye of the Beholder 7.70
10 More Tribbles, More Troubles 7.63
11 The Time Trap 7.62
12 The Counter-Clock Incident 7.56
13 The Terratin Incident 7.49
14 The Ambergris Element 7.49
15 One of Our Planets Is Missing 7.33
16 The Infinite Vulcan 7.10
17 Once Upon a Planet 7.10
18 The Lorelei Signal 7.06
19 How Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth? 7.06
20 Mudd's Passion 6.98
21 Bem 6.11
22 The Magicks of Megas-Tu 5.98I'd say this ranking is very accurate. Does anyone want to disagree?

So Bates and Wise wrote a mediocre episode of Trek. Maybe the animated series would've won an Emmy if any episode had been submitted. Or maybe the series won a youth-oriented Emmy precisely because the episode was so simple and childlike.

Below:  Ensign Dawson Walking Bear.

Redundancy in Sheyahshe's book

Michael Sheyahshe (Caddo) reports on a review of his book:

Another Critique of My BookA contributor to livejournal had the following to say about my book, Native Americans in Comic Books:

"The book annoyed me a bit with its critique of Native American comic book characters whose stories are set in the past. Sheyahshe commented that these characters reinforce the notion that Native Americans disappeared in the Old West days. It's a completely legitimate complaint--so the complaint itself I have no problem with...What annoyed me was the fact Sheyahshe brought this up each time he discussed one of these characters. It was very redundant. A few paragraphs at the beginning of the book, to comment on the problem and mention its applicability to all "historical" characters, would have made for a better reading experience."

*****

"Thankfully there are plenty of modern-day Native American comic book characters, so I didn't have to suffer through his redundant complaint too much."

****

"One omission that surprised me was the lack of commentary on the names that so many Native American comic characters have. The only name Sheyahshe commented on was Tonto's (Spanish for "stupid")."

*****

"Overall, though, I did enjoy reading the book. It made for a nice, nostalgic trip, and it sparked my interest in a comic book called Tribal Force, the creative work of a Tucsonan."
I can certainly see how someone might see parts of the book as repetitive: as an examination of many stereotypes and many comic books, there's bound to be a certain recurring element. Add to this, my use of a very specific set of criteria to evaluate the level of stereotype in each study and you can well imagine how a reader might feel this way, initially.Comment:  I still haven't read this book. I'm sure I'll find it captivating and engrossing, so I'm waiting until I have some free time.

For more on the subject, see Comic Books Featuring Indians.

Student competitions at AIHEC

Drawing on history:  Conference features competitions in art, Web design

By JODI RAVE of the MissoulianOn Monday, Nicholas Begay swiftly moved charcoal across white drawing paper, rubbing, drawing and blending the black pigment with skill that captured judges' attention, allowing the art student to nab a first-place finish in a national tribal college drawing competition.

“I had fun,” said Begay, a junior at the Institute of American Indian Arts in Santa Fe, N.M. “I walked around and watched everybody work. I usually get my inspiration from other artists. I enjoyed the whole atmosphere of everybody doing art.”

Begay is among some 900 tribal college instructors, staff and students attending the American Indian Higher Education Consortium conference at Missoula's Hilton Garden Inn. The three-day event, which ends Tuesday night with an award banquet, is bringing students together from tribal colleges across the country to compete in science, speech, Web design, art, business planning, drama, hand games and critical inquiry competitions.

“We came with a busload of students, approximately 40, and they've been participating in the knowledge bowl,” said Lois Red Elk, a drama instructor at Fort Peck Community College in Wolf Point. “In preparing for these competitions, we're making sure our students are learning culture and reading contemporary books on history and Native life. The importance of it all is so that our traditions are utilized in what we're teaching and learning today in contemporary society.”Comment:  I bet I would've done well in the critical inquiry competition. <g>

For more on Indians drawing quickly, see Bunky Paints Live!

Below:  "Joseph Old Elk, center, Nicholas Begay, left, and Bryar Flansburg, right, work on their art during a quick draw contest at the American Indian Higher Education Consortium conference in Missoula on Monday. Old Elk, a sophomore in environmental science at Little Big Horn College in Crow Agency, said he based his piece on a drawing he's made for years." (Photo by Tom Bauer/Missoulian)

Mohawks question Frozen River

'Frozen River' Draws Mixed ReactionShe said many [Mohawks] remarked on the misrepresentation of certain well-known Akwesasne sites, such as the Tribal Council Community Building and the Mohawk Bingo Palace, which are both large, bright structures, not the small, dingy buildings depicted in the film.

Shannon Burns, editor of the Indian Time newspaper on the Mohawk territory, said she interviewed Hunt in 2004, when the director was researching a short feature on the reservation, but could not get her questions answered or telephone calls returned once the full-length movie was out.

"The premise of the film isn't good for Akwesasne," Burns said in a February editorial. "Camp-dwellers who smuggle humans across the river? It's not that anyone here thinks we don't have crime, but don't we have enough real crime and a bad enough reputation without films that give an entirely false impression of the Mohawk community?"

Doug George-Kanentiio, former editor of Akwesasne Notes and co-founder of the Native American Journalists Association, said "Frozen River" is flawed.

"The reservation is perceived as a place to be feared, the Mohawks grim and dangerous," he said in a recent editorial piece. "There is nothing appealing about reservation life--no mention of our schools, ceremonies, health centers or arena.

"We remain a vague people, distrustful of the outside world, even as we seek to use our status as an indigenous community for profit and without any consideration for those we exploit along the way," George-Kanetiio said.

"I hope this movie will result in a better one told from our perspective--someday, perhaps."Comment:  As you may recall, I interviewed Courtney Hunt for the article I wrote on Frozen River. A couple of relevant points:

1) She had to film in Plattsburgh, a town 80 miles away, for technical reasons. But for some reason, I assumed they used the actual tribal council building and bingo palace. I guess not.

2) Hunt got permission from the tribe to film the story. But it wasn't clear exactly who gave her permission. There were the American Mohawks vs. the Canadian Mohawks, the modern government vs. the traditional elders, and so forth. The approval wasn't unanimous, so some Mohawks undoubtedly continued to disapprove.

The white characters (Melissa Leo and her family) fared a little better in Frozen River--perhaps because they were the stars and the Mohawks were secondary characters. The movie did show a few positive Mohawk scenes, but overall the impression was of people struggling to get by. For an economically depressed region like upstate New York, I don't know if that's negative or just realistic.

I'm not totally surprised at Hunt's unresponsiveness. She was talkative in our interview, but didn't respond to followup questions via e-mail. I hope her minor celebrity status isn't going to her head.

For more thoughts on this article, see the Frozen River thread on Facebook.

1923 letter to Indians

Wanda Lord has posted a 1923 letter from the Department of the Interior's Office of Indian Affairs to Indians. It begins:TO ALL INDIANS:

Not long ago I held a meeting of all Superintendants, Missionaries and Indians, at which the feeling of those present was strong against Indian dances.I didn't realize missionaries were US officials in 1923. I must've missed the missionary branch of government when I read the Constitution.

What problem is the Commissioner concerned about?I feel that something must be done to stop the neglect of stock, crops, gardens, and home interests caused by these dances or by celebrations, pow-wows, and gatherings of any kind that take the time of the Indians for many days.

Now, what I want you to think about very seriously is that you must first of all try to make your own living, which you cannot do unless you work faithfully and take care of what comes from your labor.Don't think Indians are merely goofing off, either. It's much worse than that.No good comes from your "give-away" custom at dances and it should be stopped. It is not right to torture your bodies or to handle poisonous snakes in your ceremonies.Shocking! Who knew Indians were so depraved? Giving things away as if this were Communist Russia and not the good ol' US of A, where acquiring things is the default religion.

And torturing themselves and handling poisonous snakes...shades of Abu Ghraib! Let's hope they learn safe 'n' sane Judeo-Christian practices such as cutting babies and eating Jesus.

The Commissioner notes that he's merely asking Indians to stop, but if they don't comply within a year, he'll have to take action. He knows best, so these Indians had better listen to him.

Unfortunately, you'll have to register with Facebook to see the original letter. But since Facebook is becoming the new AOL or Google, you probably should do that anyway.

For more on Natives and Christianity, see such postings as:

Native spirituality is "demonic"?
"Spiritual terrorism" against Indians
Native truth vs. Christian lies
Why Natives aren't Christians
Give Christianity a chance?
Jesus didn't save Indians

For more quotes such as those in this letter, see Uncivilized Indians.

Different views of medical care

Docs' new guidelines

College wants grads to be more sensitive to aboriginalsThe organization that sets national standards for medical specialists and surgeons wants all graduating physicians to become "culturally sensitive" to aboriginal patients, whose attitudes toward medicine can differ profoundly from mainstream Canada.

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada recently unveiled new education "modules" for medical residents in obstetrics, gynecology, psychiatry and family medicine. They introduce doctor trainees to the basics of indigenous culture.

"Many First Nations, Inuit and Metis people have had negative experiences with the mainstream health-care system, often because of cultural differences between the patient or client and the health-care provider," says the curriculum briefing book.And: How traditional aboriginal culture and mainstream western culture differ:

TRADITIONAL

- Community is foremost value
- Knowledge is transmitted orally
- The world is understood mythically
- Goals are met with patience
- Eye contact is thought overly assertive
- A handshake is soft, signalling no threat
- A faith in harmony with nature

MAINSTREAM

- Individualism is foremost value
- Tradition of printing and literacy
- The world is understood scientifically
- Goals are met with aggressive effort
- Eye contact is part of conversation
- A handshake is firm, assertive
- A faith in scientific control of nature

Source: Aboriginal Human Resources CouncilComment:  For Stephen's sake, let me point out that these are generalizations. They don't apply to many Indians, especially those who live off the rez in cities.

For more on the subject, see The Basic Indian Stereotypes.

Below:  A non-Native attempt to control nature.

"Michigamua Exposed"

Student groups blast Michigamua

Student groups aim to eliminate secret society from the campus through open confrontationIn a bid to stymie the recruitment of the secret society Michigamua, the Native American Student Association and Latino fraternity Lambda Theta Phi sponsored an event aimed at exposing shortcomings of Michigamua yesterday.

Named “Michigamua Exposed,” the event was held in the Chemistry Building and attempted to reveal the racist nature of Michigamua by detailing the secret society’s replication of ritualistic Native American ceremonies.and:These past controversies and others were explained at the presentation that began with a documentary shown for the first time to the public that captured members of Michigamua—a group whose name in itself is a play on a Native American name—dressed up as Native Americans in red brick paint. The movies were taken presumably from the 1950s and showed, among other things, members of Michigamua tearing each other’s clothes off and covering each other in red paint.

Three speakers, Mellissa Pope, Jujan Buford and Stehney, talked after the movie screening. Pope and Buford were both involved in the 2000 Tower takeover, when members of the Student of Color Coalition—an organization that aimed to remedy problems facing the minority community—occupied the tower in the Michigan Union where Michigamua had its headquarters.

In the process, they claimed they found Native American artifacts that they said Michigamua used in mock ritual practices.Comment:  A 1950s-era movie and artifacts allegedly used in 2000 aren't the best evidence. The ideal would be knowing what Michigamua does today.

For my previous postings on the subject, see:

LaDuke, Ford, and Pocahontas
Gerald Ford and Michigamua
Gerald Ford's Secret Society

Don't blame indigenous bankers

Blue Eyed Greed?

By Maureen DowdAs international lunacy goes, it was hard to beat the pope saying that condoms spread AIDS.

But Brazil’s president, known simply as Lula, gave it his best shot.

At a press conference Thursday in Brasilia with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain—who has a talent for getting himself into dicey spots—Lula started off coughing from some cheese bread he’d wolfed down. Then he suddenly turned accusatory.

“This crisis was caused by the irrational behavior of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing,” charged the brown-eyed, bearded socialist president.

As the brown-eyed Brown grew a whiter shade of pale, Lula hammered the obvious point that the poor of the world were suffering in the global crash because of the misdeeds of the rich.

“I do not know any black or indigenous bankers,” said Lula.Comment:  Before Stephen tells us that not all bankers have blue eyes, I'll say it for him. This is a generalization and not a very accurate one. Most of the West's financial leaders--like most Westerners--have brown eyes. And I suspect the brown-eyed financial leaders in Asia didn't help matters any.

Ironically, it used to be brown-eyed Jews who were stereotyped as money-lenders. Now it's all the fault of those Northern European types.

But we understand Luna's point even if he made it poorly. The world's industrial countries, primarily the US, are responsible for the global economic crisis. The developing countries, where most brown-skinned, brown-eyed people live, aren't. The crisis is a failure of the West's capitalist credo--its pseudo-religious faith in free markets.

Tomahawk actors in brownface

Tim Giago:  Chocolate Spray Paint and the Hollywood IndiansOne year, I believe it was 1951; my brother and my cousins, “Red Tapio” and Sonny Torres were cast in a movie that was shooting up in the Black Hills. The movie was called “Tomahawk,” and it starred Van Heflin, Rock Hudson, and Susan Ball. Of course Tony, Red and Sonny were the Indians.

Sonny said that the director told all of the Indian actors that they had to be sprayed with chocolate colored paint because it would make them more photogenic. “One morning they rushed me into a tent and told me to take my shirt off and they started to spray me with the chocolate paint and we heard a shriek and some terrible cussing and discovered that we were in Susan Ball’s tent and she was hysterical that they would have the nerve to paint me in her tent,” Sonny said.Comment:  I presume the spray was only chocolate-colored, not chocolate-flavored. Otherwise, the sun would've melted it and the actors would've licked it off.

So Hollywood used Native actors to play Indians but made them darker. It also used white actors to play Indians but didn't make them darker. Sounds mixed up to me.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

Catching up with Cashing In

Indian Comics Irregular #181:  Rolling the Dice with Cashing In

"Sambo" waiter = Indian mascot

Comics critic Greg Burgas looks at a racist depiction in an old Batman comic:

Oh, DC Comics in the 1940s--whatever shall we do with you?[W]hile I’m reading the fourth story in Batman #13 (October-November 1942), which is called “Destination Unknown” and is actually a pretty gripping murder mystery set on board a cross-country train that inexplicably totally falls apart at the end, I come across this panel.

Okay, it’s the 1940s, and I get it. But here’s my question: Does anyone have any idea why Bob Kane (who’s credited as penciller) would draw black people like this? Was he just an unrepentant racist who saw black people as sub-human? I have to assume he had actually seen black people, as he lived in New York. So he knew that in real life, black people didn’t look like this. Plus, he was Jewish, so he knew how Jews had been depicted in popular culture, in a ridiculous and racist fashion. Plus, there are plenty of caricatures in these comics (some drawn by Kane, some not), but even the buffoons are recognizably human. Was this depiction so ingrained in Americana that Kane couldn’t overcome it? Was there any pressure on him to depict blacks this way? I don’t understand how anyone could ever actually see a black person and think this was an okay way to draw them.Some reader responses:Cass
March 28, 2009 at 11:53 am

I don’t understand why this is so difficult to believe or understand. He probably didn’t like black people and wanted to portray them negatively. Creators do the same thing now, except now it’s not with racial groups, it’s with cultural, political, and religious groups.

z
March 28, 2009 at 12:33 pm

I don’t think the conversation should be about whether or not to exculpate Bob Kane. Yes, racist caricatures have a long, storied history in comics, and yes, Kane probably knew exactly what he was doing when he drew these sleeping-car workers as grotesque “sambo” figures, and yes, this was the norm in the U.S. and Europe (see Tintin, the jazz singer, etc) and yes, it marks ideologies of white supremacy and the very material conditions of exploitation and exclusion in which Black people found themselves even as they or their sons/brothers/husbands went off to die for their country in segregated regiments.

It’s not as if Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma banished all racist representations from comics though. The Mandarin was some straight up Fu Manchu yellow peril orientalism, racist depictions of blacks, latinos, and asians persist in the present. (”Sweet christmas” indeed.) So while I do think this is a particularly galling example of outmoded racial stereotypes, I think a broader conversation about race and graphic narrative needs to involve a more developed historical frame.

Felipe
March 28, 2009 at 1:32 pm

>Hmmm. So I wonder what we’re doing today that people will find inexplicable (and probably justly so) 70 years from now?

“So, back in the day there was only a two or three gay characters. I remember this one, Extraño, who was actually depicted as completely flamboyant… Then, we found out this was because he was “diseased” and then he was “cured” from it. Seriously. If you´re gay comic character you´re most likely in a supporting role, bound to die of AIDS sooner or later for shock value. And no, of course, they never showed two gay super-heroes kissing. I´m talking about a time when gay marriage was not even legal!”

Greg Burgas
March 28, 2009 at 1:42 pm

I should point out that I also recently got the second volume of (the golden age) Sheena stories, and the black people in those stories were not drawn stereotypically at all. They look like people. There is some stereotypical writing about the Africans, but not as much as you might expect. They’re definitely black people (not “colored” white people), but they look like human beings. So this isn’t necessarily “just the way it was done.”

Adam Weisman
March 28, 2009 at 1:49 pm

Oh, we’re certainly more progressive and enlightened today…

we’d never accept such offensive imagery.

Why you’d never see an image like this



in popular culture…

Da Fug
March 28, 2009 at 8:50 pm

I’ll just throw in some support for Adam here in that it ASTOUNDS me that people can’t see the Indian sports logos as racist! And I bet it would take one freaking press conference with the current president for it to change. Just have Obama hold up a Cleveland Indians logo in one hand and a cartoon similar to the ones above in the other and the issue would be eminently clear.

Brad Curran
March 28, 2009 at 8:54 pm

It’s always amazed me that the Redskins can get away with having a name that’s a racial slur solely on tradition. Although Cowboys vs. Non Descript Native American/American Indian Tribes just doesn’t have the same ring to it, I have to say.

comb & razor
March 28, 2009 at 10:29 pm

What goes through the mind of the artists who draw this? I don’t know… Probably not too much. Even if the artist lived in New York City and saw black people everyday, I don’t think it would have had that much effect on his employment of these conventions because most comic artists didn’t really draw from life in those days (or these days, for that matter).

Think about the way the human body is rendered in comics… Before you had someone like Neal Adams coming with a more naturalistic depiction of anatomy, most comic artists just thoughtlessly copied what they saw in other comics–-hence you get those lumpy muscles and outsize pecs and all kinds of stuff you know they probably don’t see around them in real life, but they just draw them that what because… well, that’s how you draw comics.

Mike
March 29, 2009 at 10:23 am

People didn’t flip from being racist to being non-racist in 20 years (if you insist on the election depending on that kind of change taking place). We simply spent our lives thinking the same 10 seconds of thought over and over until enough of us were forced to break that loop to make a change. And when we give ourselves only 10 seconds to think about something like ethnicity, we typically think what everyone else thinks. Racism persists because the challenge of protesting racism is in getting people to think further than the same 10 seconds over and over.

It’s the same with homosexuality. Into my 20s, I never spent more than 10 seconds thinking about gay rights, and I thought what everyone else thought: that marriage was what the churches said it was. Then I heard how the company that sued Rosie O’Donnell arbitrary submitted email exchanges between her and her partner as evidence, to shame her into capitulating. Because gay relationships aren’t protected by the 5th amendment right, gays are vulnerable to corporate blackmail. So having thought further than 10 seconds on the subject, I have to side with allowing gay marriage.Comment:  These people see that racist and stereotypical depictions of minorities--blacks, gays, Indians--are linked. In particular, that the blackface portrayals in minstrel shows 100 years ago are analogous to today's Indian mascots. In short, they get it. Do you?

I think the Obama suggestion is right on. As you may recall, I proposed a mascot question for the candidates to answer in the video forum they held. If Obama or any major figure (e.g., Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, Tiger Woods, Angelina Jolie) got on a soapbox and denounced Indian mascots, it would move the debate to a whole new level. No longer would racist mascot supporters be able to hide behind their fallacious arguments.

For more on the relation between black and Indian stereotypes, see:

Chinks, Sambos, and Redskins
"Redmen" = Sambo
Wahoo = Sambo

Below:  The black equivalent of an Indian mascot.

Comic about THE AMAZON

Amazon (2009 Dark Horse) 1 comic bookTHE AMAZON #1 (of 3) Steven T. Seagle (W), Tim Sale (A), and Matt Hollingsworth (C). Twenty years to the month after its original Comico publication, Dark Horse is proud to re-present The Amazon, some of the earliest work from acclaimed writer Steven T. Seagle and superstar artist Tim Sale! The Amazon Jungle is among the most ancient and biologically diverse places on earth, but it's being plundered for its resources and destroyed at a rate of thousands of acres a day. Reporter Malcolm Hillard travels to this remote land of mystery to investigate the disappearance of an American worker and sabotage at a timber site. Locals tell him it is the work of spirits of the Amazon, but Malcolm doesn't believe in anything like that--until he sees something he can't explain deep in the jungle. This remastered edition has been scanned from Tim Sale's original artwork and recolored by Matt Hollingsworth, with a new cover by Sale and Dave Stewart!The Amazon #2 of 3Dark Horse's superior twentieth anniversary re-presentation of acclaimed writer Steven T. Seagle and superstar artist Tim Sale's eco-series of man, machine, magic, and Mother Nature continues!

Reporter Malcolm Hillard's journey into the Amazon Jungle takes him deeper into the mystery of a missing American worker and the sabotage of a timber company that followed. The clues lead him to the Jatapu tribe, whose belief in a powerful Amazon spirit may hold the key to the mystery. Drugged and alone in the jungle, Malcolm comes face to face with the answers, but they aren't the ones he expects.Comic Review: The Amazon #1

Posted by Steve Duin, The OregonianIn an interview at the back of the book, Seagle concedes that The Amazon--in which magazine reporter Malcolm C. Hilliard heads up river in pursuit of a missing American timber worker and a book deal--generated precious little in the way of royalties or a radical shift in Brazil's environmental ethic.

Twenty years later, they're still chopping the rain forest off at the knees, Seagle notes, clear-cutting a chunk of the jungle "roughly the size of the state of Rhode Island" in the last five months of 2008: "I don't know if it's that the reach of comics is too small, the execution is not good enough to have a real rhetorical impact, or if the mindset of comics readers is such that they don't want that kind of social critique in their escapism, though I do think that plays some part," Seagle says:

"I just don't see comics as agents of change."

If change is what you're after, a fully realized--and inspired--story is what you need, and Seagle doesn't get off to a memorable start in the first issue of this miniseries. That American worker has gone missing (or native) even as the sabotage at the timber camp has begun, and the coincidence is clumsy, at best, when Hilliard sees the American disabling a crane as soon as he reaches the camp. Seagle is equally heavy handed with his lampooning of the local Christian missionaries: "The missionaries believe that what they are doing is right--spreading Christianity to the uninformed. But in actuality, it's just more strip-mining. In this case, though, it is not timber or malachite. It's tribal religion values--and culture."Comment:  I glanced at this comic at my local shop Friday but didn't get it. It looked mildly interesting, but not enough seemed to be happening in the story to grab me.

A comic has to be really special these days to get my attention. I'm hardly buying any single issues anymore because they're too expensive.

Changing the world

Interesting question about comics as an agent of change. That's what I hoped for my PEACE PARTY comics too. But I never thought it would be easy.

To have an effect, I suspect a comic book (or any popular work of art) has to have several components.

1) The comic has to hit a "sweet spot" between entertainment and message. The best comics do this.

For instance, Seagle could've presented the same message about missionaries more artfully. "While the timber harvesters cleared acre after acre, the missionaries did their own cutting and trimming. They carved out a bloody ceremony here, whittled down a heathen idol there. Soon the rough Indian bark was nothing but bits and shavings on the ground. What was left was the white, pulpy core of a man ready to be shaped."

(Okay, you still may not like this. But does anyone think Seagle's version is more entertaining than my version?)

2) The comic has to become popular enough to enter the mainstream culture in various forms. If it isn't made into a movie, a TV series, a toy line, etc., you can't expect it to reach many people.

3) You have to be committed to getting out the message beyond the immediate publication of the comic. Raising awareness of the Amazon is more like a lifetime project than a one-shot deal.

For more on the subject, see Comic Books Featuring Indians.

Below:  Awesome cover. If the interior was a series of paintings like this one, I might've bought it.

What would ET do?

I came across a debate in the American History forum of Amazon.com. Most of it was the usual nonsense. E.g., it was okay for us to kill Indians because they killed people too--the immoral "two wrongs make a right" argument.

But someone raised the interesting of what extraterrestrials would do if they visited us. Is conquest such a cultural and biological imperative that we can expect only a War of the Worlds scenario?

Was America Founded By Genocide?Primo Rodriguez Perez says:

if we ever come into contact with extraterrestial life most probably all humans will become targets of a genocide. big fish eat little fish that's nature. we just think we're above it all because we can reason, but we don't want to admit that life is all there is.

C. R. C. says:

"if we ever come into contact with extraterrestrial life most probably all humans will become targets of a genocide. big fish eat little fish thats nature."

Really? You can't envision any other way? So why did we stop Saddam from gobbling up Kuwait?

What's interesting is that we KNOW there's another way--and we think extraterrestrial life is most probably sufficiently evolved to adopt it. That's how we represent them in popular culture: Take the movie 'Contact' for example. The extraterrestrials send us earthlings the blueprints for a radical new form of energy in order for us to be able visit them. They don't SELL it to us, they GIVE it AWAY to us--so they're obviously not capitalists!

In Independence Day, earth is attacked by a vastly superior military force from outer space. One of the heroes of the movie is a guy who flies a suicide mission into the enemies mothership--a suicide bomber, in other words. But we roundly condemn suicide bombing as a strategy when used on earth against superior military force, don't we? See that disconnect between what WE'D do if our backs were against the wall versus what we think OTHERS should do in the same predicament.Comment:  See my comments near the end of the thread.

Excellent point about the suicide run in Independence Day. It applies to any attack by humans against alien invaders. For instance, Spielberg's War of the Worlds.

Did we stop to think whether the invading ships might've held innocent alien colonists--the equivalent of civilian women and children--on board? No, we didn't. We did our best to kill the invaders before they killed us. In war, sometimes you don't have the luxury of taking your time to distinguish between military and civilian targets.

Of course, you have to try to assess the situation if you can. Did we have time to pursue other options besides firebombing Germany, nuking Japan, and invading Iraq? Yes, yes, and yes. Did we have time to prevent the collateral deaths of civilians during the D-Day invasion at Normandy? No, probably not.

What would Kirk do?

Anyway, if you concede that the Star Trek approach to first contact--i.e., the Prime Directive requiring no interference--is valid, then you must concede the Euro-American approach to subjugating the Western Hemisphere was wrong. Right?

If you were wise, you'd not only concede that it was wrong, but that the people doing the subjugating knew it was wrong. It's not that we've gotten smarter in 500 years, it's that we've gotten better at listening to the voices of dissent.

For more on the subject, see Genocide by Any Other Name....

P.S. I fixed a few minor mistakes in these postings. Learn how to spell "extraterrestrials," people!

Below:  A colonizing ship with innocent female and young settlers aboard?

Tribalism in Dreams from My Father

In Dreams from My Father, Obama makes some questionable comments about tribalism. It's further evidence of how much (or little) he respects Indian tribes.

On pg. 348 he writes:Even Jane or Zeituni could say things that surprised me. "The Luo are intelligent but lazy," they would say. Or "The Kikuyu are money-grubbing but industrious." Or "The Kalenjins--well, you can see what's happened to the country since they took over."

Hearing my aunts traffic in such stereotypes, I would try to explain to them the error of their ways. "It's thinking like that that holds us back," I would say. "We're all part of one tribe. The black tribe. The human tribe. Look what tribalism has done to places like Nigeria or Liberia."Is this just a comment about African tribes that has no relevance for American tribes? No. On pg. 350 he explicitly compares one African tribe to Indian tribes:[E]ven as treaties had been broken and the Masai had been restricted to reservations, the tribe had become mythologized in its defeat, like the Cherokee or Apache, the noble savage of picture postcards and coffee table books.Let's recap: Judging by Obama's comments about the Masai, Kenya's tribes are in a position similar to America's Indian tribes. Obama thinks tribalism is hurting black Kenyans and they should abandon their tribal "thinking." Why wouldn't he say something similar about similar tribes in America? Same tribal thinking, same problem, right?

This tends to prove my claim and disprove Steve Russell's claim. Obama wasn't just talking about a few tribal bad apples in his Inaugural Address. He's opposed to tribalism and tribes in general. Indians may think organizing themselves into tribes is a good idea, but Obama doesn't.

Of course, Obama's views may have changed over the years. And perhaps he didn't mean to imply the conclusion I've inferred. But perhaps his views haven't changed, and he did.

For more on the subject, see Natives Criticize Obama's Speech and Settling the West in the Inaugural Address.

Below:  Never mind the differences. "We're all part of one tribe. ... The human tribe."

Alexie on enrollment, genocide

Sherman Alexie rails at CornellFew people or issues are spared Alexie’s wit and sharp tongue--including fellow Indians. “The people who’ve done the most damage to me are other Indians. We Indians can be as imperialistic, self-serving, and self-righteous as the next group. … Right now, I’m soooo mad at my own tribe.”

Alexie, who is Spokane/Couer d’Alene alluded to enrollment practices and being unable to enroll his own children in either his wife’s tribe or his own. He said his two boys are a combination of about five or six different tribes, with some German, and other European blood thrown in for good measure.

When asked if he finds tribal enrollment practices to be archaic and whether they should be changed to suit contemporary needs, he replied, “We all know that tribes’ enrollment practices are problematic. The lust for casino money has become a huge factor in enrollment policies. Tribal enrollment and membership are now really business decisions, and with any business decision, the process must be transparent and held up to close scrutiny.”

Overall, Alexie suggests Indian country look inward and take personal responsibility for its problems. “But neither should we let the white folks off the hook; we also have to hold the outside world accountable.”

He demanded an acknowledgment of the genocide that wiped out entire tribes of people. “Where is our roomful of moccasins?” asked Alexie, referring to the Holocaust Museum’s powerful room full of shoes that illustrates the thousands of lives lost in Nazi extermination camps. “We need our own Holocaust Museum. Nobody calls it genocide, what happened to the Indians; we just let it all go.”

Later, he was asked if given the opportunity to do his own exhibit at the National Museum of the American Indian, what it would feature. Without hesitation, he said, “The genocide. The story has not been told.”Comment:  We call it genocide here at Newspaper Rock, Sherman. ;-)

The NMAI was supposedly light on the negative aspects of Native history when it opened. I don't know if that's changed.

For more on the subject, see All About Sherman Alexie.

Wampanoag POV in We Shall Remain

Neither nobles nor savages

In the five-part series 'We Shall Remain,' WGBH aims to put Native Americans at the center of the American experienceActors playing Pilgrims, bearing the heat beneath thick woolen coats, milled about a table set with berries and nuts. Native Americans in traditional garb lounged near a rental truck, waiting to be called into action.

Their task: to re-create the first Thanksgiving for "American Experience," the public-television history series produced by WGBH. But this retelling--part of the upcoming series "We Shall Remain"--would be different from other Thanksgiving stories. It would be told from the point of view of Massasoit, the Wampanoag leader who made the risky choice to forge an alliance with the British colonists of Plymouth.

And it would end with a pointed question about whether Massasoit might have regretted his decision, since the trust he built with the colonists wouldn't last to the next generation. Among the props on the set was a model of a human head: Massasoit's son, King Philip, which the colonists would later impale on a stick.
A few examples of how using actual Indians led to greater authenticity:Spears started out as an extra for the film, alongside his son, but took on a larger role after he started critiquing the details on the set. On the Salem shoot, he adjusted the size of the native's feather pieces, and clarified how Massasoit would have shaken the pilgrims' hands, grasping their wrists, not their palms.

Nipmuc tribe member David White, 36, a Brimfield resident and electrician by trade, was the episode's language adviser, reviewing the scripts for both dialect and meaning. (In real life, White does his part to keep the Nipmuc language alive, teaching it to small groups of Native Americans in their homes, and sharing Nipmuc culture with schools and Cub Scout troops.)

In a scene in which a gravely ill Massasoit gets a visit from Pilgrim leader Edward Winslow, White asked producers to cut a line in which Massasoit said "My friend, I'll never see you again." Native Americans don't see death as an end, White said, but as part of a life cycle.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Massasoit Statue in Utah and The Best Indian Movies.

"Go Native" at the Visionary Village

A message sent by Mark Anquoe, AIM West, to various media outlets:

Obscene Racist Event:  Burning Man's 'Go Native'Brothers and Sisters,

Yesterday I was informed about an obscene racist event that will be hosted by a Burning Man crew. On Saturday, March 28th, an organization calling itself "Visionary Village" will put on a dance party called "Go Native" where participants are being asked to come in "native costume." They advertise that the event will raise funds for "neurofeedback research" in Native American Church members. THIS IS A LIE. Real NAC members would never consent to being "studied" during our most sacred ceremonies! Furthermore, their "theme rooms," as scheduled, will make a mockery of Native cultures, including the Anasazi and "Pueblo" cultures (as if there was a single, generic "Pueblo" culture).

In addition, they proudly advertise that their dance party will be held "in a bordello complex" built on top of an ancient Ohlone site! Adding desecration to this insult is outrageous!

The event organizers have been contacted by *many* people in the community, and in addition to being completely insensitive to the Native people who have contacted them, they have also been unable to establish any connection between their "fundraising event" and *any* Native American Church group or individual.Go Native Ads, Offend Native PeoplesWe feel that any person looking at the various flyers and advertisements for this event would reasonably assume that the tag line, "GO NATIVE," is in reference to dressing as Native American people. These assumptions would rightfully be conceived due to the alleged collaboration with the Native American Church, and especially through the theming of rooms of the four elements, and representing those elements with Native/Indigenous peoples. The four people(s) (Maori, Anasazi, Shipibo, and Pueblo) that are called out do not in fact have any direct relationship with Peyoteism or the NAC per se, nor should their respective practices be conflated with the practices of the church. It has also been made clear that the organizers of this event did not intend that people dress as the Maori, Anasazi, Shipibo, and Pueblo, but this does not negate their responsibility in making the event advertisements more clear with respect to their use of the terms, "go native." For us and many others, "Go Native" implies reverting to a primal nature commonly and wrongly associated with Indigenous people. Even if, as the organizers of this event have claimed, "go native" is meant to imply "a heavy hunter-gatherer mindset" theme so as to rightfully adapt to an ecosystem, such statements associating Native Americans and other indigenous people as inherently "hunter-gathering" people plays upon a long and thriving discursive legacy in which our communities are cast as lesser beings in social evolutionist terms.

The reading of the event as a Native American theme party is further implied because of the graphics chosen for the flyers which are present all over the internet on social networking sites Facebook, MySpace, and through the Visionary Villages website, as well as the email media that is being sent out. The graphics chosen include a buffalo skull, a prominent Native American tool of ceremony, and the notation that the location of the event is “built in front of the ancient Ohlone Indian gathering ground in Oakland.” This has most egregious implications, then, for the advertisement’s request that people dress in "Native costume,” as it perpetuates damaging, misleading, and deeply offensive stereotypes. It also perpetuates the idea that anyone (mostly non-Native as burning man is predominantly attended by non-Native people) can espouse a certain cultural aesthetic with disregard to the peoples whom identify and live by that culture. It is disrespectful of Native American ceremonial rituals and regalia to ask the general public to don their own aberrations of what they think Native attire might be.

The elemental naming of the rooms is not in contention, it is your weak justification for showcasing A.I.N.A.N.H.P.I. (American Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander) tribes as examples of environmental adaptability which strengthen the association of the word "Native" to A.I.N.A.N.H.P.I. peoples. In addition, you claim the event is about "exobiogenesis movement," "Aliens and starseeds, not Apache and Sioux," but the interpretation of your advertisements is completely different. Why, then, does the theme lack any references to your "belief that as life evolves to travel between planets, each planet should be revered as a native home"? Instead of your claimed planetary theme, why are your rooms themed with different tribes and why is there a "Giant Dream Catcher" that hangs between balconies at your event.The outcome, according to another e-mail from Mark Anquoe:Brothers and Sisters,

Tonight, March 27th at the IFH Women's Day event, Visionary Village organizer Caapi and "Go Native" flyer designer Byron Pope stood before the gathered elders and community members. They respectfully listened while person after person publicly spoke to them about the injury inflicted on our community and the anger their "Go Native" event and promotion aroused. Speakers ranged in age from 8 to 80. When asked what could be done to rectify the situation, the gathered community unanimously demanded that the event be canceled.

In front of the assembled community members and recorded on video, Visionary Village organizer Caapi and artist Bryan Pope both signed an agreement that read as follows (spelling corrected):

"Visionary Village members Caapi and Byron have agreed to cancel the event at the Bordello on Sat, 3.28.09."

The paper was signed and dated by both men.

They also verbally agreed to and acknowledged the following:

1. They will be at the venue to turn away event attendees and explain the agreement reached.

2. There will be no DJs/music played at the venue, and no impromptu gathering of any kind.

3. Members of the Native American community will be present at the venue with them to ensure that their word is kept.

4. Members of the Native American community will still gather as planned for the protest to further ensure that they keep to their word. Should the agreement be perceived to be broken, the Native American community will move to stop the event.Comment:  Another victory for Native activism. I trust the online efforts (e-mail blasts, Facebook postings, etc.) were part of the reason the organizers backed down.

Incidentally, this kind of event doesn't necessarily outrage me. As a non-Native, I don't take it personally or get upset by it. I simply note it for what it is.

But I don't tell Natives how they should feel about it. If they're outraged enough to take action and demand change, I'm glad. But if they responded with cool intellectualism like me, that would be okay too.

About the only response I don't consider okay is denying that incidents like this are a problem. That's because the research shows that stereotyping minorities is a problem. So the people who deny the harm of stereotypes are denying facts and evidence. That's pretty much always wrong.

For more on the subject, see the Stereotype of the Month contest.

El Viejo del Monte in Terminator

To the Lighthouse, the 3/27/09 episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, opens with another Native-themed voiceover:

Episode RecapAs Sarah continues packing to leave their temporary home, she begins to reminisce about John's early years, when the legends of the jungle were his fairy tales. His favorite story was about El Viejo del Monte, The Old Man of the Forest, a merciless killer of animals, who left them to rot in the soil. The Gods turned him into a half-animal-half-man, condemned to defend the jungle for all eternity. In her memory, she recalls a trek through a Central American jungle with John, part of his training. El Viejo's curse, his punishment, was to be forever vigilant, to forever protect, a role Sarah, too, has for her son.Apparently Sarah and John were in Nicaragua at the time, because that's where the legend originated:

More Fairy TalesYour last bedtime story is El Viejo del Monte. This story originated in the Solentiname Archipelago in Lake Colcibolca (Lake Nicaragua). There was a hunter who mercilessly killed any animal that crossed his path. Worse, he didn't eat these animals and just left their carcasses to rot. Because of this disrespect, the gods decided to teach him a lesson and turned him into an half man/half ape creature and made him keeper of the wildlife. He protects the birds, reptiles, and mammals of the islands from poachers and disrespectful hunters.I couldn't find much information on this legend. I presume it's mostly indigenous, although it may be partly Spanish.

Another "indigenous" bit

Soon we see John Henry, the reconstituted Terminator robot, building an island out of Lego toys. "Engaging in imaginative play helps my development," he says. "This is Mount Valmai, hiding place of the Mask of Life. The Toa protect the Mask from the Dark Hunters."

This sounds like something out of the South Seas--maybe New Zealand or Fiji or Easter Island. But no--it comes from the pseudo-Polynesian legends of the Bionicle set of toys.

Anyway, with the 2008-2009 television season almost over, Terminator has taken the lead in terms of including indigenous content. At this point it'll be tough for another show to catch it.

Previous Native references in the show:

"Indian country" in Terminator
Coyote in Terminator
Native souls in Terminator
Cabeza de Vaca in Terminator
Modoc War in Terminator

For more on the subject, see TV Shows Featuring Indians.



El Viejo del Monte:

The origin of Jonah Hex

If I ever read the origin of Jonah Hex, the DC Comics Western hero, I don't recall it. Someone mentioned it to me so I decided to look it up.

Alas, it seems to encompass a lot of negative Native stereotypes. This doesn't bode well for the upcoming Jonah Hex movie.

Significant dates in Jonah's lifeJuly, 1851: Jonah's father, a physically abusive alcoholic, sells him into slavery to the Apache in exchange for either a pile of pelts (JH V1, #7) or safe passage through Indian land (JH V2, #14). The two Jonah Hex series have different explanations, and it is unclear which is the correct version of the story.

1853: At the age of fifteen, Jonah saves the tribe's chief from a puma. The chief expresses his gratitude by adopting Jonah as his second son. Jonah eventually exceeds the chief's son, Noh-Tante, in the chief's eyes. (JH V1, #7)

1854: Jonah & Noh-Tante, in a tribal ritual of manhood, raid a nearby Kiowa village to steal ponies. Noh-Tante ambushes Jonah and leaves him to the Kiowas and tells the chief that Jonah is dead. Jonah is either 'rescued' by scalphunters who slaughter the Kiowas and shoot Jonah, leaving him for dead before a trapper finds him and nurses him back to health (JH V1, #7), or Jonah manages to defeat the Kiowas but does not return to the Apache village. (JH V2, #14) Once again, the records are conflicting.

1859: Jonah is engaged to Cassie Wainwright but she is killed by Indians the day before their wedding. (JH V1, #65)

1866: Jonah locates his old tribe and tells the chief how Noh-Tante betrayed him years before. The chief decrees that this must be settled by a tomahawk battle. Noh-Tante secretly sabotages Jonah's tomahawk so that the handle will break. In an act of desperation during the fight, Jonah pulls a knife and kills Noh-Tante. As punishment for breaking the rules, Jonah is bound and the chief presses a heated tomahawk to the right side of Jonah's face giving him "The Mark of the Demon." The tribe then banishes Jonah. (JH V1, #8)

1874: While tracking down the kidnapping of Laura Vanden, Jonah once again comes in contact with the Apache chief and is captured. The chief admits to taking Laura and announces that he will kill Hex at sunrise. Jonah is rescued by White Fawn, his former girlfriend and widow of Noh-Tante. The chief kills White Fawn and Jonah kills the chief before he rescues Laura Vanden. (JH V1, #8)Comment:  I don't know enough about Apache lore to say this couldn't have happened, but it sounds like a lot of stereotypical fighting and killing. The white guy who becomes a better Indian than the Indians and rises to be the chief's substitute son is certainly an old clich;eacute;. Moreover, I don't think the Apache used tomahawks in actual or ritual battles.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies and Comic Books Featuring Indians.

The New Mutants return

NYCC:  A New Start For "New Mutants"Reunions can be tricky things. For every soft-spoken, tear-filled get together with old friends, there are a dozen cases where reconnecting lets old conflicts boil back to the surface. Considering that, fans may have a bumpy ride in store when the students of Marvel's classic "New Mutants" series reunite for a new, May-launching ongoing helmed by writer Zeb Wells and artist Diogenes Neves as announced this weekend at the 2009 New York Comic-Con.

Making their original appearance in a self-titled 1982's Marvel Graphic Novel, the New Mutants were created by writer Chris Claremont and artist Bob McLeod and served as the first major expansion to Professor Charles Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters since the All-New X-Men years before. Over their original 100 issue run (which also featured the artistic hand of creators from Bill Sienkiewicz to Rob Liefeld), the core team including Cannonball, Dani Moonstar and Magma amongst others confronted both growing up as mutants and facing down supervillains for the first time. The new series (which will replace the soon-to-wrap "Young X-Men"), promises to feature the majority of the original book's core cast after graduation in a much more dangerous world for mutantkind than they once faced.Comment:  As far as I know, Moonstar still has no mutant powers. I suspect she'll get her powers back in the new series.

Another blogger recently wrote about the confusing changes in Moonstar's powers. This is the key problem with Moonstar that I mentioned before.

I'm not sure how well the new NEW MUTANTS book will work, either. The problem is that Marvel has created too many X-teams: the X-Men, X-Factor, Excalibur, X-Force, Generation X, the New X-Men, the Young X-Men, et al. There are so many overlapping teams that few of them have a clear raison d'être. Since the eldest X-Men never grow old or leave, the newer mutants have nowhere to go except to irrelevant side teams.

For more on the subject, see Comic Books Featuring Indians.

Chickasaw at London College of Fashion

Chickasaw pursuing fashion dreamsMaya Stewart had big dreams as a Chickasaw/Creek girl growing up in the small town of Washington, Okla. She dreamed of a career in the fashion industry, living in Los Angeles, studying in London and exploring the world.

Many of those dreams have become reality for Stewart, who is an honors student of accessory design at the London College of Fashion.

Stewart was among the handful of students recently accepted into the honors program after two years of diligent study at the prestigious school.And:As a child, she loved watching her mother and aunts making quilts and clothes based on Native American designs.

Her mother, Jimmie Carole Stewart, who is Creek, developed a design line with her sisters. It is known as the Fife collection, based on the family name of Maya’s uncle Bill Fife, who has served as principal Chief of the Creek Nation.And:Once she completes her education, she hopes to develop her own line of fashion accessories.

“My goal is to have my own line,” said Stewart. “I would like a line featuring only Native American designs, but with a modern twist.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Native Designers at Fashion Week and Native Fashions and Models.

Writing about the Wolf Pack

In a move full of irony, Indian Country Today has asked me to write an article about the Native actors hired to be the Wolf Pack in the Twilight sequel New Moon.

This raises a couple of interesting questions:

1) Can I write a fair and balanced article about the Wolf Pack despite my previous criticism of the Twilight franchise?

2) Will I be able to write the article from a pseudo-Native perspective even though I'm not Native? Will anyone be able to distinguish my non-Native perspective from the Native perspectives usually published in Indian Country Today?

I presume the answers to these questions are 1) yes, 2a) yes, and 2b) no. But you can see and judge for yourself, of course.

Meanwhile, here's your chance to sound off on the subject. What do you think--good or bad--about the hiring of these Native actors to play Quileute werewolves? Feel free to post comments that I can use in the article.

Note:  If you're someone I don't know, please identify yourself with your full name and Native heritage, if any. No doubt ICT will wish to avoid anonymous opinions if possible.

Stephen vs. Kalisetsi on Native resistance

Stephen, meet reader Kalisetsi. Kalisetsi believes I oppose Native efforts to resist Euro-Americans. She thinks I dismiss Indian acts of fighting and killing as worthless--literally not worth counting.

Kalisetsi, meet reader Stephen. Stephen believes I support the wanton Native killing of Euro-Americans. He calls this "genocide" by Indians against non-Indians.

You two have polar opposite views of me--views that are so completely contradictory there's no point of commonality. So at least one of you is badly, horribly wrong. I suggest you debate the issue among yourselves and decide which of you it is. Come up with a single, unified take on my position and get back to us with it.

When you've reconciled your mutually exclusive views of me, then I'll let you know which of you has misread and mischaracterized my position. We'll have a big laugh together over your folly. Hint: It could be both of you, so watch out.

While we're waiting for Stephen and Kalisetsi to figure out what I believe, the rest of us can debate the issue. Resolved: That Indian resistance to Euro-American conquest sometimes justified killing civilians as a last resort. Any takers for the "pro" or "con" side?

For more on the subject, see Diplomacy Works, Violence Doesn't.

"Indians" dance in Shriner Circus

Letters, 3/26:  Native act disappointsThe Shriners are great people volunteering to do great things.

That being said, I was very upset to see a Native act in the Shrine Circus this year. The scene is a man on a horse in a costume and war bonnet and some women dancing to some very mocking Native music.

After talking with several local Shriners after the show, I realized they did not see the harm in this act.If you ask my children, they will say it is demeaning without a second thought.

I don’t think the Lincoln Shriners knowingly engaged in racism. After pointing some of these concerns out, they did agree to remove the headdress the man on the horse was wearing in the rest of the shows in Lincoln. Baby steps, I guess.

Items of great spiritual significance to many Native people, such as feathers found in the headdress, are trivialized when improperly used by non-Native people for secular purposes. We would all agree that a man in a priest costume running around sprinkling holy water on the crowd and tossing wafers would be offensive.As usual, racist and ignorant (same thing?) readers denied the harm of stereotyping and cried "PC":Don wrote on March 26, 2009 3:16 am:

People need to just lighten up and enjoy the humor and fun at circuses. The U.S. has gone way overboard in their political correctness and in being offended at every little thing.

To K. Ross wrote on March 26, 2009 7:26 am:

Every time I read some scathing letter overreacting to cultural differences it makes me take a step back and want to stay away for fear of offending someone. Distancing ourselves doesn't bring on understanding, just paranoia and distrust. I didn't see the act, but have been to the Shriners circus many times where my own sex is wearing shiny and skimpy attire. I have never complained to anyone that it promotes stereotypes. I don't dress like that, but I would imagine that the circus is for fun, suspending belief for a few hours for the purpose of entertainment? Did your ticket read "documentary?"

From everything I have read and the famous artwork, natives did wear headdresses, and the scottish wore kilts sometimes....so what's your point?

Ed H wrote on March 26, 2009 8:34 am:

Actually Scotious i believe Don is saying this is entertainment. Not a historical re-enactment. If we demanded everything we view as entertainment be historically/culturally accurate then it wouldn't be entertainment. Also people realize what they view as entertainment is not representative of a people.

Bill part Chippewa says wrote on March 26, 2009 8:39 am:

....with respect to kris ross.....get over it. The political correctness is amazingly going overboard in this country. I played with Indian costumes, Indian figurines with cowboys, pounded a drum while doing an Indian rain dance and I seem to be just fine today. I didn't even think of this until you brought it up.Comment:  Not only do the stereotypes sound bad--dancing, mocking music--but look at the context. "Indians" in a circus act! A historical curiosity out of a Wild West show. Parading and performing like trained animals.

Explaining the obvious to these conscious or unconscious racists, I posted a couple of rejoinders:

People have documented the harm of Native stereotypes over and over. Denying the harm because of ignorance doesn't change the evidence that proves the harm.

Actually, Ed, your statement that "people realize what they view as entertainment is not representative" is basically false. Most people think Indians dressed like Plains chiefs, were primitive savages, and barely exist today. They think this because the only "Indians" they see are phony ones like these Shriners.

A few more comments

Some comments I didn't post:

Does "To K. Ross" think no one has ever criticized women in skimpy costumes? That's just plain dumb.

A few Natives did wear headresses. Most didn't then and don't now. The point is that this attire isn't representative of most Indians; it's stereotypical.

"Bill part Chippewa" grew up emulating stupid stereotypes and now is so brainwashed that he doesn't even recognized them. But he thinks he's okay. If ignorance is bliss, Bill must be happy.

For more on the subject, see the Stereotype of the Month contest.

Tribes aren't educating people

Freelance writer Dave Palermo follows up on his assertion that tribes need better PR:

Palermo:  Native America is being defined by othersThe history of Native America was not written by American Indians. That is why the public believes the Americas before European contact were a largely uninhabited wilderness.

The story of contemporary American Indians is also being told by non-Indians. That is why tribes today are perceived not as culturally rich, sovereign nations, but as wealthy “groups” of Native American descendants formed why? Well, to operate casinos, of course.

“More than any other people, we have been defined by others,” Kevin Gover, director of the National Museum of the American Indian, told an audience at RES09, the economic conference recently held in Las Vegas. “Thus, the Americas were wilderness, awaiting the industrious hands and minds of Europeans to make it productive. Indians were just bands of nomads, wandering the woods and prairies, picking berries and hunting deer.

“In this narrative, civilization arrived with the Europeans,” said Gover, a Pawnee/Comanche. “This insult, this tragic lie, became the justification for the enslavement and murder of Indians, for the appropriation of their lands and resources, for the wanton destruction of their cultural materials.”Palermo blames Indians as well as non-Indians for this lack of information:Both speeches were well-received by conference attendees, drawing long, deserved ovations. But Garcia’s words extended no farther than the walls of a Las Vegas conference hall and Gover’s speech was handwritten. He was unable to share copies with those who approached him as he left the hall.

Gover is right, of course. Native America is not speaking for itself. It is allowing non-Indian media and policymakers to craft a false image of indigenous peoples.

Tribes and tribal associations are doing a miserable job educating the public about Native America and confronting false perceptions that result in damaging court rulings and harmful congressional action.

If Gover believes Native America needs to speak for itself, transcripts of his speeches must be sent to the tribal press and Web sites. Most important, his words need to be rewritten as opinion page articles and mailed to every newspaper in the country, particularly the non-Indian press.Comment:  Here you have an excellent example of a white man telling Indians what to do. Does anyone want to say that Palermo is wrong about the need for better PR? Or that Gover was right not to have copies of his speech available? If so, go ahead and make your case.

If you ask me, Palermo--as an experienced journalist who knows more about media matters than most--is right. And anyone who disagrees with his message is wrong. On this point, I don't mind chiming in and advising Indians to communicate more.

"Confronting false perceptions" is what I'm doing here, of course. Are any Native writers or thinkers making the same points and doing a better job of it? Point me to them and I'll concede my efforts aren't necessary. I'll gladly retire to a well-deserved life of leisure.

Until then, I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing. While tribes concentrate on such issues as economic development and healthcare, I'll help out by confronting the false perceptions that hurt so much.

For more on the subject, see the The Harm of Native Stereotyping:  Facts and Evidence and Stereotype of the Month contest.

Below:  A savage who has no use for programs that provide jobs or medicine.

Historical truth helps minorities

What John Hope Franklin could teach Ward ChurchillFranklin understood that social justice demanded rigorous attention to historical fact, detail and logic. To fight American racism, which was built upon fantasy and deception, minorities needed to keep a steady grip on their only real weapon: the truth. And that's precisely the lesson that seems to have eluded Ward Churchill.

Last week, as his tragic-comic lawsuit unfolded in a Denver courtroom, most of the attention focused on Churchill's admission that he ghost-wrote a book for another scholar and then cited it in support of his own work. That's unusual and probably unethical, but it's not nearly as bad as Churchill's real sin: pawning off rumors as facts.

Most notoriously, Churchill wrote that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among the Mandan tribe of Native Americans by distributing infected blankets from a St. Louis infirmary. His account was "self-evident," Churchill blithely told a university investigative committee. "Such stories have been integral to native oral histories for centuries," Churchill explained. "I've heard them all my life."

So that makes them true? Consider the steady stream of lies that has plagued racial minorities, all of them equally "self-evident" to the people who repeat them.And: Churchill says he was fired because of an essay he wrote after the 9/11 attacks, describing the victims as "little Eichmanns." Maybe he's right. But he's wrong about the Mandan Indians and about history itself, which shouldn't be fabricated to fit our present-day political whims. That echoes the worst excesses of white supremacists, who distorted the past to prop up their own power.

And by replacing their falsehoods with a new set of myths, we injure America's ongoing struggle for racial equality. If an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, to quote Gandhi, a lie for a lie makes us all into cynics. You can't speak truth to power if nothing is true.

No matter what happens to Ward Churchill, then, let's make sure we set the historical record straight. And let's tip our hats to John Hope Franklin, who reminded us why it matters. For America's least fortunate citizens, indeed, the truth is often all that they have.Comment:  Some people agree with Churchill that we shouldn't scrutinize Native beliefs and claims. Naturally, I disagree. Whether it's that the Army distributed smallpox-laden blankets, the Chumash weren't "fluffy kittens," or "redsksins" isn't a slur, I say, "Show me the evidence."

Don't just expect us to swallow your claims as if you're some sort of holy figure. I.e., a Ward Churchill type who thinks he's God's gift to Indians. If you're going to assert something, do your best to prove it.

For more on the subject, see Educating Russ About Historical Accuracy.

Below:  "I'm an Indian and I'm right because I said so."

NIGA 2009 coming up

Indian gaming:  How to stay up in a down economy

NIGA’s Trade Show and Convention set for April 13–16 in PhoenixThe convention usually attracts thousands of tribal leaders, tribal delegates, gaming industry professionals and gaming-related businesses. Bringing together this community is crucial to success, said NIGA Chairman Ernie Stevens Jr.

He says Indian gaming has grown up over the years.

“Early on people described Indian gaming as exploding onto the scene. We feel we have grown and matured into a very responsible industry, including everything from regulations to marketing to the operations area, to the hotel and restaurant offshoot industries. I think to that extent, Indian country has now become the expert in the industry. Indian country has come into its own and we’re pretty good at this and we’re going to continue to work hard and get better at it.”

The four-day event kicks off with three golf tournaments at different area courses.

Stevens will host the Chairman’s Welcome Reception at the Hyatt Regency Hotel next to the convention center that Sunday night. Crystal Shawanda, a rising First Nations country star, will provide entertainment.

On Tuesday, April 14, Gila River Wild Horse Pass Resort and Casino will host the ever-popular “Jam on the Rez” with entertainment by R & B legend Gladys Knight.

The tradeshow will open Wednesday, April 15, while workshops and NIGA membership meetings continue. The American Indian Business Network will hold a reception, hosted by AGEM–-the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers.

Clinton Pattea, president of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, will be honored at the Wendell Chino Humanitarian Award Banquet in the convention center ballroom, after which the Beach Boys will play.Comment:  I'll be in Phoenix to man the PECHANGA.net booth and take pictures with my new digital camera. If I have to see Gladys Knight and the Beach Boys, it's all part of the job. <g>

To counter stereotypes, read

Russell:  Advice to myselfI’ve heard people say they didn’t know they were poor. That’s the case unless somebody tells you, and plenty of people let me know. It did not take me long to figure out that most of the other kids did not have commodities and they lived in houses with light switches on the wall rather than a bulb dangling in the center of the room and several cords running away from that one connection so the wires were often hot to the touch.

There’s never any shortage of adults who want to tell you what to do, right? Do they still show you Indians in the textbooks that were either savage or stupid? I hope not. If so, I hope your folks give you stuff like the book I had about Will Rogers, an Indian who was smart and funny. They tell you your life is over if you can’t finish school, even though school is one teenage horror after another.Steve Russell explains the alternative to finishing school:If you are smart, you are interested in how the world works, and if the school won’t teach you the things you need you will have to teach yourself. Whether your schools work for you is something you probably understand better than the adults in your life. Since you are me, the schools are not working for you, so I have one word that will save your life: read.

I seldom got caught skipping school because the last place they would look for a truant was the public library. I read books by the shelf rather than by author or topic. It was a small library.Comment:  Some useful points here. One is how negative media messages can affect Indian children. Two is how reading and absorbing information can counteract these messages.

This is why reading Newspaper Rock is good for you. It doesn't necessarily matter if you agree with my points. You're thinking about things that 99% of the population doesn't think about, which puts you ahead of them.

For Russell's previous thought-provoking column, see Dumbest Discourse Since "Niggardly"?

"Indian country" in Terminator

In Last Voyage of the Jimmy Carter, the 3/20/09 episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, a "flash forward" shows a submarine in the year 2027. The crew is human but the captain is a robot reprogrammed to help them.

As the sub heads through robot-controlled waters to pick up a package, crewman Dietz objects to taking orders from "metal":You think those things work for us? Look around you. We work for them.

Hauling ass through the worst of Indian country? And for what? To take a damn box back to Serrano?Referring to enemies as Indians is stereotypical, of course. And an American Indian crew member might well object: "As far as I'm concerned, Indian country is the only place that isn't enemy territory."

But the crew members are mainly Euro-American soldiers. And the term accurately reflects a US military mentality. By showing that some soldiers think stereotypically, at least it's honest.

True, it would be better if someone had contradicted this politically incorrect usage. Leaving the notion that Indians = robots unchallenged isn't nice. But at least Terminator's writers are still thinking of Indians.

Previous Native references in the show:

Coyote in Terminator
Native souls in Terminator
Cabeza de Vaca in Terminator
Modoc War in Terminator

For more on the subject, see TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Burns on our national parks

Ken Burns turns his focus to national parks and will be part of a Dallas forum TuesdayThe press notes included the phrase "crass opportunism" when describing the content, which is not something you tend to think of with national parks.

Well, the national parks are the antidote to that. Americans are an extractive and inquisitive people. And some would say rapacious. The national parks are these oases that have checked that, at least in some small places around our beautiful country, and didn’t permit the river to be dammed, didn’t allow the timber to be cut, didn’t allow the canyon to be mined. They didn’t happen just because somebody said, "It’s a good idea." They had to meet those forces of crass opportunism and fight against them. And that’s part of the drama.

This is going to be chronological, like most of your projects. Could you have done it geographically?

You can always tell history: "and then, and then, and then, and then." I’m a storyteller, and stories take place in time. When you segregate things into regions, you begin to lose stuff. We tell it from the moment when the Mariposa Battalion walks into—they didn’t even call it Yosemite yet. The one person whose jaw dropped when they walked into that particular valley misunderstood the name of the tribe they’d come to dispossess, and thought they ought to name it after that tribe. But in fact, the tribe was the Ahwahneechee, and Yosemite means, 'They are killers,’ 'They are people you need to be fearful of.’ Which is exactly what the Ahwahneechee needed to feel from these soldiers coming to dispossess them of a homeland they enjoyed for generations.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Ken Burns and Indians, Again and Review of American Indians and National Parks.

Irish cry over White House access

Indian and Irish pow wow

Inside the Irish White House line up on St. Patrick’s DayWho is Jonathan Windy Boy, and why was he invited to the White House on St. Patrick’s night when a large number of leaders in the Irish American community were not?

Mr. Windy Boy is a Cherokee Indian from Montana who is a keen advocate of grass dancing, according to his profile, a form of American Indian dancing that is very popular. He was also very helpful, as a state senator, to the victory campaign of President Obama in that state.And:Mr. Windy Boy tells us a lot about where Obama’s political instincts are at.

While literally hundreds of Irish American leaders from coast to coast were fuming at their lack of an invitation to the biggest Irish invite of all, Jonathan Windy Boy was able to sweep in.And:A careful analysis of the crowd at the Obama White House St. Patrick’s party shows the shifting power at the center of the new administration when it comes to Irish America.

By our count there were only 79 bona fide members of the active Irish American community among the crowd of 300 or so. We suspect that would be a number that is greatly down from the old days.

The geographic base has shifted also, of course. When did you think you would see a White House crowd of Irish where only five members with addresses from Massachusetts were present?Comment:  A Cherokee in the state of Montana? That's possible but unlikely. It should've raised a red flag.

Actually, Windy Boy is a member of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation in Montana. So maybe this Irish author made an innocent mistake. Or maybe he heard "Chippewa Cree" and translated it into the vaguely similar "Cherokee." Because "Cherokee" is the only tribe he's heard of and besides, all Indians are alike.

PECHANGA.net gave this article a "Crybaby Alert." That sounds about right to me. It was St. Patrick's Day at the White House, but no one said it was an Irish-specific event. The author is crying because "only" a quarter of the people in attendance were Irish. Because one Indian was invited and some Irish people weren't.

Everyone's Irish on Paddy's Day

Aren't non-Irish people allowed to celebrate or participate in St. Patrick's Day? Should we also exclude non-Christians from Christmas celebrations at the White House? How about excluding non-Italians from Columbus Day celebrations? (Actually, the White House probably doesn't celebrate Columbus Day, but you get the point.)

Suppose Windy Boy is part-Irish on his mother's side. Or suppose he's a card-carrying Catholic who believes fervently in St. Patrick. Obama could've invited him for several reasons that this author didn't consider.

And why single out Windy Boy, who presumably "took the place" of only one Irish person? What about all the other Euro-Americans who also took the place of the Irish? There's a definite whiff of racism about this screed. You can just imagine John McCain (another Scots-Irish man) pointing a shaky finger at Windy Boy and saying, "How dare they invite 'that one' instead of one of us?"

Bemoaning the Irish

Those poor, neglected Irish! They've had only 17 presidents of Scots-Irish extraction, which is hardly any considering how great they were and are. Doesn't everyone know how the Irish saved (Western) civilization?!

With Obama in the White House and Windy Boy visiting him, it looks like Irish time is over. Next thing you know, millions of Irish politicians, corporate executives, and religious leaders will be out of a job. And then what...ship them back where they came from?

It sounds like the "black agenda" Russell Bates warned us about is finally happening. Except Russ thought Obama would exclude Indians as well as whites and include only blacks. Maybe Obama is excluding the Irish first and will exclude everyone else later.

In any case, a big boo-hoo for the downtrodden Irish. Let's all hoist a pint and shed a tear for the suffering sons of Eire. Waaah!

A note for Stephen

If reader Stephen isn't a regular visitor to IrishCentral.com, he probably should be. It sounds like his kind of place. I bet the people there don't generalize about the evils done by Europeans.

But I bet they do generalize about the greatness of the Irish. Here's a hint for them: A few Irish monks and scribes helped preserve parts of the West's written lore. The vast majority of the Irish did nothing to "save civilization."

So the claim that the Irish saved civilization is less true than any generalization I've ever made about Americans or Europeans. It isn't even true in general, since only a few Irishmen saved only a small part of Western culture. I trust everyone will agree that we should denounce and discredit this false generalization about the Irish.

For more on the Irish, see Fighting Sioux vs. Fighting Irish.

Below:  The changing of the guard. Out with the old...



...and in with the new.

BB shootings = tip of iceberg

As more details come to light in BB gun shootings, solutions sought to end racial attacksOne of the teenagers accused of last week's drive-by attacks on Native Americans also is suspected in a March 8 BB gun shooting of a Native pedestrian.

While Rapid City police investigate the incidents, Native American advocates, the mother of one victim and a middle school principal search for solutions to the racial attacks.

"It's bad," North Middle School principal Jeanne Burckhard said. "Rapid City people just close their eyes."And:An ordained minister, Plains Bull Martin said she wants the community and the courts to find a positive remedy that improves community relationships and helps the teenagers accused of the attacks. She hopes the court will sentence the teens to community service work that will give them a new "world view."

Opening eyes to discrimination is something the Society for the Advancement of Native American Issues, commonly called SANI-T, is committed to doing, according to director Laurette Pourier.

SANI-T plans to host a community meeting in April to address the recent attacks.

In initial conversations, SANI-T members have expressed their concern that the consequences for the teenagers must be meaningful and will involve their parents.

"Something to change their hearts and minds," Pourier said.

Candace Estes, a member of People Against Racism, said the incidents are not isolated or rare.

"It's like the tip of an iceberg," Estes said. Every once in a while it will push to the surface, but even when it's invisible, the rest of the iceberg is lurking below the surface, she said.Comment:  In terms of confirming Rapid City's racist attitude, it would be "better" if two different boys had attacked Indians. If the same boy is guilty of repeated crimes, it doesn't demonstrate a wider pattern of prejudice. But that's a minor detail.

Community service probably would be a great penalty for those who committed the crimes. It would teach them that Indians are--surprise!--human beings just like everyone else. That Indians are thinking about eating, sleeping, and paying the rent, not whooping, scalping, and getting government handouts.

In the TV reality series 30 Days, one conservative Christian man spent 30 days with a Muslim couple and another spent 30 days with a gay man. Both men inevitably learned that the people they feared and hated were normal. A community-service sentence could produce similar results.

For more on the subject, see Highlights of the US Report to the UN on Racism.

Remembering our genocidal history

Central hosts discussion on genocideJohn Low, executive director of the Mitchell Museum of the American Indian in Evanston, and a Potawatomi Indian, said that for the last 500 years the American Indian experience has mostly been about survival in strategic accommodations.

But in spite of their obvious role in the widespread elimination of countless Indians over the past few centuries, Low said it may be difficult for Americans to see the truth amongst the bloodshed, be it that of Indians or other races.

"Americans don't want to think about themselves or their ancestors partaking in genocide," Low said.

However, Low emphasized that for America, hope lies within the spreading of truth and knowledge about the tragedies that befell his ancestors.

"I don't believe there can be any healing without information," Low said.

In terms of America's role in stopping genocides in other countries, Greg Bedian, a member of the Armenian National Committee and co-founder of the Genocide Education Network of Illinois, said that one of the keys to stopping a massive genocide is to see where one is brewing early, and then to act quickly. He cited that the Rwandan genocide took place in only 100 days.

"This has to be done prior to the catastrophe starting, not after it's already begun," Bedian said.

However, the panel said the true power may not lie with government, but with individuals. "Don't be silent," Brown said. "Because that's what happened in Europe. People were silent."Comment:  To sum up the point of this article, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (Yes, I just made that up.)

It's a good argument for recalling the genocide against Indians again and again. Until every American can recite chapter and verse of this aspect of US history, we should keep discussing it. Then we'll be less likely to let it happen again.

Monument Valley = American icon

Majestic sleepover in Monument Valley, Utah

In Monument Valley, there's finally a hotel as sublime as the landscape. The Navajo-run View is hip and family friendly, and did we mention the scenery?

By Mark VanhoenackerForrest Gump stopped running here; Thelma and Louise did not. Half a century ago, when advertisers conjured up the Marlboro Man as the personification of the American West's folklore of freedom and rugged individualism, Monument Valley was already the perfect stage.

No traveler's wanderings across the U.S. are complete without a trip to this isolated plateau. The shimmering red-rock buttes rising from the mile-high valley floor form a skyline as unique and memorable as that of Manhattan. And just like New York, images of Monument Valley stand at the center of American iconography and culture.Comment:  Good point about the importance of Monument Valley as an American icon. If you had to pick one image from the Western United States to represent the Wild or Old West, what would it be?

The Grand Canyon? Maybe, but that says "West" to me, not "Wild" or "Old." No, an image of the Mitten Buttes of Monument Valley is probably the best one to choose.

We could prove this with a national or international test. Take a dozen photos of the American West, including one of Monument Valley, and show them to people. Ask them to pick one they think is the American West. See which photo gets chosen most often.

For more on the subject, see Navajo View Hotel Opens and Monument Valley Lore.

March Moon madness

Actor Gil Birmingham has confirmed he's in New Moon. Perhaps he just learned he's been rehired. Or perhaps he was rehired months ago and has just received permission to announce it.

You have to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Twilight's producers replaced the director. They almost replaced Taylor Lautner. Apparently they're replacing Solomon Trimble and Krys. They just confirmed Gil Birmingham and announced the Quileute Wolf Pack.

How much management skill does it take to hire a director and actors and stick with them through 2-3 sequels? Was anyone signed to the proverbial three-picture deal? Did the producers reconsider all the actors in Twilight, or only the actors playing Natives?

I don't think I've never heard of a movie series with this much turmoil or turnover. Is this common in the industry? Because it sure seems uncommon to me.

And they're starting filming next week? Are there any more roles to be cast? I guess the script is done...or is it? I don't know if they have all the pieces in place, but it sure seems like they're rushing ahead.

With all the special effects (Twilight's vampire-batics plus New Moon's werewolf transformations), it may be tough to finish the post-production work by the November 20 opening date. This hurried schedule doesn't inspire confidence that New Moon will be any better than Twilight, which got mixed reviews. But I suppose we'll see.

For more on the subject, see Quileute Werewolves in Twilight.

Native Montana Magazine

Native Montana MagazineA magazine targeted toward Montanans unveiled a special edition Wednesday featuring important Native Americans in our state.

Native Americans are being celebrated in Native Montana Magazine to showcase their positive contributions to society.

The magazine has been in circulation for a year and a half and this special edition features elected officials including the highest elected Native-American official...Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau.Comment:  For more on Montana's commitment to Indians, see Montana's Multimedia Indian Education and Eyes Trained on Montana. Contrast this with the attitudes expressed in South Dakota and Minnesota toward Indians. Wouldn't these attitudes change if the states had educational programs like Montana's?

"Montiquans" in CSI: NY

The crime show CSI: NY had a Native-themed episode last night. It was titled Communication Breakdown and the bare-bones plot was: "A Native American chief is gunned down on a subway."

Rob's mini-review: A reasonably serious attempt to explore modern Native life. Few stereotypes, several mistakes, a lot of unbelievable coincidences. Naturally, gaming is involved at the end.

Stay tuned for a full review.

For more on the subject, see TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Rob dismisses Native resistance?!

In Chumash = "Fluffy Indigenous Kittens"? reader Kalisetsi criticized me for criticizing a Chumash woman who criticized an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (Whew!) Kalisetsi begins:Oh Rob.....where to start?I'd suggest you start by thinking twice before criticizing me. But too late for that now. <g>
1) some of your sources for Chumash history are questionableAre they? For all you know, the websites I quoted were written by Chumash Indians or in consultation with them. Your presumption that they must be wrong because they're on the Internet is simply silly.

But if you want Chumash history from the Chumash, okay. Here's a link to the history page of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. It doesn't say the Chumash were either peaceful or warlike, but it strongly emphasizes their peaceful behavior. There isn't one word about fighting the Spanish.

Does that surprise you? It doesn't surprise me. I know lots of California Indians and I don't think many of them consider themselves weapon-wielding warriors. They consider themselves stewards of their lands and traditions, not fighters or killers.
if you are going to (weirdly) go on the offensive against a Native Chumash woman who is expressing her offense at the Buffy comment, you might want to be sure you have the facts on your side before you proceed.Having reviewed all the facts and evidence, I'm sure.

The only weird thing here is your amazement that I'd dare to criticize a Native. Where were you the last umpteen times I did something similar?
A 3 second google search included this result: http://www.mindconnection.com/library/states/california.htm

"In 1824, the Chumash Indians revolted and temporarily controlled three missions (Santa Barbara, Santa Ines, and La Purisima)."I didn't say the Chumash never fought against the Spanish. I said Miranda's set of evidence didn't support her claims. If you're saying she should've done this search rather than talking about unrelated Indians, I agree.
Pretty sure the revolt wasn't all "kitten-y" like a hippie love-fest.Yes, it sounds more like "cats who are content to mind their own business but will scratch your eyes out if you molest them."

Here's some information on the 1801 "uprising" and the 1824 revolt. And...so? As usual, the exceptions prove the rule. A couple of rebellions in a long history is evidence of a generally peaceful nature.

Miranda was generalizing?
2) You posted a truncated version of D. Miranda's email, but even from the edited version it seems a reasonable interpretation that she is talking about the under-estimation / dismissal of California peoples in general as being "kitten-y" types.Another reasonable interpretation is that she was specifically defending her Chumash people.

Sure, she probably was "talking about the under-estimation/dismissal of California peoples in general." My point was that she did a poor job of it by referring to the Chumash but citing four examples that weren't Chumash.

If she had wanted to discuss California tribes in general, it would've been easy to do without implying that all the tribes were the same. She made an unwarranted leap of "logic" and I called her on it.

Suppose I wanted to say something about Lakota warriors and I cited examples from the Ponca, Kaw, or Osage. Would you give me a pass on that? Especially if I meant my argument to be "emotional and accurate" rather than "fine-tuned and logical"?

No, you probably wouldn't. Nor should you, in my opinion. These tribes are about as geographically and culturally close as Miranda's examples are to the Chumash. I.e., not that close.

In other words, the Dakotas are to Nebraska or Kansas as Northern California is to Southern California. If you think we should ignore the lumping together of unrelated tribes several hundred miles apart...well, I don't.
An alternative approach, and one that is more respectful of the idea that D. Miranda PROBABLY knows what she's talking about, might have been to try reaching out to a Chumash tribe (Santa Ynez has a website), or News from Native California, or even possibly someone at one of the UC's (Native or not) who might work with the community in question.I didn't say Miranda didn't know what she was talking about. The fact that she knew about Pomponio, Toypurina, and Estanislao and I didn't pretty much proves that.

I said her examples were poorly chosen to make her point. Try to get that straight, please, because these are markedly different claims.
Sure, its not the 5 minute solution, but when it comes to something like this, its probably the only way to avoid perpetuating the pattern of misinformation, and really oppression through exclusion.That's funny considering Miranda probably dashed off her response in five minutes while I spent an hour or two researching mine. If she had thought as much about her comments as I did about mine, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

By the way, let's recall that I work for a California (Pechanga) Indian. I've visited a dozen or more California Indian reservations...broken bread with their people...read their materials (websites, magazines, cultural displays)...written articles about them...etc. That specifically includes the Santa Ynez Chumash. If you think my comments are based on five minutes of ivory-tower research, you're sadly mistaken.

California's tribes get stereotyped
California people are widely portrayed as being docile, servile, and weak, a simplistic and inaccurate view painted by the colonizer.Great...so let's counteract this stereotype by talking about California tribes in general and then giving specific examples of non-servile tribes. Not by talking about the Chumash and then giving non-Chumash examples.
There is a gaping chasm between D. Miranda's statement that "the Chumash were far from 'fluffy little kittens'" and your conclusion that she must mean "that the Chumash were warriors just like the stereotypical Plains Indians?" Then later, you say "It's wrong to claim all Indians--even all California Indians--are the same. It's wrong to claim they all fit the stereotypical "warrior" mold." But it seems YOU were the one who initially drew that point of comparison.You're right about that...but I didn't attribute those conclusions to Miranda. "The point of the posting," as I put it, was my own conclusion. I often go beyond what people have actually said or done to riff on broader subjects.
As survivors, its psychologically important for Native people to resist the stereotypical / simplistic views about their own histories that are told in gradeschool textbooks, and sites like those you referenced.Yes, such as the simplistic notion that all California Indians were the same or interchangeable. By resisting that notion, I've done exactly what you said we should do, thanks.
Its important for Native people to remember the ways that their ancestors have resisted, so that they can continue in their own lives today to define themselves for themselves, which is often the equivalent of swimming against the stream.Which is why I spent an hour or two highlighting the ways some non-Chumash Indians resisted Spanish oppression. I provided exactly the kind of information Miranda could've provided. So let's stop acting as if you're aware of this Native resistance and I'm not.
When you dismiss acts of Native Californian resistance as "not counting" because "they were only in defense against European conquest," you are belittling the efforts and sacrifices of D. Miranda's ancestors.Are you freakin' kidding me? I meant they didn't count as unprovoked acts of aggression against Europeans. Not that they didn't count at all.

Really...are you seriously asserting that I think California's Indians should've accepted their fate? That docility and servility were a better approach than fighting back? You must've misread or misunderstood every posting on this blog if you came to that completely erroneous conclusion.

Sheesh. Where were you when I posted my thoughts on the Jamestown massacre of 1622? Where's your defense of my defense of Indian uprisings that involve killing people? Read these postings and then tell me I prefer docile Indians.

In short, you haven't been paying attention if you think I've ever said Native resistance movements didn't and don't "count." I've never said anything of the sort.

Miranda has a right?
And it's also condescending when you include yourself in with D. Miranda (who IS Chumash) when you say "'LET'S not be defensive about a tribe not known for its warriors."I was trying to imply something about how Americans perceive Indians in general. None of us should apologize for, excuse, or overlook Indians who weren't primarily warriors.

I suspect every tribe that was relatively peaceful got stereotyped as weak or passive. And...so? Other than providing accurate information, what do you want me to do about it? Pretend that every tribe consisted of mighty warriors who would rather die than sign a peace treaty?

You can do that, but I'm not going to. Some tribes had warrior cultures but sued for peace. Some didn't have warrior cultures but rebelled and fought. History is more complex than you're making it out to be.

California's tribes may be known for being docile and servile, but Indians in general are known for being savage and warlike. I'm not about to contribute to this stereotype if I can help it. As I've said many times, we need fewer inaccurate stereotypes and more accurate information.
Hey, it's her tribe, and she absolutely has a right to be defensive about any way that it is presented.It's my blog and I absolutely have the right to criticize anyone (whether Native or non-Native) for their shortcomings (whether major or minor). If you don't like it, stick to the other blogs discussing the nature of California's Indians. My blog doesn't exist to praise people only.
You say "no disrespect" to her, but your writing says that maybe you don't really "get it".Criticizing the details of Miranda's argument isn't "disrespecting" her. It's criticizing the details of her arguments.

If you think Indians should be beyond criticism because they've had a tough time...well, I guess I'll stop criticizing Russell Means, Tim Giago and Charles Trimble, Russell Bates, Native artists whose work is marginal, Natives who support Indian mascots, the Native staff of Redskin magazine, et al.

Or maybe I'll change my mind and keep criticizing them when they deserve it. Yes, I think that's the approach I'll take.

The only thing someone didn't get here is your assertion that Miranda's emotional needs trump the need for historical accuracy. I say the opposite: that the need for historical accuracy trumps Miranda's emotional needs. Miranda can say whatever she wants, of course, but in my blog, I say what goes.

P.S. For a related debate, see Rob the Presumptuous White Man?

Below:  Not the peaceful Chumash.

Denial ain't just a river in Africa

Melvin Martin continues the series on racism against Indians he began in "Gooks" Assaulted with BBs, Urine and continued in Racists Lack Self-Esteem:What is the Longest River in the World? ("De-Nile")
By Melvin Martin

That most whites in Bemidji downplay the actuality and the seriousness of the racism towards Indians there comes as no great surprise to me. These people are very much in denial, as are most racist whites in all of the anti-Indian cities and towns that I have had the sheer displeasure of either living at or visiting over the years.

Bemidji, Minnesota, like Rapid City, South Dakota (the racist hick town where I was born and have lived a good portion of my life, and where the racists have to consist of at least 75% of the population of the Rapid City metropolitan area of 120,000)--is a prime example of denial on a large-scale as it relates to race relations between whites and Indians.

First of all, exactly what is denial?

Denial is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person is confronted with a fact that is too upsetting to accept and rejects it, asserting that it is not true despite what may be tremendous evidence to the contrary. The person may choose to totally deny the reality of the awful fact in what is known as simple denial. Sometimes they may admit the fact, but deny how serious it is, a process called minimization. Denial has long been categorized as a device of the so-called "immature mind," because it generates conflict with one's capabilities to learn from and contend with reality.

Additionally, when anyone is engaged in negative behavior that is self-directed and wholly willful, they are almost always in full denial of it. In Rapid City, the racists become extremely angered when they are confronted in an articulate manner as to their Indian- hating actions and practices--thus, I have come to believe that the amount of psycho-emotional energy that is needed to maintain strongly racist sentiment is directly commensurate with the energy necessary to deny it--which explains to me this near-psychotic overreaction on the part of the racists when their hatred is pointed out to them in no uncertain terms.

People who are deeply mired in the quicksand of denial will always overreact to the illumination of their denial: try to tell a hardcore dope fiend or a raging drunk about the destructive nature of denying that they have a problem--then, watch out!

I have also lived in Minnesota in the '80s when I attended a private trade school in Minneapolis, and I have also spent a little time in Bemidji--so, I know all-too-well how bad the racism towards Indians is in that area. I was the only Indian student at the trade school in the summer term of 1982, and the desk that I was assigned to was behind a partition that was connected to the student break area. The mainly white students, most of whom were guys in their twenties, often said the most horrendous things about Indians that consisted of the usual and more widely believed stereotypes relative to Indian people.

I had a girlfriend then, Maye, who was half-Vietnamese and half-French, and who lived in Bemidji. She was in her late twenties then as was I. When I first met her (at the trade school), she told me that she had been mistaken for Indian by almost all of the whites she had encountered in Bemidji. She also told me that she had been treated very badly on occasion by whites who had said hateful things to her as they thought that she was Indian.

One evening, Maye related an incident to me that brought tears to her eyes as she talked about it. She told me that she had exited a bus in downtown Bemidji when a crowd of white teens began to "woo-woo-woo!" in the stereotyped Indian fashion. The teens then began to chase her with several of them yelling out loudly that they were going to "rape us a squaw!" Maye ran into a convenience store where the clerk called the police.

Maye was a refugee from Vietnam who had already witnessed a great deal of ugliness in her former homeland, but she told me that the incident that happened in Bemidji with the teens had frightened her more than the horrors of war as she thought that she was at least physically safe in America.Comment:  Another good contribution, Melvin. (If anyone else wants to contribute mini-essays, you know where I am.)

Interesting that Maye compared a hazing attack to the horrors of war. That tells you how powerful the onslaught of stereotypes can be. It's something most non-Indians don't understand even though people keep presenting evidence of it.

Some people respond to postings such as this with more denial. For instance, "People are racist everywhere. It's human nature. There's nothing we can do about it." Or, "Most Americans aren't racist. Obama's election proves that. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill." Any thoughts on either of these responses?

For more on the subject, see Highlights of the US Report to the UN on Racism.

Most Indians oppose "redskins"

Apparently a few readers still don't get the "redskin" issue. They think most Natives don't care about the word or deem it acceptable. I'll try again to disabuse them of this notion.

Honoring Native Americans with DisrespectThere are more than 500 Native groups, hundreds of tribes and tens of thousands of signatures calling for the retirement of the more than 3,000 Indian-name mascots currently in use. The United States Commission on Civil Rights, chaired by Elsie Meeks, a highly respected Lakota woman, has urged public schools to cease with such names. In 1992, the NAACP issued a resolution stating that Indian logos undermine “self-determination and dignity of Indian people” and urged all teams to change their names; for athletes, particularly Black athletes, to use their influence to effect change; and for everyone to stop purchasing items with racist logos. Others standing against Indian-name teams include the National Education Association, the United Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association

In 1999, after seven years of litigation, Harjo, with the support of many of these groups, convinced a three-judge appeals board of the federal Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the Washington pro football club’s moniker on the grounds that the name disparages Native Americans, which is a violation of federal law.

Four years later, however, a lone federal District Court judge overturned the decision, saying that the decision was not supported by the record and that challengers had waited too long to file their claims. Now Harjo is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reinstate the original decision. The court will hear oral arguments Nov. 23.

In August, Indian and religious organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of Harjo. They include the National Congress of American Indians, representing two-thirds of the 327 federally recognized tribes; the National Indian Youth Council, the largest Indian youth organization; the Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism, founded by 39 Indian Nations; and the Religious Interfaith Council of the Washington Metropolitan area.Comment:  Let's elaborate on Harjo's lawsuit. The Native litigants amassed volumes of evidence on how Natives perceive the word "redskin." That evidence was enough to convince a panel of judges to cancel the Washington Redskins trademark.

Beyond the findings of the lawsuit, who thinks "redskins" is offensive? Repeat:  500 Native groups, hundreds of tribes, and tens of thousands of signatures. Two-thirds of the federally recognized tribes (excluding Alaska Native villages and corporations, I presume).

If you disagree with their conclusion, I suggest you take it up with them. Tell these Native leaders that you know better than they do. Let us know how they respond.

But whatever you do, don't waste my time telling me not to criticize the word. This isn't some criticism I've invented out of thin air. It's a reiteration of the position held by 500 Native groups, hundreds of tribes, and tens of thousands of Indians.

I'm not telling Natives what *I* believe, I'm reflecting and restating what they believe. I have a right--indeed, a responsibility--to reflect and restate their views accurately. If you don't like it, I suggest you leave. Because I don't intend to stop promoting a Native perspective on "redskins" or anything else.

Below:  A typical red-skinned savage who won't go to Harvard, win a Nobel Prize, or become president.

Villains and losers in Airbender

Correspondent JT keeps us abreast of the casting developments in Avatar: The Last Airbender:I remember you talking about Avatar before.

Jesse McCartney, who was considered for Prince Zuko, had scheduling conflicts and couldn't take the role.

His replacement is British actor Dev Patel.

Which is an interesting casting choice because Zuko is a member of the Fire Nation, who are seen as the antagonists of the Avatar world.

Race in Avatar

As much as we'd like to believe that they're actually casting 'authentic Asians'--as opposed to fake Asian?--in the movie, this recent casting call has only led us to realize one thing: Paramount Pictures intends to cast according to the races of the lead roles. Therefore:

The Fire Nation (genocidal villains) will be brown/SE Asian.

The Earth Nation (indecisive, saved by white heroes) will be East Asian

The Air Nomads (peace-loving, oppressed saviour) will be Caucasian

The Water Tribe (whitewashed, brave heroes) will be Caucasian

Comment:  To refresh your memory, the Water Tribe is the one that's supposed to be based on Inuit culture.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

Hiawatha trains and logo

Correspondent DMarks has posted this item on his Throwaway Blog:

"Twilight" DVD ReleaseThe "Hiawatha" trains of the Milwaukee Road had the logo seen to the right (image from Wikipedia). In the Milwaukee Road, "there were actually four routes carrying the Hiawatha name, Chicago-Minneapolis; Chicago-Omaha; Chicago-Wausau-Minocqua; and Chicago-Minneapolis-Seattle." A modern-day Amtrak route still bears the Hiawatha name.

The Hiawatha logo would appear to be a cross between a rendition of the Roman god Mercury and a Native American with a streamlined-back version of a Plains-style feather headdress (see this image of a Pontiac car Indian-head hood ornament for an example of something similar).Comment:  Hiawatha used to be the most famous Indian in America, I think. I presume the trains were named after him because of his popularity, since I don't see any other connection.

Roadside teepees

More roadside art--this time featuring stereotypical teepees:

Teepees
Roadside teepees
Bayrd's Indian Trading Post, Wakefield, Mass.

For more on the subject, see England's Only Wigwam Village and Roadside Indian Stereotypes.

Cheap but good movies

Here's an article that should encourage every Native filmmaker to get out there and make great Native movies.

25 Fantastic Indie Gems Made for Less Than $1 Million

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

Review of Dreams from My Father

Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (Paperback)From Publishers Weekly

Elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama was offered a book contract, but the intellectual journey he planned to recount became instead this poignant, probing memoir of an unusual life. Born in 1961 to a white American woman and a black Kenyan student, Obama was reared in Hawaii by his mother and her parents, his father having left for further study and a return home to Africa. So Obama's not-unhappy youth is nevertheless a lonely voyage to racial identity, tensions in school, struggling with black literature--with one month-long visit when he was 10 from his commanding father. After college, Obama became a community organizer in Chicago. He slowly found place and purpose among folks of similar hue but different memory, winning enough small victories to commit himself to the work. ... Before going to law school, he finally visited Kenya; with his father dead, he still confronted obligation and loss, and found wellsprings of love and attachment.

From Booklist

Obama argues with himself on almost every page of this lively autobiographical conversation. He gets you to agree with him, and then he brings in a counternarrative that seems just as convincing. Son of a white American mother and of a black Kenyan father whom he never knew, Obama grew up mainly in Hawaii. After college, he worked for three years as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side. Then, finally, he went to Kenya, to find the world of his dead father, his "authentic" self. Will the truth set you free, Obama asks? Or will it disappoint? Both, it seems. His search for himself as a black American is rooted in the particulars of his daily life; it also reads like a wry commentary about all of us. He dismisses stereotypes of the "tragic mulatto" and then shows how much we are all caught between messy contradictions and disparate communities. He discovers that Kenya has 400 different tribes, each of them with stereotypes of the others. Obama is candid about racism and poverty and corruption, in Chicago and in Kenya. Yet he does find community and authenticity, not in any romantic cliche, but with "honest, decent men and women who have attainable ambitions and the determination to see them through."Dreams from My Father

ReceptionIn discussing Dreams from My Father, Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison has called Obama "a writer in my high esteem" and the book "quite extraordinary." She praised "his ability to reflect on this extraordinary mesh of experiences that he has had, some familiar and some not, and to really meditate on that the way he does, and to set up scenes in narrative structure, dialogue, conversation--all of these things that you don't often see, obviously, in the routine political memoir biography. [...] It's unique. It's his. There are no other ones like that."

The book "may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician," wrote Time columnist Joe Klein. In 2008, The Guardian's Rob Woodard wrote that Dreams from My Father "is easily the most honest, daring, and ambitious volume put out by a major US politician in the last 50 years." Michiko Kakutani, the Pulitzer Prize-winning critic for The New York Times, described it as "the most evocative, lyrical and candid autobiography written by a future president."

The audio book edition earned Obama the 2006 Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album.Comment:  Obama mentions Natives several times in Dreams from My Father, including:

Native American, pg. 9
Cherokee, pg. 12
Native Hawaiians pg. 23
Indians, pg. 63
Indians, pg. 90

A few thoughts about the book:

Obama is much better versed in black history and politics than you'd guess from his 2008 presidential campaign. He obviously made a conscious decision not to talk about race in any depth.

Obama knows a fair amount about Native Hawaiian history, African tribal history, and American Indian history. Even if you exclude black history, he may know more about non-European history than any previous president.

Living with his white mother and an Indonesian stepfather, then with his white grandparents, Obama was in a classic "living in two worlds" situation. Native readers undoubtedly will get a lot from his soul-searching, especially in the tumultuous first section.

Rob's review

Some reviewers said they couldn't put Dreams from My Father down. A few said they couldn't finish it. The reality is somewhere in the middle, of course.

The book is divided into thirds: growing up, organizing in Chicago, and returning to Kenya. The first part, as Obama struggles with his racial identity, is the most compelling. The second and third parts are more prosaic: a litany of who he met, what he saw, how he operated. They're still good reading, but they're definitely not page-turners. When Obama meets his extended family in Kenya, you start wishing for a family tree so you could keep the 10-20 people straight.

Rob's rating:  8.0 of 10. Check it out if you're interested in understanding Obama and black-white issues in America.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Books.

One Thousand White Women

Exploring Indian culture

One Thousand White Women by Jim Fergus ... Pan BooksIn 1854, a Native American chief asked the US Army to provide his tribe with 1,000 white women as brides for his warriors.

His thinking was simple--the women's children would belong to the settlers' 'tribe', building a tangible bridge between the two peoples and providing a foundation for mutual understanding and real interest in a peaceful future.

The Americans weren't quite so convinced and turned the suggestion down flat, but this intriguing book imagines what might have happened had the authorities agreed.One Thousand White Women: The Journals of May Dodd (Paperback)From Booklist

An American western with a most unusual twist, this is an imaginative fictional account of the participation of May Dodd and others in the controversial "Brides for Indians" program, a clandestine U.S. government-sponsored program intended to instruct "savages" in the ways of civilization and to assimilate the Indians into white culture through the offspring of these unions. May's personal journals, loaded with humor and intelligent reflection, describe the adventures of some very colorful white brides (including one black one), their marriages to Cheyenne warriors, and the natural abundance of life on the prairie before the final press of the white man's civilization. Fergus is gifted in his ability to portray the perceptions and emotions of women. He writes with tremendous insight and sensitivity about the individual community and the political and religious issues of the time, many of which are still relevant today. This book is artistically rendered with meticulous attention to small details that bring to life the daily concerns of a group of hardy souls at a pivotal time in U.S. history. --Grace Fill

From Kirkus Reviews

Long, brisk, charming first novel about an 1875 treaty between Ulysses S. Grant and Little Wolf, chief of the Cheyenne nation, by the sports reporter and author of the memoir A Hunter's Road (1992). Little Wolf comes to Washington and suggests to President Grant that peace between the Whites and Cheyenne could be established if the Cheyenne were given white women as wives, and that the tribe would agree to raise the children from such unions. The thought of miscegenation naturally enough astounds Grant, but he sees a certain wisdom in trading 1,000 white women for 1,000 horses, and he secretly approves the Brides For Indians treaty. He recruits women from jails, penitentiaries, debtors' prisons, and mental institutions offering full pardons or unconditional release. May Dodd, born to wealth in Chicago in 1850, had left home in her teens and become the mistress of her father's grain-elevator foreman. Her outraged father had her kidnapped, imprisoning her in a monstrous lunatic asylum. When Grant's offer arrives, she leaps at it and soon finds herself traveling west with hundreds of white and black would-be brides. All are indentured to the Cheyenne for two years, must produce children, and then will have the option of leaving. May, who keeps the journal we read, marries Little Wolf and lives in a crowded tipi with his two other wives, their children, and an old crone who enforces the rules. Reading about life among the Cheyenne is spellbinding, especially when the women show up the braves at arm-wrestling, foot-racing, bow-shooting, and gambling. Liquor raises its evil head, as it will, and reduces the braves to savagery. But the women recover, go out on the winter kill with their husbands, and accompany them to a trading post where they drive hard bargains and stop the usual cheating of the braves.Comment:  When the white men (and women) instructed the "savages" in the "ways of civilization," I presume they said, "Don't fight a bloody Civil War and kill hundreds of thousands of your people like we just did. Don't exterminate whole species, buy and sell slaves internationally, or shoot your leader in the back of the head. Otherwise you'll end up 'civilized' like us."

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Books.

Former Noc-A-Homa = (oxy)moron

Ex-Braves mascot Chief Noc-A-Homa talks tepee

‘Political correctness is an oxymoron,’ former stadium fan favorite Levi Walker Jr. contends Now: “Political correctness is an oxymoron, like ‘pretty awful’ or ‘military intelligence.’ The first indication is that it starts with the word ‘political.’ That tells you there’s something wrong. It leaves no room for discussion, negotiation, equality. Political correctness is my way or the highway.”

Then: “As soon as I became Chief Noc-A-Homa, I felt my neck stretching over a chopping block. I knew somebody wouldn’t like it. … All those people in the Native American movement were calling me Uncle Tom, sellout, turncoat and all these other names. The tomahawk chop. They protested it. But why didn’t they protest the tomahawk missile? It’s more deadly, capable of going in a door or a window and killing everybody.”Comment:  Walker actually has a point when he says "political correctness" is an oxymoron. It's hard to call an intellectual point correct when it's subject to political pressures.

But he blows it when he says people can't discuss a "political" issue. What he means is that he can't discuss the issue of Chief Noc-A-Homa because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He'd get his butt kicked if he tried.

In other words, Chief Noc-A-Homa is incorrect, period--a phony stereotype that has nothing to do with real Indians. And the criticism of Chief Noc-A-Homa is correct, period--not "politically correct." The critics have nailed the Chief for his stereotypical portrayal of Indians.

This allows me to call Walker an oxymoron. He's a real Indian, presumably, but he pretends to be a fake Indian. He's a real fake Indian or a fake real Indian, which sounds oxymoronic to me.

Tomahawk chop vs. missile

As for the Tomahawk missile, it's a weapon, genius, just like a tomahawk. The name doesn't tie the missile to any particular tribe or culture, so no one is particularly upset about it. Indians are generally proud about their role in the military and any connections to it.

Unlike the tomahawk chop, the missile isn't in everyone's face on national TV during the baseball season. Soldiers aren't comparing themselves to Indians and saying they're going to chop their enemies with Tomahawk missiles. There's no association with Indians except the Tomahawk name itself.

I for one have criticized the use of Indian names for military craft. It's the same problem as associating Indians with braves and warriors. It stereotypes them as being warlike and nothing else--i.e., one-dimensional.

But even *I* don't think it's a major issue in the stereotype field. Once we get rid of all the stereotypical team names and mascots, then we can worry about stereotypical helicopter and missile names. Until then, they're a low priority.

Below:  The Chief Noc-A-Homa logo, which looks nothing like a chief or an Indian from Milwaukee or Atlanta. But who cares, because all Indians are the same, right?

I can't tell if he's laughing, shouting a war cry, or braying like a donkey. Can you?

El Toro Grande in Bonanza

In the 16th episode of Bonanza, titled El Toro Grande (airdate: January 2, 1960), Little Joe and Hoss travel to California to buy a prize bull from a Spanish rancher.

Not that it's relevant to this blog, but the episode is full of Mexican stereotypes. The hot-blooded young man who dresses like a Flamenco dancer and wields a rapier. The hot-blooded young woman who is pure as the driven snow but who lusts after Little Joe. The happy-go-lucky peasant who strums a guitar and sings songs. The mischievous little boy in the sombrero. The burros. Etc.

Recall that Bonanza is set around the year 1860. This is a decade after the Gold Rush, with its huge influx of white settlers, and California's becoming a state. Yet none of that is evident in this episode. The Spanish hacienda is so typically Mexican that the Cartwrights could've traveled 50 years into the past as well as across the state.

The Native aspect

On the way back, five Indians grab the bull. On the plus side, all five are wearing the loose Western clothes typical of the time. And they say they're just taking the bull because they're hungry.

On the minus side, three of the four "braves" have headbands with feathers. The main Indian is a phony Plains chief. And when he departs, it sounds like he says "good night" in Italian.

This scene must take place in eastern California. Yet the Indians are purely generic or stereotypical. It's a far cry from the broadly accurate portrayal of Paiute Indians in Death on Sun Mountain.

Non-Natives cast as Natives

Three of the "braves" appear to be played by non-Natives. The chief is played by Ralph Moody, who has the typical "ethnic" features of a white actor playing an Indian. But curiously, one of the "braves" is played by Rodd Redwing, a Native actor.

Both Moody and Redwing had long careers playing Indians on TV shows and in movies. But casting them both in this episode seems strange. Why hire one Native and one non-Native for the Indian roles? I could see two Natives or two non-Natives, but one of each?

It's as if they trusted a Native actor in a truly insignificant role but not in a slightly bigger but still insignificant role. Perhaps they didn't think an actual Indian could handle his 4-5 lines. Or it could've been the actors' looks. Perhaps Moody's face was more lined and "heavy" than the faces of handy Native actors.

For more on the subject, see TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Below:  Ralph Moody in a non-Indian role.

Stereotypes in Broken Feather

Educator Debbie Reese reports on a children's picture book that got rave reviews from Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus. She notes some of the book's problems:Along the way, she and Stephen Alcorn (the illustrator) feed the stereotype monster. A man plays a drum with his hands while other men dance in a circle in the stereotypical ways... Every single dancer has one foot off the ground, arms thrown out or skyward. That scene is repeated on a second page later in the book:

Warriors chanting,
Big drums, beat.
Angry faces,
Stomping feet.Reese's conclusion:Her book would have been so much better if she'd taken the reader into the present day, with a few pages about contemporary Nez Perce children.

Then again, she'd still has that title "Broken Feather." It seems to me she's steeped in the plight narrative and would have to do a lot of work to break out of it.(Excerpted from Debbie Reese's American Indians in Children's Literature, 3/16/09.)

Comment:  Nice art. But how unsubtle is it when a tragic Indian in a tragic tale is called "Broken Feather"? Did Broken Feather's parents know their culture was doomed when they named him?

Here are some other names they may have considered before settling on Broken Feather: Sad Eyes, Wounded Bear, Falling Hawk, Sinking Stone, Fights No More, Wrapped in Blanket, and Gives Up. Sheesh.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Books.

Big Indians as roadside art

Some "found" roadside art found by Jim Hejl:

"Big People" SectionNow I've been going to Minneapolis on a regular basis. At least once a month for the past 3 years. I had my eye on this Big Guy for a couple of years but never got the chance to grab the photo. Now I've got it. Outside the Thunderbird Motel off I-494.

Houghton Lake, MI in front of Zubler's Indian Village on M-55. They have simulated Indian Pow-Wows twice a day at 10am and 2pm.

Here's another Indian. This one has seen better days, check out the fence. Found it (while working, ha ha!) on the way from Modesto to San Jose in California.Comment:  These roadside Indian representations are stereotypical, of course. No matter where they're located, they're inevitably Plains chiefs or warriors.

For more on the subject, see Roadside Indian Stereotypes. For a better series of statues, see Trail of Whispering Giants.

Indians buy Manhattan for $24

Wall St. Excesses Take Ultimate Toll:  Manhattan Sold Back to the IndiansIn perhaps the ultimate sign that the reckless behavior of Wall Street is exacting an “historic” toll, the Borough of Manhattan, originally purchased by the Dutch from the Indians 400 years ago, was today sold back to the same Native-American tribe.

Most shockingly, the price was also the same—$24—although given the strength of the Indian bargaining position, they did not have to pay cash, but only toxic stockpiles of “corn derivatives,” also known as ethanol.

Perhaps fittingly, while the seller in such transactions typically springs for the celebratory lunch, in this case, the contracting parties went ”Dutch treat.”

Although the tribe indicated that the entire island of Manhattan would be turned into one giant gambling casino, most financial experts agreed that this represented an improvement in “risk management” over the business practices of the last ten years.Comment:  Good idea for a satire, but the execution is mediocre. The "jokes" fall flat and are a bit stereotypical.

Racists lack self-esteem

Melvin Martin continues the discussion he began in "Gooks" Assaulted with BBs, Urine and I continued in Stereotypes Trigger Hate Crimes:Racism in Rapid City, South Dakota
by Melvin Martin

The entire state of South Dakota, and more specifically, Rapid City, is populated mainly by whites who are primarily lower middle-class in sociological terms: people who are less educated, less socially enlightened and less accepting of the growing diversity of America as we venture forth into the 21st Century.

When I lived in Rapid City, basically on and off all of my life thus far, I have made the observation that the vast majority of Indian-haters are whites who not only embody the aforementioned description, but who tend to suffer greatly, both individually and collectively, from what I have come to regard as a severe form of "self-esteem deficiency."

Rapid City is largely peopled with illiterate, stupidly politically conservative, disenfranchised whites who labor for slave wages and who essentially view themselves as much "less than" most other human beings. All of the hundreds of racist whites that I have personally confronted in Rapid City over the years have that much in common--their own self-imaging is so low that they, like their "cracker" counterparts in the American South (and their relations with blacks in towns similar to Rapid City like Montgomery, Alabama and Philadelphia, Mississippi; from the days of slavery and even now to some extent), have no recourse to feel better about themselves but to publicly disparage or outright physically attack Indians whenever the opportunities arise. Anyone who hates themselves and despises their station in life will, of course, hate and despise others--and will often act upon these negative feelings.

I, as an Indian person who for years in Rapid City felt the daily exposure to racism, can state that there definitely exists a most concretized and extremely tangible link between Indian stereotypes and racist acts/hate crimes that are perpetrated against Indian people in that town.

Since Rapid City's very own "crackers" never take the time to truly get to know their Indian brothers and sisters, they are forced by virtue of this self-generated social distancing to rely exclusively on the prevailing stereotypical belief system regarding Indians that has been brutally operative there for decades:

Indians are aggressive, conniving, panhandling drunks; Indians are unable to work and most of them are unemployable; Indians are very dirty as a race and they will destroy any properties that are rented to them; all Indians receive at least a couple of hundred dollars per month of "BIA welfare" that they quickly spend on alcohol and motel rooms where they make more "little Indians" like rats in Harlem; Indians are still "wild and untamed" as the hickeys and black eyes that they sport are the best indicators of their collective licentiousness and lack of a true moral base; Indian religion infects the area with black magic and all medicine men are practitioners of witchcraft and other forms of the black arts, hence, Indians are still heathens "in league with Satan"; Indian men are superbly well-endowed, amazingly virile and they will take our wives, daughters, sisters, mothers, aunts, nieces and girlfriends via their rap or by rape.

This is just some of the more pervasive anti-Indian mythology, the fundamental architecture of which consists of stereotypes that are specific to Rapid City, that I have personally heard whites express on numerous occasions since I was in the first grade there in the late '50s. So, the nature and the frequency of the various hate crimes carried out against Indian people in Rapid City, South Dakota, are indeed driven solely by this perverse cavalcade of stereotypical ideations that occur nowhere else but in the diseased hearts and minds of my hometown's many "crackers."

Lastly, for an Indian man to be misidentified as a Latino or as an Asian by drive-by name-callers is to me simply indicative of the victimizers' profound ignorance and pathetic lack of basic social intelligence--a phenomenon on par with the murder by baseball bat of a Chinese-American man by a group of irate Detroit autoworkers at the height of the anti-Japanese sentiment that flourished across the country in the '80s.

And innocent people from Central and South America are being verbally harassed, physically assaulted and even murdered lately in the U.S. as they are mistaken for Mexican illegal aliens by racists who would not know a Brazilian from a Peruvian even if they were to visit those two countries or any of the other countries in Latin America, to include Mexico.

Pilamaya ("Thank you")
Melvin Martin
Oglala Lakota NationComment:  Sounds like you agree with me that stereotypical thinking leads to hateful actions, Melvin. Glad to hear it.

For more on what motivates racists, see Anti-Indian Racism Explained. For more on the "post-racial" era, see Hate Abounds in "Post-Racial" America, Racism Lives in ObamAmerica, and The Post-Racial, Post-Indian Era?

Below:  A look into the mind of someone who'd commit a hate crime against an Indian.

Navajo in Deadman's Poker

Deadman's Poker: A Novel (Mass Market Paperback)From Publishers Weekly

Gambling expert, casino consultant and retired cop Tony Valentine is back, along with his grifter-made-good son, Gerry, in the satisfying sixth installment of Swain's cards-and-cons thriller series (after Mr. Lucky). Gerry's lifelong friend Jack Donovan tells Gerry he's concocted an undetectable scheme that "can beat any poker player in the world," but dies before he can let Gerry in on it. Though ruled a suicide, Gerry is convinced Jack was murdered. Gerry's investigation leads him and his reluctant father to the World Poker Showdown in Las Vegas, where they encounter tournament darling Skip DeMarco, the legally blind nephew of a notorious mobster. Every expert Tony and Gerry speak with thinks Skip is cheating, but no one can prove it—making the Valentine boys wonder to whom Jack may have told his secret before he died. As always, Swain makes his encyclopedic mastery of gambling lore and technique look easy, and he handles Gerry and Tony's turbulent relationship with thought and humor, giving weight to the parallel dynamic between Skip and his Mafia uncle. Though many of the other supporting characters are forgettable, Swain's knowledge of the con, and of his leads, make this novel a pleasure.

Review

“Mixing humor, suspense, poignancy and insider lore, Swain is one terrific writer.” –The Wall Street Journal

“Swain has hit on a winning combination. . . . [Valentine] is the kind of man you wouldn’t mind having on your side in a high-stakes poker game, let alone the game of life.” –The Washington Post Book WorldComment:  Deadman's Poker has a character named Bill Higgins who is "Navajo by birth" and has "the demeanor of a statue." After this semi-stereotypical introduction, Higgins's ethnicity is never mentioned again.

If you read the passage at the link above, you'll see no sign of his being an Indian. And no sign of his having the "the demeanor of a statue." Given his name and attitude, you'd expect him to be a typical Anglo-American. Making him a Navajo seems gratuitous--an example of tokenism.

But Higgins is apparently a continuing character in the series. Here's a passage from an earlier book, Sucker Bet, about the fictitious Micanopy casino in Florida:At seven the next morning, Chief Running Bear, leader of the Micanopy nation, sat in his double-wide trailer a hundred yards behind the casino, staring at a pair of identical TV sets. Two hours earlier, a phone call had awoken him from a deep sleep, and now he rubbed his eyes tiredly while staring at the dueling images. On one TV, a casino surveillance film showed an employee named Jack Lightfoot dealing blackjack. A player at Lightfoot's table had won eighty-four hands in a row, a feat that Running Bear knew was statistically impossible. The player had never touched the cards, ruling out sleight of hand. There was only one logical explanation: Lightfoot had rigged the game. On the other TV, a second surveillance film showed Lightfoot standing in the casino parking lot, smoking a cigarette. Before running the tapes, Running Bear had gone through Lightfoot's personnel file. He was a Navajo and had come to work for the Micanopys with a glowing reference from Bill Higgins, another Navajo, who happened to run the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Indians did not lie to other Indians, and Running Bear could remember Higgins's words as if it were yesterday. Jack wont let you down, Higgins had said. Running Bear shook his head. Jack Lightfoot had let him down. He was a cheat, and a damn good one. Bill Higgins had once bragged to Running Bear that he knew every goddamned cheater in the country. So why hadn't he known about this one?This passage has several problems:

A Florida Indian with the stereotypical name "Running Bear."

A chief monitoring a casino floor himself. This is unlikely and probably illegal. Tribal gaming regulators are supposed be independent of the tribal chief and council.

The claim that Indians don't lie to each other.

A later claim that Indians can't tell white people apart.

In short, it seems author Swain doesn't write Indians very well.

Despite these comments, Deadman's Poker is a good read (or listen, in my case). I'd give the first two-thirds of the book an 8.5 for keeping me hooked. But then it gets sidetracked and loses steam. The last third of the book is only a 7.0 or so and it ends abruptly--to be continued in the next volume.

Overall rating: 8.0 of 10. Fun if you know Las Vegas and casinos and want to know how cheaters and scam artists play their tricks.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Books.

Moving away from Chief Wahoo?

Correspondent DMarks reports on his recent trip to Cleveland, Ohio--home of America's most offensive racial icon:There is a tiny wallet-sized folding "Cleveland Indians 2009 Schedule" available everywhere, at all the gas stations and hotels, that has Chief Wahoo in the corner of the front page, and also printed on the front page is the slogan "Are you IN the Tribe?"

Inside, there are scores of special events and attendance gifts listed for different games, but I saw none attached to Chief Wahoo.

The most interesting thing inside are the charity days. There are 13 of them, and one is for the Diversity Center of Northeast Ohio.

I wonder what they think of the mascot? Their web site says that their mission is "To fight bias, bigotry, and racism in America by advancing diversity."

I just now googled "Get rid of chief wahoo" to see what was there. I found this discussion:

Should the Cleveland Indians get rid of Chief Wahoo?

It included the comment:

They've been trying to move the fan base to using that cursive "I" instead of the chief wahoo, and we're seeing it on more and more apparel. I know that the best looking jerseys are the newer "I" jerseys. It seems they are going to just try and keep the offensive cartoon logo out as much as possible and stay with the name.
The schedule folder features the "I" logo prominently. But if they are trying to move away from the stereotype, it would have been so easy for them to exclude Chief Wahoo from the front page of the schedule for the forthcoming season. Yet, he's still there.

Other comments are typical:

Tell the real Indians to get a life. "Oh no. There using our name for a baseball team." At least your name is connected to something more than gambling and whinning about the government.

teams named after native american warriors is no different than teams named after warriors of any different race in any different era. why are native new englanders angry about the use of the nickname "Colonials" or "Minutemen"?

The Indians got their name in 1915....now who the heck is offended? Most of the people around when the Indians got their name are probably long gone. The name has been there for 92 years, some people just need to deal with it...Comment:  I suspect the Diversity Center's people don't think about Chief Wahoo, or think the monetary support they get from the Cleveland Indians is more important.

It seems the Cleveland Indians know their mascot is offensive, but also know that getting rid of it will offend their racist fans. So they compromise by downplaying Chief Wahoo in favor of an "I."

You gotta love how these fans reveal their ignorance and prejudice. Fan #1 knows nothing about Indians except gambling and "whinning" (whining). Fan #2 thinks "warrior" is an occupation, which means he doesn't recognize Indians as a separate ethnic group with separate cultures. Fan #3 thinks real Indians are probably long gone. He implies that whoever's protesting Chief Wahoo is a "politically correct" non-Indian who has nothing better to do than imagine offenses.

These ignorant fans seem to think Indians are protesting the "Indians" name more than anything else. They don't even address the stereotypical nature of Chief Wahoo--presumably because they can't. In reality, of course, Indians are more concerned about Chief Wahoo than the "Indians" name.

Perhaps not coincidentally, these fans are bad at spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. Ignorant about one thing, ignorant about everything?

For more on the subject, see Team Names and Mascots.

Racism in Bemidji

Here's a corollary to what we've been discussing in "Gooks" Assaulted with BBs, Urine and Stereotypes Trigger Hate Crimes:

Survey shows race relations problems in BemidjiKaren Bedeau, from the nearby Red Lake reservation, recalls that when she was a little girl in the 1960s she and her family used to drive to town to shop.

Bedeau says back then, racism against Indians was blatant.

"You were treated very rudely," said Bedeau. "I can remember people hollering at us, calling us names and people telling us to get out of town and things like that. Clearly you were not welcomed there."

Things have improved a lot since then, according to Bedeau.

But at a Bemidji gas station just a few years ago, Bedeau saw something that angered her.

While several Indians were gassing up their cars at the pumps, the store clerk was outside jotting down the numbers from their Red Lake tribal license plates.

"When I went in to pay for my gas, I asked them what they were doing," Bedeau said, "and the clerk said, 'Until you people stop stealing, we will do this.' And I was just taken aback. It goes back to the way I had experienced things years back. So those types of things still exist."And: With funding from several regional foundations, Shared Vision commissioned the community's most comprehensive study ever on racial attitudes.

The study found that 80 percent of whites rated race relations as fair or good. But more than half of Indians surveyed in Bemidji said relations were poor. That number was even higher for Indians living on neighboring reservations.

Nearly half of Indians surveyed said they regularly experience discrimination in retail stores and by law enforcement. Half of them said they faced discrimination in the job market and in housing.Comment:  Either Indians are imagining racism or whites are in denial about it. I'm guessing it's the latter.

For more on the subject, see 40% of Whites Are Prejudiced and Everybody Is Racist (including those who deny it).

Below:  "This metal sculpture of an American Indian sits near the statues of Paul Bunyan and Babe on the Bemidji waterfront. There's been longstanding racial tension between the two cultures the statues represent." (MPR Photo/Tom Robertson)

Juxtaposing the two statues is potentially a problem, since it links real people with fictional characters.

All about Chief Noc-A-Homa

Chief Noc-A-HomaChief Noc-A-Homa was the original mascot of the Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves from 1950s until 1986. The name was used for the "screaming Indian" sleeve patch worn on Braves jerseys. From at least the early 1960s, while still in Milwaukee County Stadium, until the early 1980s at Atlanta's Fulton County Stadium, this mascot "lived" in a tipi in an unoccupied section of the bleacher seats.

The name was intended to be a playful variation of "Knock a Homer." The mascot's job was to exit his tipi and perform a dance whenever a Braves player would hit a home run.

Broadcaster Curt Gowdy, completely missing the point of the mascot's name, once referred to him in a way that sounded more like Japanese: "NO-KAH-HAH-MAH."

Late in Noc-A-Homa's duration, a young woman companion called "Princess Win-A-Lotta" was introduced. The original creator of the companion character was Princess Poc-a-homa.And:The best-known Noc-A-Homa was Levi Walker, Jr., an Ottawa native. In 1986, Walker and the Braves mutually agreed to end their relationship due to disagreements about pay and missed dates. Walker petitioned the club to revive his role during the Braves' 1991 magical pennant run, but the Braves' management declined.

Noc-a-Homa was eventually replaced as the mascot by the characters Homer and Rally, most likely due to concerns over racism. This has not, however, circumvented the introduction of other Native American-inspired traditions for Braves fans, such as the "Tomahawk Chop," adapted with the arrival of Florida State University multi-sport star Deion Sanders from Florida State's popular War Chant.Comment:  I presume Walker is an Ottawa Native rather than an Ottawa native. Only a real Indian could be called a sellout and turncoat--and rightly so, judging by the evidence.

For more on the subject, see Team Names and Mascots.

Below:  Chief Noc-A-Homa makes a fool of himself with Braves pitcher Gene Garber and teammates in 1982.

Churchill takes the stand

In his trial in Denver, Ward Churchill explains his 9/11 essay (again) and his claims about smallpox:

Ward Churchill takes the stand to defend himself

Axed CU professor gives jury his version of eventsThe use of the term "Little Eichmanns" to describe victims in the twin towers--a reference to Nazi technocrat Adolf Eichmann--was Churchill's way of trying to convey the idea that even those whose roles in society are seemingly innocent effectively perpetuate the greater system in which they operate, he said.

"When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann," Churchill testified.And:Churchill also defended his claims that the U.S. military deliberately infected American Indians in New England and along the Upper Missouri River with smallpox.

Of his assertion that a military commander at Fort Clark ordered smallpox-infested blankets be distributed among the Mandans in the 1830s, Churchill said: "I considered it common knowledge."

"It's enshrined in the oral traditions specific to the Mandans," he testified. "The oral history for me is conclusive."Earlier that day, Russell Means took the stand:

Churchill:  Smallpox theory common knowledgeRussell Means, facilitator of the Republic of Lakota, is now on the stand testifying on behalf of Churchill. He's known Churchill for years and wrote a chapter in one of his books and also served in the American Indian Movement together.

Means testified Churchill is "writing the wrongs of history—literally."

Means choked up on the witness stand and said "to take a small phrase and besmirch him and try to ruin his reputation among the people who know what he writes. It is a scholarly massacre—it's what I call it. It's not right and it's full of holes...they do not treat white professors at CU the same way."Comment:  For more on the subject, see Churchill Trusts a Jury? and Churchill Goes to Trial.

Twilight Wolf Pack announced

Summit Entertainment Runs with the Wolf Pack in The Twilight Saga: New MoonSummit Entertainment announced today that Native American/First Nation actors Chaske Spencer, Bronson Pelletier, Alex Meraz, Kiowa Gordon and Tyson Houseman have signed on to star as the members of the wolf pack in THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON. In the film, the wolf pack defends humans against vampires although they have a tribal history intricately entwined with Edward Cullen and his family. The wolf pack members will join Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and fellow wolf pack member Taylor Lautner in the film directed by Chris Weitz which will be released domestically November 20, 2009.

Each member of the wolf pack is of Native decent. Spencer is Lakota (Sioux), Pelletier is Cree-Metis, Meraz is Purepecha (Tarasco), Gordon is Hualapai, and Houseman, who was discovered at an open casting call, is Cree. Casting of the wolf pack was overseen by award-winning casting director Rene Haynes who is well-known for her work on Native projects ranging from DANCES WITH WOLVES to BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE.Comment:  The Hollywood Reporter adds, "All five announced Monday will make their big-screen debuts in the film."

Let's note that Summit was basically shamed into hiring Native actors. In my opinion, of course, since I'm not privy to the inner workings of the Twilight movies.

Making up for its previous mistakes, look how proudly it's touting the Native heritage of the "Wolf Pack." And how it doesn't mention Lautner's minuscule Native heritage.

Also note that referring to these Indians as the Wolf Pack will reinforce the notion that they're beast-like.

For more on the subject, see Quileute Werewolves in Twilight.

Below:  "Where's my wig so I can look like a real Indian?"

Indian kitsch in Wisconsin Dells

Ho-Chunk photographer Tom Jones subverts Wisconsin Dells tourist kitschTourist kitsch trades in stereotypes. Whether they’re offensive depends on who’s doing the stereotyping.

At Sherry Leedy Contemporary Art, photographer Tom Jones, a member of the Ho-Chunk people of central and south Wisconsin, turns his lens on that area’s mammoth Wisconsin Dells tourist industry.

The images presented in his exhibit, “Native Commodity,” will make you wince.

Jones brings an insider’s eye to the commodification of all things Indian at the Dells, where totem poles adorn miniature golf courses and cutouts of feather headdresses decorate cheap hotel doors.And:By photographing the area’s barrage of Indian-themed objects and images, Jones turns the tables. Instead of white culture presenting Native American cultures as objects to be examined, this time around a Ho-Chunk photographer invites us to view the spectacle of Dells tourist culture.

His images heap irony on the ironic.

In “On the Road,” a looming red-and-white sign overlaid with neon tubing spelling “Indian” dominates a backdrop of wispy clouds and blue sky. It’s a devastatingly succinct summation of the subordination of landscape to the exigencies of commerce. The photograph also serves as a standard-bearer for one of the primary themes of this show—the tourist industry’s notion of the generic Indian, an indiscriminate lumping together of artifacts, clothing and symbols of many different Native American peoples.Comment:  The idea of this exhibit sounds great. Critiquing the idea of the generic Indian is an obvious but still necessary endeavor.

But I'm not particularly impressed with either of the examples. I don't think Jones's photos have heightened or transformed the "irony" into something artistic.

Compare these photos to the photos of Shonie De La Rosa visiting the Running Indian. I doubt De La Rosa was trying to produce "art," but his photos say more about Indian kitsch than the photos below.

In short, we've all seen hundreds or thousands of photos of Indian kitsch. These days such photos have to be extraordinary to qualify as noteworthy art.

Targeting born-again Christians

In Navajo Nation on 700 Club, DMarks wrote:Are you singling out "born again Christians"? The perception that Indians are all rich from casinos is quite widespread beyond the 700 Club audience, and shown by many examples in "Newspaper Rock." I doubt that the audience results would be different had this been presented to other non-Native audiences.I agree that most Americans are ignorant about Indians, whether they're born-again Christians or not. I targeted born-again Christians in this posting because I presume they were The 700 Club's intended audience.

The 700 Club had a chance to speak directly to these people using an approach and style they would understand. The host (Pat Robertson or whoever) could've made understanding a moral and religious imperative.

For instance, "For too long we've let some of God's children suffer. God wants you to watch this show and learn the truth about Indians. He implores you to rid your minds of negative stereotypes and replace them with thoughts of love and compassion."

Needless to say, this didn't happen. If anything, the born-again Christian viewers were more ignorant and uncharitable after the first show aired. "Why should we help the so-called poor Indians?" they seemed to be saying. "How can they be needy when they have casinos?"

700 Club biased?

I'm sensing a whiff of right-wing dogma here. The savage heathens can't help themselves despite living in the greatest country on earth. We give them money-making machines and they're still wallowing in squalor. What can you expect from idol worshipers who haven't accepted Jesus? They do their devil dances and God punishes them for it.

After all, Pat Robertson and other conservative Christians have claimed that natural disasters are God's way of punishing people. Why wouldn't they claim that about poverty on reservations also? Indians aren't living as God intended--in suburban homes with middle-management jobs and church every Sunday--so God is teaching them a lesson.

For more on this subject, see Limbaugh Blames Flood Victims.

Of course, all this is just speculation. What isn't speculation is that the show was produced by born-again Christians for born-again Christians. Given that scenario, the results should've been better. That they weren't means some or all of the people involved failed.

Improved Order of Red Men

Reflections on the 'Red Men'

Familiar downtown landmark holds hidden treasureMany years ago, where the MetroCenter mall now stands in downtown Binghamton, Red Men walked this land. They were led by a sachem, or chief. During ceremonies, they wore feather headdresses and held tomahawks. They measured time in "moons," and painted images on their lodge walls.

Truth be known, it wasn't really that many years ago. Their stomping ground was the Phil's Gift Shop building, and just to set the record straight, these were definitely not Native Americans!

In the early 1900s, 153-155 Washington St. was headquarters to a fraternal society, the Improved Order of Red Men. A quick check of IORM's original constitution reveals the irony--that in fact, only "white males of good moral character" were eligible to be "Red Men."

Originally, they were known as "Sons of Liberty," a secret society of colonists modeled after Native American tribes, that worked in resistance to the English Crown. As the story goes, in 1773 while British ships were moored off the coast of Boston, the Sons of Liberty, dressed as Native Americans, threw the famous Boston Tea Party.

After the American Revolution, the name was changed to "Order of Red Men" and membership steadily increased. By 1920, the organization had lodges in 46 states and would soon hit its peak with half a million members. Over the years, its members included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt and constitution notwithstanding, even Richard Nixon.

Today, although greatly reduced in size, the IORM still exists. As stated on its Web site, the organization "is pledged to the high ideals of Freedom, Friendship and Charity."Comment:  The Order of Red Men was an early example of Indian wannabe-ism. I noted its place in history in my essay The Political Uses of Stereotyping. I gave it a Stereotype of the Month entry when it came to my attention in 2004.

Baste bigger than Beach?

Young actor wants to be bigger than Adam BeachChristian Baste seems like a typical 13-year-old, on the verge of turning 14 in April. When he smiles his braces catch the light. He doesn’t say much in front of strangers; until you put him in front of a camera.

Christian’s acting resume is impressive and a result of the bustling film scene in New Mexico. He had his first small speaking role in the 2005 TNT miniseries “Into the West.” He was in the 2008 feature film “The Eye,” as well as the ABC Family series “Wildfire.” All three were filmed in and around Albuquerque.

Christian, Lakota Sioux on his mother’s side and Navajo on his father’s, is discovering that much of being chosen for a role is who you know. Kathryn Brink, a casting director with whom Christian has taken classes, cast the upcoming feature film, “Jordan.” Christian plays Eli Lujan, the son of a sheriff who discovers the title character, a 5-year-old girl, searching for help for her injured mother following a car crash on a remote mountain highway.

“I want to be more than what Adam Beach is,” Christian said, referring to the variety of roles the Ojibwa actor from Canada has played. “I want to do non-Native roles like he does.”Comment:  So Baste wants to be "more than what Adam Beach is"? Which is what, exactly?

And he'll accomplish that by doing exactly what Beach has done? I guess this is what you get when you interview a 13-year-old. <g>

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

Twilight fans get Quileute culture

600 'Twilight' fans hit Forks to celebrate movie where story is setThe Rainforest Arts Center was filled to the gills as close to 600 fans of the movie "Twilight" celebrated the release of the DVD in Forks--the town where the fictional account is set.

"There are about three times as many people as we were originally expecting," said a bedazzled Annette Root, owner of the shop Dazzled by Twilight, which organized the party.

About 200, mostly females, people managed to cram into the room at a time, while hundreds more lined up around the block--amounting to about 600 fans in the 3,200-population town--waiting for others to filter out so they could get in on the party.

They were treated to a bit of West End culture beyond that described in the series of four best-selling novels by Stephenie Meyer, the first of which was made into a movie last year.

The Quileute Dancers shared portions of their history, including their sacred "Wolf Dance."

The Quileute tribe figures prominently in the teen romance novels.Comment:  Can you imagine traveling from Hawaii or the East Coast just to celebrate the DVD release? Me neither.

For more on the subject, see Twilight vs. Quileute Legends.

Catawba chief in S.C. Hall of Fame

18th-Century Chief in S.C. Hall of FameKing Hagler, an 18th-century Catawba Indian chief, was inducted into the South Carolina Hall of Fame on Wednesday. He was the first Native American inducted into the hall.

Each year, one living and one deceased South Carolinian are inducted. This year's other inductee is Pat Conroy, 63, the author of "The Prince of Tides," "The Great Santini" and "The Lords of Discipline."

Others in the Hall of Fame include President Andrew Jackson, jazz legend Dizzy Gillespie and the late U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond.Below:  "Chief Donald Rogers, representative of the Catawba Indian Nation, performs a traditional hunters dance in honor of King Hagler of the Catawba Indian Nation. King Hagler was killed in 1763."

The Chippewa Taylor Dayne

Chippewa teen advances in talent competitionIt’s no coincidence that Taylor Dayne Falcon, 15, was named after the actual Taylor Dayne, a Top 40 songstress of the late 80s and early 90s.

You may recall her debut hit song, “Tell It to My Heart.”

Taylor, an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, made it into the top 39 line-up of singers, models and assorted performers thanks to her soul-filled singing and guitar strumming performance during the U.S.A. World Showcase Talent Competition at the Las Vegas Hilton Jan. 2–3.

Hello Columbus in Get Smart

An episode of the spy spoof Get Smart is interesting for what it doesn't say about Indians.

Episode Guide:  Season 5, 1969-1970Hello Columbus, Goodbye America
Airdate: Friday, May 1, 1970, 7:30 PM
Writer: Pat McCormick
Director: Alan Rafkin
Carl's Rating: *

When an ancient document shows up in Italy, Christopher Columbus's descendant Gino becomes the owner of America. Max is assigned to keep Gino happy and keep KAOS away from Gino so that Gino can return the country to the president. Unfortunately, KAOS kidnaps Gino and Max right away. Fortunately, 99 is backing up Max and they all manage to escape. To allow Gino to get to the White House, Max disguises himself as Gino and allows himself to be kidnapped by KAOS, who again use an unusual torture method on him.

CONTROL Insider's Report:

* This episode is another yawner, with plot points so ridiculous that they ruin the entire episode. It was voted the worst episode by fans.

* I'm not Italian but even I find the stereotypes in this episode off-putting.

* The title is a play on Goodbye, Columbus.
The Chief explains how Gino Columbus came to inherit and own America:CHIEF:  [A] document was recently unearthed in Genoa, Italy, proving Christopher Columbus claimed the United States for himself in 1492.

CHIEF:  Our country was transferred verbally to Spain. Then a few centuries later, our forefathers took over.

CHIEF:  According to international law, the document that was unearthed in Genoa proves conclusively that Christopher Columbus still owns the United States.Comment:  This scenario is meant to be stupid. And yet, it's stupid for reasons beyond the obvious stupidity. Among its problems:

Columbus never set foot on the territory that would become the United States. Since he didn't know it existed, he couldn't have claimed it.

Columbus was sponsored by and working for Spain, so he couldn't have claimed the land for himself. In fact, I don't think he could've claimed a single island, gold nugget, or palm frond for himself. Anything he found and claimed would've gone to the Spanish monarchy.

There was no such thing as "international law" in 1492. And today's international law wouldn't uphold any claims made by an European explorer for himself.

The biggest omission is, of course, the Indians. The episode makes no mention of them. It doesn't acknowledge that they occupied and owned the land--that any European claim of ownership amounted to grand larceny. One could say that Columbus's theft of the Western Hemisphere was the biggest property crime in human history.

About the only semi-valid claim in this episode was that the Americas were transferred verbally to Spain. The show presumes that this verbal transfer didn't supersede Columbus's fictional document. In reality, it didn't supersede the Indians' right of occupation and ownership.

Myth-making in action

Even though this was an intentionally lame comedy, we can still see America's myth-making in action. Columbus "discovered" the "New World." The land was basically uninhabited; the Indians were invisible or inconsequential. The Europeans claimed it for themselves as the natural order of things. A piece of paper was enough to secure their ownership "rights."

Sure, no one formed an opinion based on this episode alone. But the episode reinforced what they already thought; it didn't raise any trouble questions. It was one more brick in the media myth-construction business.

Note that this episode aired in 1970, not 1950. That was almost a year after the occupation of Alcatraz began. Nixon was establishing policies to protect Indian rights. Change was in the air.

You can't expect much from a sitcom, but this was late in the game to be completely ignorant of Indians. The "thinking" that went into this episode was pathetically weak. The show was canceled soon thereafter because episodes such as this one were so bad.

For more on the subject, see TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Below:  "Sorry about that, Indians."

Wahoo maker defends stereotypes

Chuck, the maker of Wahoo the Board Game, has responded to my posting on the subject. He writes:Rob, I just ran across your posting here. Regarding your suggestion that I use characters other than the stereotypical native Americans, I have on my Wahoo Mexicas version. It has authentic Mayan and Aztec characters. I would like to do a new version with authentic Native Americans, but there are so many. What group adequately represents all Native Americans? None. Also, nothing derogatory is meant by using the figures on my game. The only reason I used them is because the Original WAHOO is a replica of the ones popular in the 1960s and my primary customers are people my age that remember the game from then. It outsells my Mexicas game 10 to 1. Thanks for your comentary.My response:

The fact that someone used stereotypical Indians before you is a poor reason for using them yourself. If a tradition or custom is wrong, repeating it also wrong. If you haven't heard, two wrongs don't make a right.

If your customers wanted the '60s Frito-Lay game featuring the Frito Bandito, would you repeat that stereotype too? Probably not. Therefore, I suggest you not repeat the Native stereotypes. You're responsible for the choices you make, not your customers.

I didn't say the images were derogatory. I said they were stereotypical. They depict a tiny subset of old-fashioned Indians from a couple of centuries ago.

Nor are the images accurate even for traditional Plains Indians. All your Indians, including a chief and what looks like a maiden, are half-naked. Indian chiefs and women didn't go around with a lot of flesh exposed.

Do you disagree that your Indians are stereotypical? If so, go ahead and make your case. If not, admit you're perpetuating stereotypes.

This doesn't even address your game's association with the stereotypical Chief Wahoo. Or with the phrase Wahoo Indians, which I believe is derogatory. Really, there's nothing positive about calling a game with Indians "Wahoo."

Rob's recommendation

I recommended you get rid of the Indians altogether. If you feel you have to use Indians, pick four representative Indians from different regions (Northwest, Southwest, Great Plains, Eastern Woodlands). Or four individual Indians from these regions (e.g., Chief Joseph, Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh).

I doubt your customers will know the difference. As your website indicates, people have produced several versions of Wahoo with different Indians. Why would buyers accept only one version of the game when they accepted several versions before? Where's the evidence that people won't buy anything but your stereotypical Indian version?

And no, I don't count your Mesoamerican version of Wahoo as a valid test. One, Mesoamerican Indians look pretty strange to most Americans compared to North American Indians. Two, of course people are going to buy the more familiar game if you offer them both. The real test would be to offer only a nonstereotypical game and see if your sales drop off significantly.

If you want to be more daring, use four modern Indians. For instance, Vine Deloria Jr., Wilma Mankiller, Dennis Banks, and Winona LaDuke. Market it as a new and improved version of the game. A nonstereotypical version that will enlighten as well as entertain. Who wouldn't be impressed by this version's potential to educate children?

In short, there are several reasons to change the game and no (good) reason to keep it the same. I suggest you change it, Chuck.

No postings based on Native traditions?

In Churchill the Indigenist, Kalisetsi wrote:Rob, I hate to call you out again, but I read it like I see it. I'm frankly surprised that you would claim to "draw upon Native traditions as you criticize the political and cultural status quo." Okay, yeay for criticizing the political and cultural status quo, we love that part! But I have never ever never seen your writing reflect a real understanding of Native traditions (and of what tribe??). I do seem to recall you mentioning traditions once, in a debate with some NDN about something, and I have a vague memory that it came across badly. Tread lightly with the traditional stuff--it's sensitive territory, and I'm sure you can understand, given your extensive documentation of non-Natives taking and re-interpreting facets of all things "Native."My response:

You can call me out all you want, Kalisetsi. I can take criticism if you can. <g> I wouldn't be posting my thoughts several times a day if I couldn't.

The "traditions" I was referring to include thinking several generations ahead (i.e., long-term over short-term), favoring the community over the individual, and respecting the environment. More generally, an acceptance of cultural diversity. A belief that no culture or religion is perfect or best. A multicultural perspective.

These traditions don't belong to any one tribe or cultural group. They're common to many Native cultures. Although they're broad and generic, they're real enough.

You say you haven't read any postings based on these traditions? That's odd, because I could list thousands that fit the rationale I gave. If you still don't know what I'm talking about, say the word and I'll start listing them.

If you thought I meant specific cultural traditions such as going through a puberty rite, doing a dance at a certain time of year, or getting permission from an elder to speak...no, that isn't what I meant. These may be broad, generic traditions, but they're typically Native rather than Euro-American. And they aren't "sensitive" or private, so we're free to talk about them.

Now that I've explained what I meant, you can see that my postings are indeed based on Native traditions. These traditions also happen to be my traditions.

"Redskin" based on Native traditions?

As for the conflict you mentioned, I presume you're referring to my criticism of Sheena Wassegijig. She referred to her Ojibway traditions as her excuse for using "Redskin," an ethnic slur, as a magazine title. I ripped her for it.

My response went something like this: If that's an example of "Native traditions," I understand Native traditions better than you do. You don't promote yourself and your magazine by insulting your brothers and sisters. It's not humble, respectful, or honest and it doesn't honor people.

Do you disagree with my interpretation of these Native traditions? Then go ahead and make your case. Explain to us how the "Redskin" title proves that Wassegijig respects Native traditions and I don't. Good luck with your answer...you'll need it.

Below:  Respect for Native traditions? Yeah, and "Nigger" magazine shows respect for African American traditions. Not.

Stereotypes trigger hate crimes

Here's my response to "Gooks" Assaulted with BBs, Urine, Melvin Martin's latest essay on racism against Indians:

I'm not sure any research has linked hate crimes to stereotypes, so I'll do it myself. This is what happens when you portray Indians as primitives, savages, or beasts. You create the impression that Indians aren't modern-day people, full-fledged Americans, with equal rights. They become exotic "others"--visitors from another time and place who don't belong here. Then we start thinking of them as strangers who are taking "our" jobs and money and women. This makes them "legitimate" targets for our hate.

From the black, Latino, and Asian insults directed at Martin, we can see this problem isn't limited to Indians. It's a problem for anyone who isn't a WASP like me. According to our founding myth, America belongs to the white male Christians who came over on the Mayflower with Columbus and the Founding Fathers. They're the ones who carved this country out of the wilderness and made it great. Everyone else is a non-American who doesn't look like "us" and doesn't belong here. They should all go back where they came from.

Note:  How stupid is it to call an Indian a "wetback"--i.e., an immigrant who crossed a river to get to America? Pretty damn stupid. The point of this insult is obvious: to categorize Indians as a lesser form of human with lesser rights.

Most people who perpetuate stereotypes don't resort to hate crimes. But they're contributing to a climate where hate crimes become possible. At tribal casinos, Indians are called rich and greedy and cheaters with "special rights." In Carpinteria, white people are saying their "warrior" stereotypes are right and real Indians are wrong. In the Chicago area, someone has damaged a sign that points out the existence of real Indians. On the screen, tanned Anglos play Indians while real Indians are invisible.

To sum it up, yesterday's Indians were savages, drunks, bums, and losers. Today's Indians no longer exist. Therefore, anyone who claims to be an Indian must be a savage, drunk, bum, or loser. He deserves what he gets.

Why do so many people refuse to see Indians the way they are today? Why do some of them respond to stereotypes with hate? I say it's because today's Indians won't sit down and shut up. Because they won't fade away like they were supposed to. Because they keep demanding that we obey the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Because they keep reminding us of our mistakes and flaws--e.g., our propensity to shoot first and ask questions later. Because they suggest that America belongs to everyone, not just to the white Christians who (think they) founded it.

As I said, I can't prove the linkage between stereotypes and hate crimes. But I'm pretty sure there's a straight-line connection. Ask the people who commit hate crimes what they think of Indians. They'll probably respond with stereotypes. Ask them why these stereotypes triggered their hate. They'll probably say something stupid like "Savages/drunks/bums/losers don't deserve to live." Which means their stereotypical thinking is driving their hateful actions.

For more of Martin's thoughts on the subject, see Racists Lack Self-Esteem.

Below:  Beating up a devilish Indian is like beating up a mugger or a mad dog. It doesn't qualify as a human rights violation or a crime.

"I'll get you if you don't get me first, white eyes! Ha ha ha ha ha!"

Artwork features Tlazolteotl, Pomponio

More on Pomponio, the non-Chumash Indian who resisted the Spanish missionaries in California. Artist Romero calls his work a self-portrait and (sort of) explains it:

The “Outlaw” Pomponio & The Historical Art of David Gremard RomeroI am the figure in the middle, bending over with the red cape. I am wearing the mask of St. Thomas Moor Killer, or Matamoros, who was believed to help the Spanish when they fought the Indians, and on my leg is painted Father Junipero Serra carrying Carmel Mission in his arms, with the rest of the missions scattered as Tattoos across my body. I mean to suggest that I am embodying the idea or spirit of both Junipero Serra, a man I believe tried genuinely to do good but who had an ambivalent effect on California history to say the least, and the malign idea of a Saint who kills Indians, both of which were brought to California and are integral to our history.

The man on the floor is a figure who appears in many of my paintings. It is unclear if he has been knocked out by the Serra/St Thomas figure, while also being aided by him.

The woman is the Aztec goddess of Mercy, Tlazolteotl. Her symbol was her black mouth. Her name literally means “Filth Eater.” In Aztec culture, you had one opportunity to confess your sins in your life, and when you did so, Tlazolteotl ate them and released you from their burden. I was thinking of her as being sort of the referee.

And in the background, to the far right, you see Pomponio, another ambivalent figure, but one whom I prefer to think of as a resistance fighter.Comment:  I didn't expect to find a reference to Pomponio in anything other than a history book, but here he is in pop art.

This piece is a bit like the art of Enrique Chagoya, who also uses Latino and Indian images to depict the clash of cultures. It's interesting even if I don't quite understand it.

Below:  "La Caida," 2008. Pastel and Gold Leaf on Paper. 56×38 inches. ("La Caida" means "The Fall"--as in the collapse or downfall.)

The first Captain America

More on the Comic Art Indigène exhibit now appearing at the NMAI in Washington, DC:

Native comic artists inspire, amaze and amuseIn 1940, two young Jewish Americans who were outraged about Nazi atrocities created a comic-book icon, Captain America.

Captain America carries a red-white-and-blue shield, but it is an older heroic figure that introduces Comic Art Indigène, an exhibition that runs until May 31 at the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian.

This hero, also bearing a red-white-and-blue shield with stripes reminiscent of the American flag, was drawn 800 years ago by an unknown Pueblo artist on the wall of a cave in what is now Utah.

"The first time I saw that pictograph, I immediately drew that comparison between it and Captain America," said Tony Chavarria, the curator of ethnology at the Museum of Indian Arts & Culture in Santa Fe, N.M. "It comes from a time of drought and mass exodus of the Pueblo peoples from the Four Corners region. Like Captain America, it became an icon."Comment:  For more on Captain America and Indians, see Captain America Meets Geronimo and Black Crow to Replace Captain America? For more on the subject in general, see Comic Books Featuring Indians.

"Gooks" assaulted with BBs, urine

Some thoughts from correspondent Melvin Martin on an incident in the news:I have written about Rapid City, South Dakota, on this blog before, and I have remarked that Rapid City has to be THE worst place for anti-Indian racism in all of America. The following article appeared on the Rapid City Journal's website (www.rapidcityjournal.com):Juveniles accused of hate crime after shooting BB gun, throwing urine at Native Americans

Youths facing felony chargesFour juveniles are accused of a hate crime after they fired a BB gun pistol at several Native Americans and threw urine at others Tuesday.

Ranging in age from 12-17, the juveniles, all whom were white, were riding in a brown car when they attacked at least two groups of Native Americans and a lone Native American man.

Rapid City Police Chief Steve Allender says the juveniles targeted people based upon their location, appearance and race.

"It's as sickening as it is shocking," Allender said.

Not only did the youths attack adults, they also targeted a group of juveniles between the ages of 10 and 14.

Rapid City Police suspect that more individuals were attacked by the group.Martin continues with his story:I was born in Rapid City in the ‘50s (I am an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe; close to “full-blooded”) and left there when I was 18 to enlist in the U.S. Army in 1971.

One morning in December of 1971, after having completed basic training at Fort Polk, Louisiana and three weeks of additional training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, (at which time I was granted Christmas leave) I was waiting for a cab at the old Continental Trailways bus station in downtown Rapid City (in my winter green uniform) when a carload of cowboys and a few girls drove by, called me a “red skinned nigger,” and threw a brown paper bag at me that exploded against the wall behind my head (the bag contained a large amount of feces).

They then drove off at a fairly high rate of speed, with three of the vehicle’s occupants wagging their tongues at me and flipping me off through the rear window.

From the time that I last lived in Rapid City to when I left (an 11-year period, from 1995-2007, minus a year in New York) I lived and worked downtown where I walked to and from work, and not a day went by that I was not glared at and/or rudely stared at by passing non-Indian motorists. And perhaps two to three times a week a carload of punks would either yell out some kind of racial epithet as they passed me on the street or loudly honk their horns at me. Several times I was referred to as a “wetback” and once I was even called a “fucking gook!” by a carload of drunken college guys as I was on my way to the public library on a Saturday afternoon. I voluntarily joined the army during the Vietnam conflict, so being called a “gook” had a special resonance with me.

My physical appearance during this period can best be described as “business professional” as I worked in sales and marketing. I have always worn my hair short and I am clean-shaven--I make this observation to point out that I was never a dirty street wino or some kind of a scruffy, homeless denizen of the alleyways that the majority of whites in Rapid City believe most Indian males there to be. Not to say that these particular individuals deserve to be harassed, but I was to my way of thinking just another U.S. citizen going about his daily routines.

I lost track of the number of Indian people who complained to me over the years of the verbal harassment they received simply walking down the street in that town, but a conservative estimate goes into at least several hundred.

I wish that there was some way that Rapid City could at last be revealed to all of the nation and the rest of the world for the racist dung heap that it is. For the past 14 years I have actively fought alone against the mistreatment of Indian people not only in South Dakota, but throughout the country wherever incidents like this and worse have occurred, and in closing I am asking all who read this posting to tell others about it.

Pilamaya, (“Thank you”)
Melvin Martin
Oglala Lakota NationComment:  People have claimed that Obama's election signals the end of racism. Once again, the evidence proves this claim false.

For my response to Martin's essay, see Stereotypes Trigger Hate Crimes. For more on the subject, see Hate Abounds in "Post-Racial" America, Racism Lives in ObamAmerica, and The Post-Racial, Post-Indian Era?

Iron Eyes in Frost/Nixon

In Frost/Nixon, the PSA featuring Iron Eyes Cody as the crying Indian appears on a TV screen for a couple seconds. This gives me an excuse to say I just saw Frost/Nixon.



The movie did a fine job of making the preparations for a TV special into a real drama. It would've been better except for the over-the-top late-night call before the last interview. And for Nixon's sudden transformation from intellectual boxer into punch-drunk has-been.

Apparently the final confrontation was completely phony. In fact, many of the movie's key aspects were phony. I guess the only way they could make the story dramatic was to falsify it.

Nixon v Frost:  The true story of what really happened when a British journalist bullied a TV confession out of a disgraced ex-President

Frost/Nixon:  A Dishonorable Distortion of History

Film Review:  Frost/Nixon

Frost/Nixon’s Self-Congratulatory Revisionism

By now you should know my position on portraying history accurately. If you can't make a true story interesting without falsifying it, then don't. Make up a story instead.

Frost/Nixon would've worked just as well--maybe better--if it were about a fictional journalist interviewing a fictional president. The subject could've been the president's decision to invade a Middle East country based on trumped-up intelligence after a terrorist act it didn't commit. The goal could've been to get the president to admit he was wrong, the invasion wasn't justified, and he committed crimes in his zeal for vengeance.

Frost/Nixon does get a bonus point for using my hometown of Palos Verdes as a stand-in for San Clemente. Of course, it was totally obvious to anyone who's been to Palos Verdes or San Clemente.

Images:  Archival & CinematicOne of the expectations in a play-to-film transition is an opening up of the theatrical space to a more cinematic canvas. A scene during a lunch meeting with Nixon and his agent, Swifty Lazar, was such an opportunity. A home in Palos Verdes, standing in for La Casa Pacifica, offered a spectacular ocean view, and seemed a much more cinematic choice than the dining room that was scripted.Except for his crimes against the Constitution, Nixon wasn't a bad president. As I've noted before, he was a great president for Indians. For more on the subject, see "Dickie, Don't Forget the Indians," Why Nixon Did It, and Best President for Indians--Ever.

Rob's rating:  8.0 of 10. (The first 3/4 of the movie was more like an 8.5.)

Obama portrait puts Echo-Hawk on map

Echo-Hawk, the artistEcho-Hawk, 33, has long been expressing himself through painting and drawing, but it was last August, during the Democratic National Convention in Denver, that his work began to attract an even larger nationwide Native following.

The Pawnee and Yakama tribal member was invited to attend an Aug. 27 event celebrating Native contributions to the Democratic Party. There, he was asked to create a unique live painting, with dozens of attendees watching over him as he worked.The result:In the end, Echo-Hawk’s portrayal somehow made Obama seem like both a revolutionary warrior and a peaceful listener.

Just as artist Shepard Fairey was able to express the feelings of the change movement by creating a distinctive representation of Obama in a much celebrated poster with the block words “Hope” imprinted at the bottom, Echo-Hawk was sending a message: Obama should be the clear choice for Natives. He was a man who would understand. He was a man who would listen.

Soon, the painting began getting attention throughout Indian country; YouTube videos were made about its creation; and it received plenty of tribal attention in the Denver region.More on Echo-Hawk:“I get inspired and motivated to do my art from injustice in Indian country,” Echo-Hawk said in a recent interview posted on YouTube. “There are a great number of atrocities that our people faced throughout the past 500 years. My fuel for my art comes from how those atrocities affect us today as Americans, as Native Americans.”

Echo-Hawk believes art is a pathway to re-educating the public and correcting stereotypes about Native Americans.

“Through art, that can be achieved,” Echo-Hawk said. “It can set sparks off in people’s minds, in people’s hearts, and inspire them to want to look at these issues and do something about it.”Comment:  I thought Echo-Hawk was pretty well known before he did this portrait. But if it finally put him on the map, great.

As you may recall, I met Echo-Hawk at an International Institute for Indigenous Resource Management roundtable in November 2004. We were the only two "creative" people in a roomful of scientists, managers, and educators. Since then we've been pen-pals.

For more on the subject, see:

Bunky's Native icons
Bunky paints live!
NVision multimedia artists
Native icons live on

Infanticide video is fake

Amazon Indian infanticide video said inciting hateA video made with the help of U.S. missionaries and depicting Amazon Indians burying children alive is "faked" and inciting racial hatred, a group campaigning for tribal rights said on Thursday.

The short video, "Hakani," has been watched more than 350,000 times on the YouTube video-sharing website.

It depicts scenes of Indians in an isolated forest village digging graves and burying several live children in them. The "Hakani" campaign also has a website and a group on networking site Facebook with more than 13,000 members.

London-based Survival International said in a statement the film is "faked, that the earth covering the children's faces is actually chocolate cake, and that the film's claim that infanticide among Brazilian Indians is widespread is false."

"People are being taught to hate Indians, even wish them dead," said Survival's director, Stephen Corry.Comment:  For the previous controversy involving an Amazon tribe, see "Lost" Tribe Not Lost After All. For more on the "good work" of missionaries, see Christians vs. Uncontacted Tribes. For more on hating Indians, see "Gooks" Assaulted with BBs, Urine.

Below:  Stereotypical Amazon Indians who menace white people and probably kill babies.

Anti-Illiniwek sign damaged

Damage to art outside Native American House valued at $10,000A sign doubling as part of the "Beyond the Chief" exhibit outside of the Native American Studies building was damaged between Sunday evening and Monday afternoon.

The sign is valued at $10,000, according to the University police report. No arrests or citations have been issued in connection with the damage.

University police said it appeared as if someone had bent the sign, possibly using a shoulder.

The sign is a part of an exhibit by HOCK E AYE VI Edgar Heap of Birds and was designed to "remind the campus community whose land they occupy", according to the Native American House Web site. The signs represent 12 different indigenous peoples with homelands in Illinois.Comment:  I'd bet money that the person who damaged the sign is a disgruntled Chief Illiniwek fan. I take this as further evidence that mascot lovers have no respect for real Indians.

For more on the subject, see Team Names and Mascots.

Blame Indians for Jason

More Information About Jason (Friday the 13th)In December 2006, DC Comics imprint Wildstorm began publishing new comic books about Jason Voorhees under the Friday the 13th moniker. The first set was a six-issue miniseries. The miniseries involves Jason's return to Camp Crystal Lake, which is being renovated by a group teenagers in preparation for its reopening as a tourist attraction. The series depicts various paranormal phenomena occurring at Crystal Lake, and also states that Jason's actions are driven by the vengeful spirits of a Native American tribe wiped out on the lake by fur traders sometime in the 1800s.Comment:  No doubt the vengeful spirits came from an Indian burial ground. Ho-hum, more stereotypes.

For more on the subject, see Native Things That Go Bump in the Night and Comic Books Featuring Indians.

Chumash = "fluffy indigenous kittens"?

One bit in the Pangs episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer deserves a separate entry. According to Debbie Reese, it goes like this:Enter Willow with a pile of books about the Chumash and "atrocities." She reads about the Chumash, tells Willow and Giles that the Chumash were "fluffy indigenous kittens until we came along" and did awful things.In response to this, a woman named Deborah A. Miranda wrote:I saw this episode because my partner taped it for me, knowing I'd be interested. I have to say, I found it more than offensive; as a Chumash/Esselen person, it was also laughable. ... By the way--the Chumash were far from "fluffy little kittens." ... See Pomponio, Toypurina, Estanislao, and the killing of Padre Luis Jayme...What is Miranda saying...that the Chumash were warriors just like the stereotypical Plains Indians? If so, that would be news to me.

No disrespect to an actual Chumash Indian, who surely knows much more than I do. But here's what sources say about the Chumash (emphasis added):

The Chumash:  A California Case StudyThe Chumash were generally peaceful and only rarely practiced warfare. Hostilities were limited mostly to internal conflict between confederations and did not usually involve neighboring groups.ChumashThey were very important because you could not travel far north/south in California without encountering their territory, and they were a highly intelligent and developed peoples; both prosperous and peaceful.The ChumashFrom a thriving, happy and peaceful people of some 20,000 in the mid-1700's the Chumash were nearly extinct by 1900.Travel Tales:  Preserving the Chumash CultureOther docents explain uses of the bone and rock tools exhibited in the museum and talk about the lifestyle of the Chumash, a peaceful people who lived not only on some of the Channel Islands off the coast of Ventura, but on a variety of terrain stretching from San Luis Obispo along the coast to Malibu, inland to the Thousand Oaks area and Encino, north to Valencia and east to Palmdale.In short, let's not be defensive about a tribe not known for its warriors. "Peaceful" doesn't mean weak or kittenish except in the minds of idiots.

What about the examples?

Since I couldn't tell you anything about Miranda's four examples, I thought I'd better look them up. Here's what I found:

José Pomponio LupugeymPomponio was a Coast Miwok from Bolinas, chief of a group of outlaws who called themselves Los Insurgentes and fought against Mexican rule.So...not Chumash. Not prone to violence except as a defense against European conquest.

ToypurinaToypurina was a Tongva medicine woman who opposed the rule of Spanish missionaries in California, and led an unsuccessful rebellion against them.

"On the night of the attack, the Indians came to the mission armed with bows and arrows. Toypurina came to the mission unarmed but with the intent of encouraging the men to have the will to fight." (Hackel 2003) Toypurina and the other three men leading the attack were captured, tried, and punished.

A fictional character sharing her name is the mother of Diego de la Vega in Isabel Allende's 2005 novel, "Zorro."So...not Chumash. Not prone to violence except as a defense against European conquest. Not a success as a "warrior."

EstanislaoEstanislao (ca. 1798–1838) was a member of the Yokut people, Native Americans of northern and central California.

[He and 400 followers] began raiding the Missions San Jose, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz and Mexican settlers in the area around the Laquisimas River. ... His raids were characterized as sudden, usually involving a trap, and ending with no loss of life, and he would sometimes use his sword to carve his initial, "S," authenticating his handiwork.

There are many Californians who believe that Estanislao was the real Zorro.So...not Chumash. Not prone to violence except as a defense against European conquest. Specifically acted to avoid killing people.

Mission San Diego de AlcalaSan Diego de Alcalá was the only of the 21 Missions to be attacked by the Native Americans. On November 5, 1775, as many as 600 Indians descended upon the mission after midnight where Padre Luis Jayme, Padre Vincente Fuster and nine other individuals were asleep. What perhaps began as a raid on the mission for clothing and goods quickly developed into an open attack that sought to destroy the mission.Book Review:  Mission Memoirs: A Collection of Photographs, Illustrations, and Twentieth-century Reflections on California's PastAt Mission San Diego he describes in a note that Padre Luís Jayme "was brutally murdered during an Indian attack (p. 12)." That is certainly the Franciscan view. Readers of this journal familiar with Richard Carrico's article ["Sociopolitical Aspects of the 1775 Revolt at Mission San Diego de Alcalá: An Ethnohistorical Approach," Journal of San Diego History 43 (Summer, 1997)] know that Kumeyaay and Tipai Indians from at least fifteen villages participated in the sacking of the mission and through it rationally expressed their rejection of Spanish occupation with its accompanying thefts, rapes, transmission of disease and threat of forced imprisonment.So...not Chumash. Not prone to violence except as a defense against European conquest. Not planning to kill but caught up in the heat of the moment.

Any questions? As I indicated above, I wouldn't apologize if my people didn't embrace war as a way of life. I'd apologize if they did.

Conclusion

Chumash Indians did accompany Estanislao on some of his non-lethal raids. I wouldn't be surprised if there were examples of their fighting and killing the Spaniards who oppressed them. But Miranda hasn't provided any evidence of this.

On the fluffy kitten/man-eating tiger scale, I'd have to say the Chumash were closer to kittens than tigers. To continue the strained analogy, I'd say they were like cats who are content to mind their own business but will scratch your eyes out if you molest them. As someone who prefers cats to dogs, I don't consider that a bad place to be.

Anyway, I trust you see the point of this posting. It's wrong to claim all Indians--even all California Indians--are the same. It's wrong to claim they all fit the stereotypical "warrior" mold. They aren't and they don't.

Incidentally, some of these Indians may be the same ones "honored" by the Carpinteria Warriors. As we've just seen, they don't fit the stereotypical "warrior" mold. This is another reason why the school's mascot is stupid and racist. It presumes that all (California) Indians were warriors--i.e., fighters and killers--when they weren't.

Below:  The peaceful Chumash.

How to return the Indians' land

Ward Churchill has argued that 1) the US should give the Indians' land back and 2) the Indian nations on this land would protect the non-Native residents' rights. He then explains how the land return could work.

I Am Indigenist

Notes on the Ideology of the Fourth World

By Ward ChurchillAlong about 1980, two Rutgers University professors, Frank and Deborah Popper, undertook a comprehensive study of land-use patterns and economy in the Great Plains region. What they discovered is that 110 counties—one quarter of all the counties in the entire Plains region falling within the western portions of the states of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, as well as eastern Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico—have been fiscally insolvent since the moment they were taken from native people a century or more ago.

This is an area of about 140,000 square miles, inhabited by a widely dispersed non-Indian population of only around 400,000 attempting to maintain school districts, police and fire departments, road beds and all the other basic accoutrements of "modern life" on the negligible incomes which can be eked from cattle grazing and wheat farming on land which is patently unsuited for both enterprises. The Poppers found that without considerable federal subsidy each and every year none of these counties would ever have been "viable." Nor, on the face of it, will any of them ever be. Bluntly put, the pretense of bringing Euroamerican "civilization" to the Plains represents nothing more than a massive economic burden on the rest of the United States.

What the Poppers proposed on the basis of these findings is that the government cut its perpetual losses by buying out the individual landholdings within the target counties and converting them into open space wildlife sanctuaries known as "Buffalo Commons." The whole area would in effect be turned back to the bison which were very nearly exterminated by Phil Sheridan's buffalo hunters back in the nineteenth century as a means of starving "recalcitrant" Indians into submission. The result would, they argue, be both environmentally and economically beneficial to the nation as a whole.

It is instructive that such thinking has gained increasing credibility and support from Indians and non-Indians alike, beginning in the second half of the 1980s. Another chuckle here: Indians have been trying to tell non-Indians that this would be the outcome of fencing in the Plains ever since 1850 or so, but some folks have a real hard time catching on. Anyway, it is entirely possible that we will see some actual motion in this direction over the next few years.

So, let us take the Poppers' idea to its next logical step. There are another hundred or so economically marginal counties adjoining the "perpetual red ink" counties already identified. These do not represent an actual drain on the U.S. economy, but they do not contribute much either. They could be "written off" and lumped into the Buffalo Commons with no one feeling any ill effects whatsoever. Now add in adjacent areas like the national grasslands in Wyoming, the national forest and parklands in the Black Hills, extraneous military reservations like Ellsworth Air Force Base, and existing Indian reservations. This would be a huge territory lying east of Denver, west of Lawrence, Kansas, and extending from the Canadian border to southern Texas, all of it "outside the loop" of U.S. business as usual. The bulk of this area is unceded territory owned by the Lakota, Pawnee, Arikara, Hidatsa, Crow, Shoshone, Assiniboine, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa, Comanche, Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache nations. There would be little cost to the United States, and virtually no arbitrary dispossession or dislocation of non-Indians if the entire Commons were restored to these peoples. Further, it would establish a concrete basis from which genuine expressions of indigenous self-determination could begin to reemerge on this continent, allowing the indigenous nations involved to begin the process of reconstituting themselves socially and politically and to recreate their traditional economies in ways that make contemporary sense. This would provide alternative socioeconomic models for possible adaptation by non-Indians and alleviate a range of considerable costs to the public treasury incurred by keeping the Indians in question in a state of abject and permanent dependency.

Critics will undoubtedly pounce upon the fact that an appreciable portion of the Buffalo Commons area I have sketched out—perhaps a million acres or so—lies outside the boundaries of unceded territory. That is the basis for the sorts of multilateral negotiations between the United States and indigenous nations I mentioned earlier. This land will need to be "charged off" in some fashion against unceded land elsewhere and in such a way as to bring other native peoples into the mix. The Poncas, Omahas, and Osages, whose traditional territories fall within the area in question, come immediately to mind, but this would extend as well to all native peoples willing to exchange land claims somewhere else for actual acreage in this locale. The idea is to consolidate a distinct indigenous territory while providing a definable landbase to as many different Indian nations as possible in the process.
Comment:  This idea is much grander in scope than Russell Means's Republic of Lakotah and therefore much less likely to happen. In fact, it's guaranteed not to happen. Non-Natives fight tooth-and-nail against tribes when they try to take even small amounts of land into trust. And the courts increasingly have taken the non-Natives' side in land disputes.

So Churchill's proposal is a fun little fantasy. But I find it useful as a talking point.

I can't tell you how many times I've written, "If you don't want to uphold the Indians' treaties, give them their land back." I considered this a mere rhetorical flourish, not a serious argument.

But if someone says, "That's impossible," now I can respond, "No, it's eminently possible. See How to Return the Indians' Land for an explanation of how it could work. You may not like this option, but it's perfectly doable in theory."

In other words, I'm calling you on your attempt to weasel out of the legally binding treaties. If that's your goal, let's discuss the real alternative. If you refuse to discuss either option, you're a hypocrite and a fraud. You don't care about justice or the "rule of law." You're nothing but a spoiled baby who wants it all.

For more of Churchill's thoughts on indigenism, see:

Only one Indian civilization?
Churchill the indigenist

Disclaimer:  Nothing in this posting is meant to support any of Churchill's words or deeds except the words noted here.

Below:  "2000 U.S. population density in persons per sq. mile: yellow 1-4, light green, 5-9." Wow...almost half the US is practically empty. Look at all the land we could give back without affecting most Americans.

"Obscure rule" used on Native team

A correspondent writes:Dear Rob,

I stumbled across this news on Yahoo's page, just moments ago. 'Thot I'd like to know what the "obscure rule was."  Imagine my stunned feelings at the closing remarks by the reporter...despite the fact of a prior "dunked ball heard in the locker room"?
 
This whole attitude, including the writer's remarks of "learning life's hard lessons," smacks of attitudes pervasive in American society, which puts Native Americans into a niche shaped like bitter-root expectations of federal Indian policies. 
 
This issue (and article) sounds like a flippant remark and really frosts my fry bread. Why aren't Mount's questions addressed? SESGThe article in question:

Pregame dunk costs team playoff game

Ray GlierThis was a "teaching" moment that comes up for high school coaches from time to time.

You know, one of those, "We just got a bad break, and that's life, we have to deal with it."

On March 5 in Cut Bank, Mont., Isaiah Martin, a 5-foot-11 senior guard for Harlem's boys basketball team, dunked during warmups for a high school tournament game with Shelby.

There was a shower of glass as the backboard shattered.

Harlem had to forfeit the game.

According to the Montana High School Association, dunking is not allowed in pregame warmups in tournament play. If a backboard is damaged by a pregame dunk, the offending school must forfeit. The rule was put in 10 years ago.Here's another article on the subject. Read both articles to get the full story.

Backboard, Harlem's title hopes shattered

Comment:  The "obscure rule" is presumably that breaking a backboard while dunking during pregame warmups is a forfeit.

Several critics of Coach Mount focused on this passage:Mount said he told his team no dunking in pregame warmups, but when he got to the tournament there were other teams dunking in pregame. He told his kids it was OK.I read this as Mount stating his wishes because he didn't want his kids showboating or whatever. Not as Mount knowing the association banned dunking during pregame warmups but deciding to let his kids do it anyway.

If he knowingly let his kids break the rule, that's a different story. Then we'd have to get into what the penalty is for dunking during pregame warmups and why Mount chose to risk it.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Mount didn't know there was a rule against dunking during warmups. It's more interesting to discuss it that way.

Forfeit = "on-the-job training"?

As for the article's final line:His team's forfeit was just some more real-life, on-the-job training.I suspect writer Ray Glier was trying to be sympathetic with this line. He probably was thinking something like, "Poor kids...getting some real-life, on-the-job training they didn't need or deserve."

The article does note some of Mount's questions about the rule's implementation and the previous dunk. But you're right, SESG...the final impression left by the article is that you have to accept adversity and there's nothing you can do about it.

I'm not sure Glier could've gone into more depth without losing his journalistic objectivity. That's what bloggers like me are for. <g> But if I were Mount, I certainly wouldn't have told the kids just to accept it. I would've asked a lot of questions and told the kids not to accept it unless there was no other choice.

Among the questions to be asked: How uniformly is the rule applied? Are there any exceptions to its application? Why is the penalty worse for a pregame dunk than a game dunk? Why penalize the kids, especially if they didn't know the rule? Is it possible to waive the penalty? How about penalizing the school by forcing it to buy a new backboard but letting the kids play?

Penalize coach, not kids

If Mount knew there was a pregame ban on dunking, how about penalizing him for it? Kick him out and let the assistant coach lead the team a la Hoosiers. Really, you should think hard about penalizing the kids unless they knew there was a rule against dunking and they knowingly violated it.

If it were me, I might have "accepted" the forfeit after I threatened to go to the media and online and protest how "my kids" were being hurt by an unfair and arbitrary rule. Let the tournament share the suffering if it's into making people suffer. I suspect that would've produced results. If it didn't, then I would've told the kids about how life is unfair.

Again, if Mount knowingly violated the rules, the situation would be different. Then the lesson would be, "Your coach is an idiot who really screwed up and let you down." And not, "Life is tough and you have to roll with the punches."

Again, we're assuming Mount didn't knowingly violate the rules. In that case, it's wise to remember what Captain Kirk proved in the Kobayashi Maru test. You rarely if ever have to accept a no-win situation. If Indians such as Tecumseh, Crazy Horse, or Geronimo were in the same position, I suspect they'd agree.

Excerpts from American Indian Contributions

In the next few weeks and months I'll be posting excerpts from American Indian Contributions. I'll try not to waste time on the discoveries and inventions you already know (or should know). For instance, agriculture, medicine, astronomy, writing, pyramids, canoes, ball games, hammocks, toboggans, sunglasses, etc., etc.

No, I'll try to focus on the discoveries and inventions you probably don't know about. In other words, the discoveries and inventions *I* didn't know about until I read American Indian Contributions. I hope this series will be as educational and eye-opening for you as it is for me.

A couple of ground rules from the book's preface:

1) It doesn't matter if a non-Native culture discovered or invented something first. American Indian Contributions shows that Natives had the knowledge and skills to produce thousands of amazing achievements. Whether they did something first or not doesn't change the fact of the achievement. As long as Natives achieved something independently, without outside help, they get credit for it.

Besides, most of the non-Native "firsts" came about because of flukes of biology or geography. Jared Diamond explained why in his groundbreaking Guns, Germs, and Steel (another book you should read). Non-Native cultures weren't superior, they were lucky.

2) It doesn't matter if a discovery or invention came to us from a non-Native culture rather than a Native culture. Again, how "important" or influential an achievement was doesn't change the fact of the achievement. The ability to disseminate an achievement, like the ability to disseminate a disease, is separate from the achievement itself.

Typically, discoveries or inventions have come to us (i.e., modern-day Americans) from the Fertile Crescent through Greece or Rome to Western Europe and across the Atlantic. And...so? Europeans had the advantages mentioned above, and they imposed these advantages on the rest of the world through their imperialist conquests. If they hadn't invaded the Americas, we'd be crediting Natives rather than non-Natives for many of these achievements.

With these caveats in mind, enjoy!

Below:  The ball court at Chichén Itzá.

Miles does Exiles

Art of The ExilesThis past Friday, artist and skateboard maker Douglas Miles of Apache Skateboards was in town at the Artist Gallery to unveil a new series of pieces inspired by "The Exiles"--Kent Mackenzie's recently re-released 1961 film about the lives of Native Americans in Downtown Los Angeles.

Miles hails from the same Apache reservation in San Carlos, Arizona as the film's star, and the subject of a recent LA Weekly feature, Yvonne Walker. With the energy generated from the film, Miles is attempting launch a new wave of contemporary native pop art and culture--that's respectful of traditional Indian artistic elements, but isn't bound by them.Comment:  Follow the link to see more of Miles's artwork.

For more on the subject, see The Exiles Skateboards.

Warrior stereotypes won't die

Carpinteria to retain most Native American imageryMost of the Native American imagery at Carpinteria High School will stay put, the school district’s Board of Trustees ruled last night at a charged meeting attended by hundreds of people.

With a divisive 3-2 vote, symbolic of the rift that has formed in the community over the last year on this issue, the board chose to rid the school of two Native American images despite a recommendation from a 15-person committee to abolish or alter six of the school’s most prominent Native American displays.

While one side of the room greeted the vote with applause, the other solemnly filed out from the high school gymnasium, where a drum circle, complete with chanting and incense burning was held.

Eli Matisz Cordero, a 16-year-old Carpinteria High School student who first questioned the appropriateness of the imagery a year ago, vowed to continue his fight to wipe the school clean of images he considers signs of blatant racism.Carpinteria board votes to retain Native American images as part of school regalia

Hundreds attend the special meeting at the city's high school, home of the Warriors since 1928. The issue had sparked claims of racism and political correctness run amok.Soon to be gone are the glowering red caricatures on athletic patches and a cartoon-like Indian head profile on floor mats. But the board rejected recommendations by an advisory committee to remove the sculpture of a Plains Indian chief in the parking lot, or to purge the district's logo of a canoe and arrowheads, or to change or eliminate other symbols.

Echoing controversies that have rocked schools across the U.S. for decades, the debate in Carpinteria has been heated, with accusations of racism, on the one hand, and political correctness run amok on the other.

One after another, residents trooped to the microphone Tuesday night to say that the array of images were meant to honor native Americans, not demean them.Comment:  Anti-mascot activists have addressed the so-called "honor" argument a thousand times. For one example, see Smashing People:  The "Honor" of Being an Athlete.



With all the education and activism going on, Carpineteria's people can't become more ignorant than they are now. They can only become less ignorant. So these stereotypes will go away eventually. It's inevitable.

If nothing else, the next generation will be more openminded and understanding than this one is. But let's hope it doesn't take that long.

Meanwhile, everyone should continue their efforts. Those of us who don't live in Carpinteria can create Facebook groups, upload videos to YouTube, and post articles and blog entries. Let's aim to associate the Carpinteria Warriors with racism and stereotyping in people's minds. In fact, when people search for "Carpinteria Warriors," let's hope the first item they find says "Carpinteria Warriors are racist."

For more on the subject, see Mascot Foes Receive Death Threats and Team Names and Mascots.

Below:  Carpinteria High School, home of the racists.

Note that these Plains Indian images have nothing to do with the Chumash or other California Indians. They're pure stereotypes.

As always, imagine the outcry if you replaced the Indian "warriors" with stereotypical African warriors. The images would be gone within a week of the first protest. But the racist citizens of Carpinteria think nothing of perpetuating this "honor" for decades.

"Slanties" based on snow goggles

The Racialicious blog brings a product with a racist name--Slanties--to our attention.

slantiesslanties are based on ancient Inuit eyewear. Each pair of slanties is handcrafted. Our light, durable finish shows off the natural wood grain. slanties are engineered to be sturdy and reliable, and each pair is reinforced with a layer of fiberglass. If cared for correctly, your slanties will last for 800 years. Wear slanties on the beach as functional sunglasses. Wear slanties to the club. Wear slanties to visit your grandparents, they’ll love them too. We hope that each pair will bring you great happiness.Some background on the Inuit eyewear:

Spectacle 20/20In the Arctic, the sun shines low on the horizon twenty-four hours a day for nearly 190 days during the summer. Snow blindness occurs when the sunlight reflecting off the surface of the snow combines with the light angled directly into the eyes to burn the retina. For the Inuit, snow blindness hindered hunting, travel, and trade. The painful condition could last for days.

According to the Canada’s National History Society, the Inuit constructed eyewear from caribou antlers, bone, leather or wood. Carved to fit the natural curve of the face, with a divot for the bridge of the nose and two slits for the eyes, it was held in place with sinew, the first snow goggles date back to the Thule Inuit, two thousand years ago. The slits allowed them to see, but blocked enough light to prevent snow blindness. As technology advanced, this Inuit design gradually evolved into the sunglasses and protective eyewear of today.Some comments on Slanties from Racialicious:Leandra wrote:

What is wrong with people??? Who thought this was a good idea and HOW?

Fiqah wrote:

You know what hurts most about this?

A whole buncha people had to drop the cultural-awareness/common sense ball for this product to become a reality. That’s a LOTTA racism at product development meetings, working lunches, happy hours, etc.

Anlina wrote:

Not only is it incredibly racist, it’s not even descriptive…there’s nothing “slanted” about these--it’s all parallel lines. It’s pretty bad when the *only* reasonable explanation for a product name is a racist stereotype. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?Comment:  Stupid no. 1: Using a stereotype from the wrong culture. (Asian, not Inuit.)

Stupid no. 2: Using a stereotype that doesn't match the product. (The slits aren't slanted.)

Don't the Inuit have enough stereotypes without having to borrow a stereotype about Asians? Sheesh. If I were an Inuk, I don't know if I'd be mad or glad that some stupid marketer can't even stereotype me correctly.

If you want a stereotypical name from the right culture, how about Icies ("I see" or "eye-see")? Or Eye-Glues (like igloos)? Better yet, how about something nonstereotypical like Slitties or Snowgogs?

Comment:  For more on the subject, see Eskimos: The Ultimate Aborigines.

US defaulted on land leases

Ward Churchill claims Indian nations have the right to claim their land back:

I Am Indigenist

Notes on the Ideology of the Fourth World

By Ward Churchill[T]he purpose of the treaties, from the U.S. point of view, was to serve as real estate documents through which the United States acquired legal title to specified portions of North America from the indigenous nations it was thereby acknowledging already owned it.

From the viewpoint of the indigenous nations, of course, these treaties served other purposes: the securing of permanently guaranteed borders to what remained of their national territories, assurance of the continuation of their ongoing self-governance, trade and military alliances, and so forth. The treaty relationships were invariably reciprocal in nature: Indians ceded certain portions of their land to the United States, and the United States incurred certain obligations in exchange. Even at that, there were seldom any outright sales of land by Indian nations to the United States. Rather, the federal obligations incurred were usually couched in terms of perpetuity. The arrangements were set up by the Indians so that, as long as the United States honored its end of the bargains, it would have the right to occupy and use defined portions of Indian land. In this sense, the treaties more nearly resemble rental or leasing instruments than actual deeds. And what happens under Anglo-Saxon common law when a tenant violates the provisions of a rental agreement?

The point here is that the United States has long since defaulted on its responsibilities under every single treaty obligation it ever incurred with regard to Indians. There is really no dispute about this. In fact, there is even a Supreme Court opinion, the 1903 Lonewolf case, in which the good "Justices" held that the United States enjoyed a "right" to disregard any treaty obligation to Indians it found inconvenient, but that the remaining treaty provisions continued to be binding upon the Indians. This was, the high court said, because the United States was the stronger of the nations involved and thus wielded "plenary" power—this simply means full power—over the affairs of the weaker indigenous nations. Therefore, the court felt itself free to unilaterally "interpret" each treaty as a bill of sale rather than a rental agreement.

Stripped of its fancy legal language, the Supreme Court's position was (and remains) astonishingly crude. There is an old adage that "possession is nine-tenths of the law." Well, in this case the court went a bit further, arguing that possession was all of the law. Further, the highest court in the land went on record boldly arguing that, where Indian property rights are concerned, might, and might alone, makes right. The United States held the power to simply take Indian land, they said, and therefore it had the "right" to do so. This is precisely what the nazis argued only thirty years later, and the United States had the unmitigated audacity to profess outrage and shock that Germany was so blatantly transgressing against elementary standards of international law and the most basic requirements of human decency.Comment:  For more of Churchill's thoughts on indigenism, see:

No prejudice among Indians?
Only one Indian civilization?
Churchill the indigenist

Disclaimer:  Nothing in this posting is meant to support any of Churchill's words or deeds except the words noted here.

Chiefs named for Scout "chief"

Correspondent DMarks notes how the Kansas City Chiefs football team got its name. From Wikipedia:The Kansas City Chiefs are named in honor of "Chief" H. Roe Bartle, who earned that nickname from his position as the Chief of Tribe of Mic-O-Say. He helped bring the NFL to Kansas City during the time that he was Mayor.His comment:I wonder if it makes it any worse that the Chiefs were not named after actual Indians, but some sort of play-Indian wannabe?Comment:  Yes, I'd say that makes it worse. The Chiefs can't claim they named the team to honor real Indians. The Chiefs name is a second-degree stereotype: a stereotype of a stereotype.

Fortunately, the Chiefs don't use a stereotypical chief logo, or this would be really bad. I think the only stereotypes they use are the arrowhead logo and Arrowhead Stadium. These aren't good, since they imply Indians still live in the Stone Age, but they're relatively minor.



Of course, the image below was the Chiefs' primary logo from 1963-1971, according to one website. It shows what was going through the owner's mind when he named the team. An Indian chief as a loincloth-wearing, tomahawk-waving savage.

You can practically trace the history of the chief stereotype from this example. "Chief" Bartle got the stereotype from an old Western movie or a product label, or perhaps directly from a Wild West show. The Kansas City Chiefs got the stereotype from "Chief" Bartle. Now some guy who was a Chiefs fan as a boy is repeating the stereotype in TV commercials, cartoons, or comic books.

For more on the subject, see Team Names and Mascots.

Sports arena to be named "Viejas"

SDSU's Cox Arena to be called 'Viejas'

Casino-owning tribe's deal draws criticism San Diego State University has sold the naming rights of its sports arena to the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, which operates a casino, an outlet center and other businesses at its reservation 22 miles east of campus.

Critics say the deal, apparently a first in the nation for a university, could cross a line and hurt students, who are particularly vulnerable to gambling problems.

Beginning July 1, the 12,845-seat venue known as Cox Arena will be Viejas Arena. The $6.9 million, 10-year deal includes a proviso against using the word “casino” on signs and advertising or making any reference to gambling.

“We are always paying attention to those issues,” SDSU President Stephen Weber said of the gambling tie. “San Diego State is more than its athletic teams. Viejas is more than its casino.”Comment:  This is a good example of what I've said before: that tribes need better PR. Getting involved in sports and entertainment ventures like this is one way to do it.

For more on the subject, see The Facts About Indian Gaming.

Operation Red Nose

Correspondent Mark Anquoe alerts us to a stereotypical social campaign going on in Italy:Hello Everyone,

Alessandro has been a valuable ally in circulating our struggle in Italy. Can we all take a moment to address this concern? The Italian Government, Minister of Youth and Institute of Health, has a campaign of reducing the consumption of drugs and alcohols in nightclubs--using the racially exaggerated and distorted image of a Native American chief for its logo!

This is a horrible cartoon/caricature of our people. In addition to sending an email of disapproval of this logo with this campaign, can we approach the International Treaty Council regarding this?

Respectfully;
Corine Fairbanks

--- On Fri, 3/6/09, info@nativiamericani.it wrote:

Hi Corine, I want to send the alert about the use, once again, of distorted images of American Indians. This time it is a campaign promoted by Italian Government, Minister of Youth and Institute of Health, addressed to both public and private operators to achieve a total strategy of prevention and risk reduction related to recreational consumption of drug and alcohol in nightclubs. The campaign, entitled "Red nose operation," is represented by the picture of an Indian with his arms crossed and, in line with the name, a big red nose. Please see

Operazione Rosso Naso

For this campaign, the minister Meloni was inspired by a Canadian campaign

Red Nose Operation

Here are the most important parts of my letter that I sent to the Minister (translated in English for you by my Italian friend Stefania):

"The misuse of this stereotype, giving a false, distorted image of this people, kills their culture and dignity and above all it's a shame that a campaign against drug and alcohol is associated to Indians, because this let people think a close relation exists between them. The Minister of Youth should explain why she decided to include American Indians within an initiative that not only make them ridiculous because of that absurd picture, but it perpetuates the racist association of people addicted to alcohol as well! Mrs. Meloni, although you are the youngest minister in the story of Italian republic, only 31 at the time of your election, you should at least know that Native Americans are men, women and children still living in big troubles and, despite the fact they have been strongly bordered in the past or in these type(s) of performance, they are still fighting in order to preserve and protect their culture for their future generations. Minister, your campaign is aimed at young people with suggestions for reducing the use of alcohol and drugs but you are also giving an insulting message for all Native Americans, their children and families.

No, we don't agree at all and we dissociate from this unfortunate idea. Now we would like to propose some considerations: while thinking to young Italians, think even to young Indians who in American schools are struggling to eliminate mascots, logos and pictures abusing their people. Consider that many of them return at home to their families ashamed of being Indians because another culture makes a mockery of them. Imagine how they must be happy knowing that thanks to your engagement, young Italians will make treasure of this worthy John Wayne-show better than they did before, given the absolute indifference and ignorance we feel for this people. Augh dear minister, do you expect young Natives to thank you, do you? We are sure they will not, and being clear, we don't either.

We feel discouraged by the fact that a representative of our government might be so insensitive even if we are accustomed to the stupid, repetitive campaigns representing this kind of Indians! But we don't accept that a minister of our government might support it! Surely the idea that this people do not exist, that they are invisible, that one can do free-talking on them must be really enormous! We don't expect your apologies although for men, women and children so far away from you and our world, it could be necessary and important, after the damage you have done representing them like this.

Publicly and in democratic way, we let more sensible Italians make you understand your mistake by writing gently their point of view. Don't be surprised at emails arriving from overseas because we'll take care of informing Native Americans how they are viewed by our representatives, in the hope that they might teach you a greater respect for them. We don't know whether you'll read this mail or others arriving, but we hope you will take charge of this and talk publicly to your citizens. However we trust you will answer.

Alessandro Profeti, Nativi Americani.it

The Minister has responded and apologized, she write(s) that it was not his intention to involve American Indians with the use of alcohol and drugs, and that the logo with the "Indian Chief" was an attempt to represent a good "Indian chief," although angry, that protect and back at home the Italian youngs. She wrote that he had tried the new images, which could strike the imagination of young Italians: if this is the result of having tried new images, we can cry...you can read the opinion by my readers in the comments to the article in my Blog with the "Translator" plugin in the page of my Blog.

Respectfully
Alessandro Profeti, Italy
Nativi Americani.it
http://www.nativiamericani.itComment:  This chief is a "red" Indian with red warpaint, a red headdress, and a red nose. If he has a name, I'm betting it's Chief Red Nose.

To sum it up, Canada has an anti-drinking campaign that uses a red-nosed reindeer. Italian minister Meloni thought that was a good idea but decided it would work even better with a red-nosed Indian. Apparently she thought the scary-drunk chief would coax more people into sobriety than a happy-go-lucky critter.

Besides the alcohol connection, this chief looks mean and is about 150 years out of date. In short, it's a pure stereotype and a bad idea.

By the way, Mark and Corine are involved in the battle against the Carpinteria Warriors. Corine was an early supporter of PEACE PARTY--a decade before everyone else.

For more Native stereotypes, see the Stereotype of the Month contest.

P.S. I made minor corrections to these e-mails, but I didn't try to fix the slightly fractured English.

Below:  "Chief Red Nose say you no drink'um!"

No prejudice among Indians?

Based on historical antecedents, Ward Churchill claims there'd be no prejudice--no classism, sexism, homophobia, or racism--in a truly sovereign Indian nation.

I Am Indigenist

Notes on the Ideology of the Fourth World

By Ward ChurchillThere is no indication whatsoever that a restoration of indigenous sovereignty in Indian Country would foster class stratification anywhere, least of all in Indian Country. In fact, all indications are that when left to their own devices, indigenous peoples have consistently organized their societies in the most class-free manner. Look to the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) for an example. Look to the Muscogee (Creek) Confederacy. Look to the confederations of the Yaqui and the Lakota, and those pursued and nearly perfected by Pontiac and Tecumseh. They represent the very essence of enlightened egalitarianism and democracy. Every imagined example to the contrary brought forth by even the most arcane anthropologist can be readily offset by a couple of dozen other illustrations along the lines of those I just mentioned.

Would sexism be perpetuated? Ask the Haudenosaunee clan mothers, who continue to assert political leadership in their societies through the present day. Ask Wilma Mankiller, recent head of the Cherokee Nation, a people who were traditionally led by what were called "Beloved Women." Ask a Lakota woman—or man, for that matter—about who owned all real property in traditional society, and what that meant in terms of parity in gender relations. Ask a traditional Navajo grandmother about her social and political role among her people. Women in most traditional native societies not only enjoyed political, social, and economic parity with men, but they also often held a preponderance of power in one or more of these spheres.

Homophobia? Homosexuals of both genders were, and in many settings still are, deeply revered as special or extraordinary, and therefore spiritually significant, within most indigenous North American cultures. The extent to which these realities do not now pertain in native societies is exactly the extent to which Indians have been subordinated to the morés of the invading, dominating culture. Insofar as restoration of Indian land rights is tied directly to the reconstitution of traditional indigenous social, political, and economic modes, one can see where this leads; the Indian arrangements of sex and sexuality accord rather well with the aspirations of feminism and gay rights activism.

That leaves militarism and racism. Taking the last first, there really is no indication of racism in traditional indigenous societies. To the contrary, the record reveals that Indians habitually intermarried between groups and frequently adopted both children and adults from other groups. This occurred in precontact times between Indians, and the practice was broadened to include those of both African and European origin, and ultimately Asian origin as well, once contact occurred. Those who were naturalized by marriage or adoption were considered members of the group, pure and simple. This was always the native view.Comment:  On the one hand, I think this is a gross exaggeration of the reality. It conveniently leaves out the stratified societies of the Aztec, Maya, and Inca. Churchill is clearly doing some cherry-picking among the hundreds of Native cultures. He's choosing examples that support his case and ignoring examples that don't.

And of course Churchill describes the way things were, not the way they are. Today most Indians speak English, live in cities, have jobs, own property, practice Christianity, etc. Most don't live a traditional lifestyle, to put it mildly. For better or worse, they've adopted Western ideas and attitudes.

On the other hand, I think there's a lot of validity to these claims. Native cultures were arguably much more egalitarian than the contemporaneous Western cultures. A return to the Native values of liberty, equality, and brother- and sisterhood would be a good thing. If a Native society were free to develop on its own, it might embrace these values.

For more on the subject, see Indians Gave Us Enlightenment. For more of Churchill's thoughts on indigenism, see:

Only one Indian civilization?
Churchill the indigenist

Disclaimer:  Nothing in this posting is meant to support any of Churchill's words or deeds except the words noted here.

Magical man-child in Australian ad

Maria Colon, the keeper of the NAICA blog, brings an Australian ad campaign to our attention:

Relationship problems?  Go on a Walkabout!!!!Baz Luhrmann deserves to be sucker-punched for making this commercial. Does he have any sense at all? That is a rhetorical question … plus anyone who has seen Australia knows he doesn’t. Actually, this commercial is part of a series of ads made for Australia’s Tourist Board. I’m sure whoever heads up the Aussie Tourist board had a part in the general direction of these commercials, so he or she deserves to be sucker-punched as well. You’re not alone, Bazzie. Taken from Australia.com:

“Sometimes we need to lose ourselves to find what matters most. Australia’s Aboriginal people know as much, going ‘walkabout’ to reconnect with the land and their traditional way of life. For most of us, ‘walkabout’ takes the form of a holiday--a time to re-balance and refresh. It lets us find ourselves when the pressures of daily life have made us lose touch.”You can pretty much gauge the climate of global awareness on any particular subject according to percentage of comments on a related YouTube page. About 90% of comments on the above video’s page went something like this, “This commercial is memorizing and beautiful. I tear up every time. Crazy!” About 5%: “This commercial is super creepy! I’m never going there!” About 3%: “I’m an Aussie and this ad is bloody shithouse!” And then of course the 1 or 2% shaming the irresponsible portrayal of the Australian Aboriginal as a proverb-whispering, loin-cloth sporting medicine manchild, sprinkling healing sand on your relationship problems and tracking mud through your living room.Comment:  I guess I'd fall into the 1-2% shaming category, but there should be a category for reactions such as ho-hum, nothing special, could've been better, etc. Then we could divide that category into shaming and non-shaming subcategories.

My mini-review: The first half of the ad is too dark and murky. Focusing on one stressful relationship and one vacation getaway isn't especially interesting. With quicker cuts Luhrmann could've shown 3-4 stressful relationships and 3-4 vacation getaways. That would've told us more about the variety of ways Australia can soothe troubled souls.

Yes, the Aboriginal part is stereotypical. The concept might've worked with an Aboriginal voiceover only. Perhaps the stressed-out woman could've seen bits of Aboriginal culture in her daily life and realized she needed to embrace indigenous values--i.e., go on a walkabout.

For more on stereotypical TV commercials, see TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Who invented white people?

Here's an excellent explanation of how the concept of race came about:

Who Invented White People?

Gregory JaySince human beings appear to require a sense of identity, and since identity is constructed by defining whom and what you are different from, it may be that the politics of difference will never be erased from human affairs.

That said, why did something called "racial" difference becomes so important in people's sense of their identity? Before the age of exploration, group differences were largely based on language, religion, and geography. The word "race" referred rather loosely to a population group that shared a language, customs, social behaviors, and other cultural characteristics--as in the French race or the Russian race or the Spanish race (differences, we might now call "ethnic" rather than "racial"). As European adventurers, traders, and colonists accelerated their activities in Africa and Asia and the Americas, there emerged a need to create a single large distinction for differentiating between the colonizers and the colonized, or the slave traders and the enslaved. At first, religious distinctions maintained their preeminence, as the Africans and American Indians were dubbed pagans, heathens, barbarians, or savages--that is, as creatures without the benefits of Christian civilization or, perhaps, even as creatures without souls. Efforts to Christianize the Indians and Africans, however, were never separate from efforts to steal their lands or exploit their labor. To justify such practices, Europeans needed a difference greater than religion, for religious justification melted away once the Indian or African converted.

Now the European had always reacted a bit hysterically to the differences of skin color and facial structure between themselves and the populations encountered in Africa, Asia, and the Americas (see, for example, Shakespeare's dramatization of racial conflict in Othello and The Tempest). Beginning in the 1500s, Europeans began to develop what became known as "scientific racism," the attempt to construct a biological rather than cultural definition of race. Biological races were said to predict and determinedthe cultural traits of peoples, so that cultural differences could be "explained" on a "scientific" basis. Scientific racism divided the world's populations into a few large species or groups. By the nineteenth century, race scientists settled on the term "Caucasians," first used as a synonym for Europeans in 1807, probably because the terms association with the Near East and Greece suited white people's desire to see themselves as having originated in the Golden Age of Classical Civilization.Comment:  For more on the subject, see When Did Racism Begin?

Choctaw Bingo, national anthem?

Ron Rosenbaum proposes a new national anthem: a song by James McMurtry, son of Lonesome Dove writer Larry McMurtry.

Choctaw Bingo

A modest proposal for a new national anthem.How shall I describe "Choctaw Bingo"? It's about a family reunion in heavy meth country convened by mean old "Uncle Slayton," who's a kind of malignant Uncle Sam figure for the assembled family members.Here's why Choctaw Bingo is a great metaphor for America today:Now, the Choctaws get their revenue from meth-and-moonshine-addled fools who play Choctaw bingo, which somehow, despite the 750-seat auditorium and "giant video projection screens," doesn't seem a sure route to financial stability. (But just as sure and stable, it turns out, as collateralized mortgage obligations.) The more you look at the history of the Choctaw nation and how the "trail of tears" led to Choctaw bingo, the more a kind of allegory the song becomes, an eloquent distillation of the tragic history of the American empire, which was based on the theft of land the nation was founded on, the murder and the enslavement of the tragic remnant of the original inhabitants, and their sly, delayed revenge (Choctaw bingo). The more you know about the Choctaw "trail of tears," the more you suspect it's no accident that McMurtry chose Choctaw bingo as his emblematic game.

Here's where this song is so amazingly prophetic. Looking at it now, through the lens of the crash, you can see how it envisions the American economy as nothing more than an elaborate Choctaw bingo enterprise, with lots of flashing lights to lure in the unwary and the unlucky, a system that, for all its fancy formulas and talk of risk assignment, is nothing more than a sucker's game. And later in the song, McMurtry explicitly names the scam at the heart of it: subprime mortgages.Comment:  Nice, and perhaps the right anthem for the times. But the economy won't always be in a tailspin. And of course we'd never choose an anthem that impugned America's greatness or touted Indians in any way. Our anthem has to be a pure distillation of our self-aggrandizing self-image.

No, I was on the right track when I proposed my alternative to The Star-Spangled Banner: Victor or Victim:  Our New National Anthem? I still think it's the best choice.

Business summit gives awards

RES 2009 awards outstanding Indian country business leaders, advocatesRon Solimon, the outgoing chairman of NCAIED’s board of directors, presented the Corporate Advocate of the Year Award to Raytheon, one of the major sponsors of RES 2009.

Margo Gray-Proctor, the new chairwoman of NCAIED’s board of directors, presented the American Indian Tribal Leadership Award to Richard Bowers Jr., the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the summit’s other main sponsor.

Actor/musician Litefoot presented Indian Country Today with the Tribal Enterprise of the Year Award.

National Indian Gaming Association Chairman Ernie Stevens Jr. presented the Tribal Gaming Visionary Business Empowerment Award to Keith Anderson, secretary treasurer of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux community.

Robert Harrison, Standing Rock Sioux, the owner of the Red Cloud Food Service, received the American Indian Business of the Year Award.

Elsie Meeks, the president and CEO of First Nations Oweesta, received the Public Advocate of the Year Award for her support of American Indian business and economic development.

Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole received the Congressional Lifetime Achievement Award for his support of Indian country.

Aboriginal animations on display

Big Eye:  Aboriginal Animations:  Tour with CanadiansAn exhibition of the moving image, including stop-motion, 3D and other animation techniques, Big Eye showcases Aboriginal animations from Australia and Canada in a unique cross-tribal exchange of ideas and world views.

“First World” countries Australia and Canada are two of very few countries in the world who recognise their first people as Aboriginal. Philosophically, this exhibition explores a shared heritage by Aboriginal Canadians and Aboriginal Australians through the intersection of Aboriginal Aesthetics and Culture, with the endurance of a similar colonisation as a background.

Featuring Dark Thunder Productions, Raven Tales, Skawennati Tricia Fragnito & Abtech, Rabbit and Bear Paws, The Healthy Aboriginal Project and Anthony Wong, Frank Mcleod & Aboriginal Nations, Aroha Groves, Christine Peacock & Rebekah Pitt & John Graham, the Gunbalanya Community & Gozer Media, and artist/curator Jenny Fraser.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Native Videos and Cartoons.

Pangs in Buffy the Vampire Slayer

In her blog, educator Debbie Reese has brought an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer to our attention. Titled Pangs, it was the eighth episode of the fourth season and it aired November 23, 1999. With a date like that, you'd be correct in guessing the subject was Thanksgiving.

I haven't seen Pangs, but Wikipedia gives us a