Columnist shows how racists view Indians

Here's an early contender for the stupidest column of the year. In other words, a likely contender for the Stereotype of the Year award.

How Liberal Elitists Fleeced the Indians

By Susan BradfordIndian tribes were originally designed to be profit generators from which their creators could raise money for political candidates, trade victimization for votes, and generate revenue for their affiliated businesses.Bradford starts with a real whopper--an outright lie so egregious it should've prevented anyone from posting this column.

FYI, dumbbell, tribes weren't "originally designed" to do anything of the sort. If you want to talk about their origins, they were "designed" to provide a bond of kinship and community based on common cultural beliefs and customs. Paleo-Indians designed their tribes for this reason starting tens of thousands of years ago. Today's tribes are a continuation of this ancient "design."Hungry for capital, in the 1920's, the industrialists began to invest in Native rights organizations, which were not so much interested in tribal empowerment as they were in profiting off the backs of Indians. An avalanche of tax payer revenue was to be had by casting Native-Americas as victims, keeping them weak, and filing various grievances through the courts, which would allow attorneys to appeal for money on their behalf.

Indian tribes were then established to allow them to collect compensation for past grievances and develop businesses on sovereign Indian nations, which were squirreled away from the eyes of the federal government and exempt from state taxes. Within decades, instant wealth would descend upon reservations through litigation.It'll be news to several hundred tribes that they didn't exist until Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934. I guess they all migrated from Asia in 1933?

"Collect compensation for past grievances" presumably is Bradford's falsification for "collect treaty payments owed because of lawful treaties." I believe tribes have been collecting such payments since they first signed treaties in the 1700s.

I'm not sure what businesses Bradford thinks the skulking sneaks hid on their reservations. The only significant one I can think of is Oklahoma's oil industry, which boomed around that time. A dozen or two Oklahoma tribes got rich from oil and several hundred tribes didn't.

Bradford states what racists believeJust as tribes were on the cusp of receiving their money from the ICC, President Lyndon B. Johnson waged a War on Poverty to improve the lives of individuals from lower socioeconomic classes. The federally funded legal services helped place a number of these individuals, many from industrial towns, into Indian tribes.

These newly minted Indians then made a beeline for Tribal Councils, which would eventually control the lucrative Native gaming businesses, and began developing vast empires of wealth.

Once in power, the fictitious Indians signed on their relatives, friends, and other dispossessed people whom liberals were trying to save. By adding fictitious Indians onto the tribal membership rolls, the usurpers were often able to take over tribes, prevail in tribal elections, and govern in perpetuity.

Indians residing on federally recognized tribes were then victimized by a new class of rich white masters who oppressed and robbed them while the liberals cheered on the results their good intentions have brought to Indian Country.

Throughout the nation Native-Americans are living lives of quiet desperation on their reservations while whites and other dispossessed poor non-Indians, who have lost industrial jobs to corporate restructuring brought on by global competition, brazenly help themselves to tribal dollars and engage in various criminal actions with impunity. Their cries for relief often go unheard. Even worse, those Indians who dare question or challenge the corruption on their reservations, can expect to find themselves harassed, disenrolled, and in extreme cases, incarcerated.

Adding insult to injury, the pseudo-Indians tan themselves red, don traditional Indian clothing, sometimes with head dresses, and whoop around tribal fires as if they were actors in a Disney theme park. Vacillating between amusement and outrage, genuine Natives, who actually trace to those historic tribes, shake their heads in disbelief and wonder if this is what liberals meant by progress?I quoted this passage at length because it's a great statement of what racists, conservatives, and people who stereotype Indians believe.

The key points in Bradford's view of Indians:

"Sovereign Indian nations" are actually fictitious business entities created by non-Indians to enrich themselves with government largesse.

Today's tribes are largely populated by "fictitious" Indians. These phonies have taken control of tribal governments, used crime and corruption to help themselves, and "harassed, disenrolled, or incarcerated" the real Indians.

The only genuine Indians are the few poor ones suffering from the neglect of their corrupt oppressors. They're huddling under blankets or drinking themselves into a stupor somewhere in the desert. The rest have vanished into the mists of history.

So if you see middle-class Indians who work in the law, medicine, or computers, what can you conclude? That they're welfare chiselers who have gotten where they are by getting a free education, not paying taxes, and swindling the public via slot machines. I.e., they're criminals and con artists who have succeeded by cheating the system.

Not coincidentally, this view is held by the European hobbyists who think the only real Indians are dead Indians--i.e., the stereotypical Plains Indians of the past. Sadly, it's also held by radical Indian activists who think the only real Indians are warriors who are willing to fight and kill the white man. If you put on a suit and fight within the system, you're an Uncle Tomahawk or "apple" (red on the outside, white on the inside).

What average Americans believe

More to the point, this is what many average Americans believe. Read the comments on any controversial Native issue and you'll see the same claims over and over: They don't pay taxes. They're getting special rights. They're rich from casinos. Etc. The hate and resentment practically drip off the page.

This is undoubtedly what the Chasco krewes believe. And what most sports mascot fans believe. And what many Hollywood moguls believe. It's what they've learned from a century of Wild West shows, old Western movies, and other purveyors of stereotypes.

These stereotypes are so pervasive in our culture that most people can't overcome a lifetime of brainwashing. They literally can't conceive of an Indian's doing something nontraditional. For instance, winning an Oscar, a Nobel Prize, or the US presidency. It would be like a monkey or a dog doing these things: inconceivable.

Summing up Bradford's views:

"Real" Indians are the savage chiefs and "braves" who roamed the Plains a century or two ago before vanishing.

Today's phony "Indians" are frauds and hustlers who seek to get rich from welfare checks and casino payouts.

The few remaining real Indians are the criminals, drunks, and abusers who make reservation life miserable. They're the exceptions that prove the rule.

Here's the comment I posted to this column:According to Bradford, most Indians today are "fictitious" and phony. Only a few--the ones who are still suffering--are genuine. If that isn't a racist attack against the majority of modern Indians, I don't know what is.

When someone has to deny she's a racist, she usually is one. This column is the proof.I could post any number of links showing how racists view Indians. For a few examples, see Satire:  Sioux Attack Wall Street, Limbaugh:  Indians = "Redskins," "Clowns," and Dumas:  Indians Are Lazy and Inbred.

Below:  Real Indians...




And today's Indians.

Teabaggers want doddering white guy

The Tea Party Is All About Race

By Bob CescaFrom the outset, the tea party was based on a contradictory premise (the original tea party was a protest against a corporate tax cut). And when you throw out all of the nonsense and contradictions, there's nothing left except race. There's no other way to explain why these people were silent and compliant for so long, and only decided to collectively freak out when this "foreign" and "exotic" president came along and, right out of the chute, passed the largest middle class tax cut in American history--something they would otherwise support, for goodness sake, it was $288 billion in tax cuts!--we're left to deduce no other motive but the ugly one that lurks just beneath the pale flesh, the tri-corner hats and the dangly tea bag ornamentation.

Irrespective of whether the president passed a huge tax cut or went out of his way to bring Republicans into the health care process, the seeds of racial animosity from the far-right were sown during the campaign. In those lines waiting for then-vice presidential candidate and current tea party heroine Sarah Palin, their loud noises spread the pre-scripted lies, lies that entirely hinged on the president's African heritage. A white candidate would never be accused of being a secret Muslim. A white candidate would never be accused of being a foreign usurper. Only a black candidate with a foreign name would be accused of "palling around with domestic terrorists."

In the final analysis, when you boil away all of the weirdness, it becomes clear that the teabaggers are pissed because there isn't yet another doddering old white guy in the White House--like they're used to. That's what this is all about.Comment:  The teabaggers have never presented a rational, fact-based case for their anger. You'll never hear them say anything like the following:

"Yes, Obama gave us massive tax cuts, but we still don't trust him."

"Yes, millions of people are suffering without health insurance, but we oppose government interference in the market."

"Yes, Bush is responsible for 80% (or whatever) of the national debt, but we blame Obama for not reducing it despite the worst recession since the Depression."

In other words, these people refuse to blame Bush or give Obama credit for anything. They refuse to acknowledge Bush's money-gobbling wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and deregulation of the financial industry. They aren't presenting a rational critique at all.

One conservative gets it

Even conservative columnist David Brooks is willing to acknowledge that Obama isn't some Muslim socialist terrorist:

Getting Obama RightConservatives are wrong to call him a big-government liberal. That’s just not a fair reading of his agenda.

Take health care. He has pushed a program that expands coverage, creates exchanges and moderately tinkers with the status quo—too moderately to restrain costs. To call this an orthodox liberal plan is an absurdity. It more closely resembles the center-left deals cut by Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, or Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney. Obama has pushed this program with a tenacity unmatched in modern political history; with more tenacity than Bill Clinton pushed his health care plan or George W. Bush pushed Social Security reform.

Take education. Obama has taken on a Democratic constituency, the teachers’ unions, with a courage not seen since George W. Bush took on the anti-immigration forces in his own party. In a remarkable speech on March 1, he went straight at the guardians of the status quo by calling for the removal of failing teachers in failing schools. Obama has been the most determined education reformer in the modern presidency.

Take foreign policy. To the consternation of many on the left, Obama has continued about 80 percent of the policies of the second Bush term. Obama conducted a long review of the Afghan policy and was genuinely moved by the evidence. He has emerged as a liberal hawk, pursuing victory in Iraq and adopting an Afghan surge that has already utterly transformed the momentum in that war. The Taliban is now in retreat and its leaders are being assassinated or captured at a steady rate.

Take finance. Obama and Tim Geithner are vilified on the left as craven to Wall Street and on the right as clueless bureaucrats who know nothing about how markets function. But they have tried with halting success to find a center-left set of restraints to provide some stability to market operations.

In a sensible country, people would see Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivism. In a sensible country, Obama would be able to clearly define this project without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed. But we don’t live in that country. We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality, fundamentally misunderstanding the man in the Oval Office.As I've said before, I'm still waiting for the first teabagger to send me evidence of his criticism of Bush's big-spending, power-grabbing administration. Make it during Bush's first six years, when he was still popular, to prove the critic's sincerity. Until I see it, I'll conclude that the teabaggers' irrational rants are code-words for their racism.

For more on the subject, see Buchanan Sums Up Teabaggers and The Evidence for Teabagger Racism.

Superhero comics are conservative

Blogger Greg Burgas stakes out a controversial claim: that comic books are fundamentally conservative, not liberal.

The political leanings of superhero comics ... revealed!

By Greg BurgasNo superhero comic from Marvel or DC is liberal in the truest sense of the word, challenging the status quo. Occasionally writers from outside the mainstream superhero world write a superhero comic that does challenge the status quo. What do they often come up with? A left-leaning dictatorship, much like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China. This is perhaps the consequence when superheroes take over--they are really the ultimate in "governmental involvement" in people's lives, because they are, by their abilities, "better" than everyone else. So they set the rules, usually very undemocratically (they can't trust the regular folk to know what's good for them, can they?). They take resources away from the few and distribute them, free of charge, to the many. And guess what? They never last. Something happens to corrupt them. The superheroes may be the "good guys," but they come to realize that taking over is not the way to go and the people have to decide for themselves. Why, that's the very essence of the conservative ideal! The status quo, in other words, must be sustained.And:[L]et's consider the entire idea of costumed superheroes, which is based on the idea that you can't trust the government to take care of crime. Batman, throughout his history, has always leaned a bit toward fascism, with his absolute black-and-white attitude toward crime. I've argued before that Bruce Wayne could do far more to stop crime as Bruce Wayne than Batman, but while, pragmatically, that wouldn't work for DC's bottom line, Bruce is also the classic "liberal who's been mugged" type of conservative. He doesn't trust the police to make the city safe, so he takes the law into his own hands. He's not that different from the Minutemen, to use a recent example. Superman specifically adopts a "conservative" viewpoint that humanity needs to rise themselves, without help from outside agencies like a Kryptonian alien. As I wrote above, most liberal writers can't come up with any better government when superhumans take over than a left-wing dictatorship, which is what would happen if Superman decided to fix all the world's problems. He is conscious of this ideal and therefore uses a relatively conservative viewpoint--each according to his or her means--to justify not going around solving world hunger. Again, this is because of DC's bottom line, but in this regard, fictional universe concerns overlap with real-world publishing concerns--the superheroes must remain "conservative" so that DC and Marvel can keep publishing them.Comment:  I couldn't agree with this more. Years ago I debated this issue in comic-book forums and took the same position.

My response to Burgas's posting:

I think we could identify a few mainstream superhero comics with liberal leanings: WONDER WOMAN under George Perez and Phil Jimenez, DAREDEVIL's emphasis on social justice, the X-Men's occasional call for a human/mutant partnership. Other than that, you're basically right.

I could go on and on about this subject, and already have:

Why doesn't Superman end world hunger rather than trying once and giving up?

Giving Up PEACE ON EARTH

Why doesn't Green Lantern use his power ring to eliminate poverty, crime, and oppression?

Why doesn't Green Lantern eliminate evil?

Why is Batman patrolling alleyways for muggers when he could be a world-changing philanthropist a la Bill Gates or Warren Buffett?

Bruce Wayne vs. Bill Gates:  Who's the hero?

Etc.

How superheroes would really operate

If comics were actually liberal, superheroes would be changing the world a la the excellent SQUADRON SUPREME maxi-series or BIG TOWN mini-series. The fact that these remain "alternate universes" with no effect on the "real" universe proves the point.

Then we could get into the racial issues: specifically, the lack of minority superheroes who are leading teams or headlining their own titles. Not to mention the racial stereotypes that continue to afflict groups such as Native Americans.

The US population is 30% nonwhite, so why isn't that reflected in comics? Why don't we see minority heroes like the Falcon dealing with minority issues 30% of the time? When a comic like CAPTAIN AMERICA dares to take an explicitly liberal stance, why does it get shouted down by the conservative blogosphere?

Answer: Because comics are all about preserving the (white) American status quo, as you said.

The Native connection

I'm sure you can see the connection to Native-themed comics, but I'll spell it out. Publishing comics about Indians, featuring Native superheroes, would mean acknowledging America's injustices. A typical Indian wouldn't mimic the white man's ways. He'd think of his people and their problems: poverty, crime, healthcare, alcoholism, suicide. He'd take steps to to champion their cause, to overturn the status quo. As hundreds of thousands of Natives are doing now.

That wouldn't sit well with plain-vanilla readers who see the world in black and white. Who want a little sex and violence before the inevitable happy ending. So DC and Marvel give us white-bread heroes for white-bread readers who live in a white-bread world.

You can see my comments on Burgas's posting by following the link. For more on the subject, see Comic Books Featuring Indians.

Conservatives want Christian textbooks

A lengthy article in the NY Times Magazine describes the battle to incorporate God into American history. I was curious to see what it would say about Indians. Answer: Not much.

How Christian Were the Founders?

By Russell Shorto“The guidelines in Texas were seriously deficient in bringing out the role of the Christian faith in the founding of America,” Marshall told me. In a document he prepared for the team that was writing the new guidelines, he urged that new textbooks mold children’s impressions of the founders in particular ways: “The Founding Fathers’ biblical worldview taught them that human beings were by nature self-centered, so they believed that the supernatural influence of the Spirit of God was needed to free us from ourselves so that we can care for our neighbors.”

Marshall also proposed that children be taught that the separation-of-powers notion is “rooted in the Founding Fathers’ clear understanding of the sinfulness of man,” so that it was not safe for one person to exercise unlimited power, and that “the discovery, settling and founding of the colonies happened because of the biblical worldviews of those involved.” Marshall recommended that textbooks present America’s founding and history in terms of motivational stories on themes like the Pilgrims’ zeal to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the natives.

One recurring theme during the process of revising the social-studies guidelines was the desire of the board to stress the concept of American exceptionalism, and the Christian bloc has repeatedly emphasized that Christianity should be portrayed as the driving force behind what makes America great. Peter Marshall is himself the author of a series of books that recount American history with a strong Christian focus and that have been staples in Christian schools since the first one was published in 1977. (He told me that they have sold more than a million copies.) In these history books, he employs a decidedly unhistorical tone in which the guiding hand of Providence shapes America’s story, starting with the voyage of Christopher Columbus. “Columbus’s heart belonged to God,” he assures his readers, and he notes that a particular event in the explorer’s life “marked the turning point of God’s plan to use Columbus to raise the curtain on His new Promised Land.”Comment:  Naturally, the battle is over the holy trinity of American history: Columbus, the Pilgrims, and the Founding Fathers. Naturally, these conservative Anglo Americans have nothing to say about the role of the Indians, Spanish, French, Dutch, and others in founding America.

"Columbus’s heart belonged to God." So the Christian God apparently filled Columbus's heart with the desire to kill, rape, or mutilate any Indian who disobeyed him. With a god like this, who needs a devil?

And the "hand of Providence shaped America's story"? In other words, God wanted Americans to slaughter Indians and enslave blacks? Okay, if you say so. If you want to attribute America's many fine qualities--racism, imperialism, xenophobia, oppression, injustice--to Christianity, who am I to argue?

For more on the subject, see Conservatives' Pro-White Agenda and Palin's "Real America" vs. America.

Xenophobia behind Wilson's "You lie!"

Russell:  Hate speech without hate

By Steve Russell[W]hy would the Republican congressman falsely call the president a liar? He was pandering to the voters who hate, like the fans of former presidential candidate Tom Tancredo and former CNN commentator Lou Dobbs. Tancredo and Dobbs, and the people who love them, represent the xenophobic side of American politics that started with the ugly things early settlers said about Indians, continued through the removals to Indian territory, and only went more or less underground after the slaughter of non-combatants was caught on film at the horror we call Wounded Knee in 1890. But did the people who spent time with Indians really believe the nonsense about ruthless savages?

All the most successful Indian fighters fought beside Indian scouts, often but not always from tribes with historical grievances against the immediate enemy. Crow scouted against Lakota and Tonkawa scouted against Comanche, but Apache also scouted against Apache. My point here is not to criticize Indians for settling scores but to criticize white people for lying about the people they worked beside.

It’s hard not to notice that the congressional heckler, Joe Wilson, was representing the great state of South Carolina, where hate and hypocrisy are apparently an art form. It was South Carolina governor and then Sen. Strom Thurmond who made a career as a segregationist while carrying on an affair with a black woman who bore his daughter. It was current South Carolina governor and “family values” advocate Mark Sanford who made the phrase “hiking on the Appalachian Trail” an odd synonym for getting horizontal with your girlfriend.

The distance from South Carolina to Washington is like the distance from rural Texas to Austin in cultural terms, and like the distance from the Dakotas to the East Coast in the history of Indian relations.

What strikes me is that much of the hate speech directed towards Indians, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans and homosexuals is uttered by people who know better. That they don’t really believe that nonsense often jumps out in their life histories.

In my generation, the late George Wallace was a veritable avatar of racism, proclaiming after an early political loss, “I will never be out-niggered again!” But in his last term as Alabama governor, he not only had recanted his segregationist views, but he went on to set a record for the number of blacks appointed to state office.

There is a major strain of politics in Indian country that is all about Indians as a threat to “equality” for white people, holders of “special privileges.” The major fear points are trust land being off state tax rolls and white people who live on Indian land being subjected to tribal laws.

The dittoheads in this controversy have never considered that when they are citizens of New Mexico driving on a Texas highway, they are subject to the laws of Texas, a “foreign” sovereign. Every time you drive on the land of a pueblo in New Mexico there is a big sign informing you that you are entering the sovereignty of that pueblo. The political leaders who whip up outrage over Indian sovereignty, on the other hand, know this, and they know that the only possible objection to being subject to tribal laws is racism.

Much if not most political hate speech, I am convinced, is uttered for political advantage by people who really do not hate the people they are using to arouse a following among voters for whom they have no respect at all. For those of us subjected to the hate speech, knowing it is uttered by knaves to influence fools is cold comfort.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Conservatives' Pro-White Agenda and Right-Wing Racism Against Obama.

Teabaggers = Indians?!

It started with King George III

Americans' distrust of government has deep roots.

By Gregory RodriguezThe movement's very name has a lot to say about how emotional such discontent is. Think back to your grade school lessons about the Boston Tea Party and remember its carnivalesque aspects. The conspirators that night painted their faces and dressed up as Mohawk Indians. As University of Michigan historian Philip J. Deloria points out in his book, "Playing Indian," the dress-up part of the party wasn't only about masking identities; it was about exercising New World liberty, which would become a fundamental part of forging a new collective identity as Americans.

The Tea Party wasn't the only instance in which colonial whites acted out in Indian disguise. To these revolutionaries, Deloria writes, "Indianness lay at the heart of American uniqueness." Donning feathers and darkening their faces, they symbolically proclaimed their separation from the mother country. And what did they think the Indian costume meant to the representatives of King George? Unconstrained, even aboriginal, freedom.

That would be a breakthrough on a therapist's couch. From the very beginning, to go with our legitimate fear of tyranny, we've idealized an end to all authority.

In a 1923 essay on U.S. literature, British novelist and poet D.H. Lawrence ridiculed the American fetishization of liberty as a source of perennial tantrums. "Somewhere deep in every American heart," he wrote, "lies a rebellion against the old parenthood of Europe. Yet no American feels he has completely escaped its mastery." To Americans, he went on, liberty means "the breaking of all dominion."Comment:  Rodriguez's analysis of the Indian role is valid as far as it goes. I made similar points in The Political Uses of Stereotypes--also based on Philip J. Deloria's Playing Indian.

Some links on Tea Parties and Indians:

Another phony Indian teabagger
"Indians" at the Boston Tea Party
Real Indian at tax protest
Teabaggers misuse Indian imagery

But Rodriguez ignores the many differences. The original Tea Partiers were fighting the imposition of taxation without representation. Today's teabaggers are complaining even though Obama has reduced taxes for most people.

The teabaggers came out of the woodwork soon after we elected Obama president. But the Bush administration (mis)managed the present recession. It eliminated the regulations that allowed financial gambling. It initiated the bank bailouts and other recovery measures. It created most of the soaring deficit. So why protest Obama and not Bush?

The teabaggers explained

The main difference is that the original Tea Partiers were white men protesting other white men. Today's teabaggers are white men protesting blacks, Latinos, gays, and anyone else who isn't a white Christian.

Return Of the Repressed? Birtherism, Homophobia, Racial Paranoia Rise To Surface At Tea Party Confab

By Zachary RothThe National Tea Party Convention, which wrapped up Saturday night with a televised speech by Sarah Palin, offered an outlet for some of the fouler strands of modern conservatism that had long been bubbling beneath the surface of the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party leaders had worked hard to keep the public face of the movement focused tightly on a small government, anti-tax message, largely steering clear of social issues, and appeals based explicitly on race. But this weekend, from the podium at Nashville's Gaylord Opryland Hotel, convention speakers espoused birtherism, anti-immigrant nativism, homophobia, Christian fundamentalism, and an apparent nostalgia for racially discriminatory barriers to voting.

Here's a quick recap:

• Joseph Farah, the publisher of the right-wing website WorldNetDaily.com, drew cheers from the crowd by questioning whether President Obama was born in the U.S.

• Tom Tancredo, the former Colorado Republican congressman, declared that the president was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote."

• Roy Moore, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court charged that by proclaiming a gay pride month, Obama "has elevated immorality to a new level."Wow...a literacy test? I wonder which segment of the population Tancredo is targeting with that suggestion? Could it possibly be...minorities?

For more on America's origins, see Fun July 4th Facts and America's Cultural Roots. For more on the teabaggers, see The Evidence for Teabagger Racism and Decoding the Teabagger Code.

Below:  One of the 10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs with Photos.



Pretty funny considering not a single conservative hypocrite protested this:

Pankiw compares chiefs to KKK

Aboriginal leader 'felt sorry' for candidate who compared him to Ku Klux Klan

By Lisa ArrowsmithControversial comments made by a Saskatchewan political candidate show he holds some "uneducated" views about aboriginal people, says the chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.

Chief Guy Lonechild said Friday he was shocked and saddened when he heard that Jim Pankiw, who says he intends to re-enter federal politics, had likened an aboriginal headdress he was wearing in a newspaper photo to the garb worn by the Ku Klux Klan.

"I felt sorry for Mr. Pankiw that he still held those kind of views and is seeking public office," Lonechild said, adding that no more public attention should be paid to this issue.

The headdresses worn by aboriginal leaders is considered sacred and signify that the chiefs are carrying the responsibility of their people, Lonechild said. They were also worn by aboriginal leaders throughout history, including those who signed treaties with the federal government and helped to create Canada, Lonechild said.

He didn't think the comparison with members of the Ku Klux Klan was fair.

"Klan members in times past looked to hide their identities, looked to cover up their true identities. We wear our identity very proudly, so I think it's exactly the opposite of the message that the Ku Klux Klan has, in terms of their intolerance of other people," Lonechild said.

"It was very, very bad judgement on the part of a former member of Parliament."How this came about:On Thursday, Pankiw called a news conference to announce he plans to run as an independent in the riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt.

He told reporters that aboriginal chiefs "want a bunch of special privileges based on their ancestry" and added that he doesn't want a "racially segregated society where your ancestry determines what you get."

When asked if his views could be racist, he referred to Lonechild's photo and said, "guy with a big headband thing on, feathers and stuff, if there was a guy with a white sheet with holes in the eyes, wouldn't you say that guy's a racist?"

When asked whether he was comparing the chief to a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Pankiw replied "absolutely, they are racists."Comment:  I thought Pankiw was just ignorant about tribal sovereignty, but clearly he's a racist too.

For more on the subject, see Sask. MP Decries "Race-Based Privileges" and "Handouts" and The Facts About Tribal Sovereignty.

What Napier is ranting about

I figured Barry Napier didn't know what he was talking about when he compared a bill increasing tribal jurisdiction to "Custer legislation." I suspected he was either exaggerating or lying. Now we have some objective reports on the issue:

Let officers do their jobsThe issue is this: When a cross-deputization agreement between the county and tribe broke down in 2006, tribal officers no longer had the authority to arrest non-tribal citizens on the reservation. Keep in mind that 80 percent of those living on the checkerboard reservation are not members of the tribe. In many cases, crimes have been committed against non-tribal members by non-tribal members, yet because there is no cross-deputization agreement in place, the perpetrators have walked away with impunity. Tribal officers have estimated 100 such crimes a month have been taking place. DUI. Assault. Drug dealing. Domestic violence.

The new law would essentially bypass the cross-deputization requirement so tribal officers could arrest anybody committing a crime on tribal lands, regardless of who's a tribal member and who isn't. As part of the proposed law, the tribe would incur all expenses involved with proper training and liability. One of the potentially contentious points is moot: These crimes would be prosecuted at the state level, not tribal courts. Fines and fees would go to the state, not the tribe.Human rights group calls for tribal arrest powerA northern Idaho human rights group says 1 of the region's county sheriffs is refusing to cooperate with the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe on law enforcement matters.

As a result, the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations Thursday called for legislation to allow Idaho tribal police officers to arrest or cite non-tribal members violating state law on reservations.Benewah sheriff calls rights group’s letter ‘stupid’

By Betsy Z. RussellThe problem: Without a cross-deputization agreement, tribal police officers can’t arrest non-tribal members, even if they catch them in the act of committing a crime. Instead, they must call on a county deputy or state trooper to make the arrest. Roughly 10,000 people live on the Coeur d’Alene Reservation, but only 1,400 are tribal members. In the Kootenai County portion of the reservation, a cross-deputization agreement is in place; there was a longstanding one in Benewah County until Kirts revoked it in 2007.

Christie Wood, a Coeur d’Alene Police sergeant and first vice president of the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations, wrote in the open letter, “The failure of Sheriff Kirts to work with the tribal police has left citizens in bedlam. Perpetrators have been set free that have committed serious criminal offenses against citizens living in Benewah County. The Tribal Police have documented cases of domestic violence, driving under the influence incidents, criminal assaults, and other criminal offenses that have occurred with no arrests or prosecution.”Comment:  The proposed legislation doesn't sound so bad now, does it? It doesn't have anything to do with the tribe, Obama, or the New World Order grabbing power, as Napier asserts. It has to do with increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement so more bad guys get arrested.

So yes, Napier is a racist, just as we suspected. He attacked an entire race for legislation that has nothing to do with race--the epitome of racism.

Ignorant Pankiw runs again

Controversial Sask. politician Pankiw announces comeback bidFormer Saskatoon member of Parliament Jim Pankiw launched what he hopes will be his political comeback Thursday at an often rambling news conference filled with long pauses and some awkward moments.

Pankiw, 43, a two-term Reform and Canadian Alliance MP representing Saskatoon-Humboldt, told reporters in Saskatoon he plans to run as an independent candidate in the next federal election.

Before he got to that, however, he gave reporters an account of his modest beginnings, which included living in a trailer near Unity, Sask., and sleeping on a concrete floor.

Pankiw is known for his controversial comments about aboriginal people, some which have resulted in human rights complaints.

He didn't back away from those comments Thursday, saying he would be campaigning against "race-based" government spending policies. He also called Saskatchewan First Nations chiefs "racists."

"I don't think Indians should have special race-based privileges," Pankiw said. "I think we should all be equal. Do Italians have special race-based privileges? Chinese people? Ukrainians? Germans? Not that I know of, but Indians do."Comment:  As the lawyer said in "Tribal Priority" for Radio Stations:It is vital for people to understand that the Tribal Priority is based on the government-to-government legal relationship between the Federal government and Tribes. Tribes are classified politically, not racially.For more on the subject, see Sask. MP Decries "Race-Based Privileges" and "Handouts" and The Facts About Tribal Sovereignty.

Tribal jurisdiction = "Custer legislation"?!

Obama using Indians for his dirty work

By Barry NapierI can say, without reservation, that I’m not a racist. Black or white, yellow or brown, I don’t care, so long as the fellah is decent and sociable. Obama, however, IS racist, and it shows in this proposed piece of legislation.

Idaho pro-Obama bosses are trying to muscle-through ‘Custer Legislation’, so that the (Red) Indians can at last get their own back on white men--cowboys and Indians all over again!

The idea is to give Indians total legal control over any non-Indian who even passes through their territory. They would be tried under separate tribal laws, and even if the accused comes from outside the reservation, they cannot call in outside help or legal counsel! And only Indians would be allowed to sit on the jury. Watch out for revenge from Indians who are filled with leftist revisionist history!

The bright-sparks who are trying to bring this in are Idaho Attorney General Wasden and US Attorney Thomas Moss. They have been working out the details for the past six months… and everyone in the USA should ask “Why?” What is the point of making parts of the USA free from state and national laws?Comment:  I can say without reservation that Napier is a racist. The language in his screed proves it:

"Obama using Indians": As if Indians are incapable of independent thought. Of determining what's best for them.

Napier later admits that one tribe is backing this legislation and two others aren't. He doesn't name the tribes because all Indians are the same to him, presumably. Perhaps he doesn't even know the tribes' names. He sounds like regurgitating right-wing talking points rather than thinking on his own.

In any case, attacking "Indians" for the actions of one tribe is like attacking the world's Caucasians for the actions of the Bush administration or the Manson family. It's racist.

"(Red) Indians": As if Indians are actually red.

"Get their own back on white men": This ungrammatical phrase apparently means "get revenge on white men." The implication that Indians want revenge on whites is racist because it denigrates an entire race.

"Only Indians would be allowed to sit on the jury": As if Indians are inherently biased and incapable of rendering a fair decision. Again, a racist assumption about Indians.

"Revenge from Indians who are filled with leftist revisionist history!": Again, a racist assertion about a revenge motive, coupled with a racist implication that Indians can't think straight.

It's not hard to imagine that Napier, like many conservatives, is prejudiced against Obama. With zero evidence, he attacks Idaho Attorney General Wasden and US Attorney Thomas Moss as "pro-Obama bosses." And he thinks Obama or someone "higher up" is orchestrating this legislation. It's all very reminiscent of the teabaggers' racist attacks on Obama as an un-American Kenyan and Muslim.

Clearly Napier is clueless about tribal sovereignty. He's clueless that it's a nation-to-nation relationship based on the Constitution. Clueless that tribal nations are political entities, not racial entities--that their members can belong to any race, in theory.

If Obama were behind this legislation, which he's not, it wouldn't be a "racist" move. Again, because tribes are political entities, not racial ones. Similarly, if a local district, precinct, or ward were 95% black, that wouldn't make it a racial entity either. A federal or state agency could help the district, precinct, or ward without being guilty of "racial preferences."

Idaho rectifying PL 280?

I don't know the details of the proposed "State and Indian Tribal Cooperative Law Enforcement Act" A Google search doesn't turn up anything about it. I wouldn't trust anything Napier has written about it, since he comes from the "black helicopter/blue helmet" school of conservative idiocy.

I presume this act has something to do with correcting the worst parts of the infamous PL 280. Here's some background on how this law has weakened tribal sovereignty.

Public Law 280:  Issues and Concerns for Victims of Crime in Indian Country

By Ada Pecos Melton and Jerry Gardner1. What is Public Law 280?

Public Law 83-280, the 280th Public Law enacted by the 83rd Congress in 1953, was a substantial transfer of jurisdiction from the federal government to the states in Indian country. This transfer of jurisdiction was required (or mandatory) for the states specifically mentioned in the Act and also permitted other states an option to acquire jurisdiction. Indian Nations, on the other hand, had no choice in the matter. The Indian Nations which were affected by Public Law 280 had to deal with greatly increased state authority and state control over a broad range of reservation activities without any tribal consent.

Before Public Law 280 was enacted, the federal government and Indian tribal courts shared jurisdiction over almost all civil and criminal matters involving Indians in Indian country. The states had no jurisdiction. With the enactment of Public Law 280, affected states received criminal jurisdiction over reservation Indians. Furthermore, Public Law 280 opened state courts to civil litigation that previously had been possible only in tribal or federal courts. In the affected states, the federal government gave up control over crimes in Indian country (those involving Indian perpetrators and/or victims). Indian Nations lost control over many criminal and civil matters within their territory due to the policies of the federal and state governments.

3. Why is Public Law 280 Controversial?

From the beginning, Public Law 280 was unsatisfactory to both states and Indian Nations. Public Law 280 inspired widespread criticism and concern from Indians and non-Indians alike. Disagreements arose immediately concerning the scope of powers given to the states and the methods of assuming that power.

Indian Opposition

Indian opposition to Public Law 280 has focused upon the one-sided process which imposed state jurisdiction on Indian Nations and the complete failure to recognize tribal sovereignty and tribal self-determination. Public Law 280 required neither the consent of the Indian Nations being affected nor even consultation with these Indian Nations. When he signed it into law, even President Eisenhower expressed misgivings about the lack of tribal consent and urged immediate amendment of the law to require tribal referenda--no such amendment passed Congress until 1968.The key point to note is that PL 280 is mandatory in only six states. Other states don't impose the same restrictions on tribal sovereignty. And yet...no calamaties have befallen these states. They haven't turned into Communist enclaves where non-Indians are imprisoned in Native gulags.

In fact, most people have never heard of PL 280 and don't know some states have more power over tribes than others. That's how stupid and irrelevant Napier's charge of an Obama takeover is.

In short, Napier's scare tactics are completely at odds with the legal record. And he's a racist for suggesting Big Chief Obama and his little Indians are on the warpath again.

For more on the subject, see The Facts About Tribal Sovereignty.

Haitians and Indians cursed?

“Pat Robertson Made A Deal With The Devil” or “I Know Why The Hunted Pig Squeals”

By Gyasi RossI went to this little tiny very conservative Christian school. I actually enjoyed it, but I remembered the day that I checked out of “ol’ time” religion mentally and spiritually–the pastor/principal and I had a discussion, and I said that I thought it was a good idea to separate the message and the messenger. He asked me why would I do that? I told him that the messengers of Christianity have been horrible and hypocritical toward Natives–killing, raping, and plundering. He told me, in response, that Natives should be thankful for any and everything that happened. He said, “before Christianity Induns were worshiping the devil and different spirits, and in my opinion, anything that happened was worth it because y’all got to hear the Gospel of Jesus. Induns were cursed, and the Gospel lifted that curse!” Like Marion/Pat, this redneck thought that the killing, raping and plundering was a “blessing in disguise.”

Ouch. Wow.

But his viewpoint is not original. My mom tells me of when she began to be interested in going to church, when I was a teenager. She tells me about how she quickly stopped being interested in those churches because she found the same ignorance and judgment in nearly all of them. “Pow-wows are evil.” “Native ceremonies are witchcraft.”Even when Westerners don't call Natives devil-worshipers, they still consider them uncivilized savages. As Ross explains:I recognize what that Pat Robertson’s doing when he says that Haiti had to make a deal with the devil to defeat a white Navy. He’s doing the exact same thing that many white conservatives do when they cannot explain or understand or are not invited to some fly and beautiful people of color stuff. That’s why they develop these stupid theories of aliens helping Egyptians and Central American Natives make pyramids or of black Haitians needing deals with devils and voodoo to defeat a white Navy.

This stuff isn’t new.

And what happens is that, because Marion/Pat Robertson is corny and cannot understand that people of color are perfectly capable of amazing things without the assistance of white people, Marion/Pat Robertson and people like him demonize what they do not understand. It’s not just him, by the way–there are a lot of people, Christians and otherwise, who do that. But a WHOLE bunch of them are the “ol’ time” Christians who haven’t figured out that the world is not flat anymore.Comment:  Given the number of conservative Christians who don't believe in global warming and do believe in creationism, I wouldn't be totally surprised if they also believe the world is flat.

Note: Robertson's given name is Marion, not Pat. He presumably calls himself "Pat" because Marion is a name for girls and other sissies, not a white male Christian American who considers himself God's crowning achievement.

For more on Pat Robertson, see Targeting Born-Again Christians and Navajo Nation on 700 Club. For more on conservative Christian bigotry, see Jack Chick's Crazy Wolf and The Evidence for Teabagger Racism. For more on Native religion, see "Primitive" Indian Religion and Hercules vs. Coyote:  Native and Euro-American Beliefs.

Steele's hypocrisy on racial slurs

GOP leader continues ‘honest injun’ controversy

MSNBC commentator uses ‘off the reservation’

By Rob CapricciosoAfter covering Steele’s distaste for Reid’s remark, host Chris Wallace asked the top GOP politico about his own “honest injun” remark, noting that congressmen from both parties said that it is a racial slur. Dictionaries agree, noting that the phrase is considered impolite and politically incorrect because “injun” is a slang term for American Indians.

“Well, if it is, I apologize for it,” Steele responded on the show. “It’s not an intent to be a racial slur. I wasn’t intending to say a racial slur at all.And:Steele’s conditional take on the phrase has outraged some Native Americans, as they say he is qualifying his own racism, while hypocritically calling for the resignation of a person who has said he was wrong--and apologized unconditionally--for using a racist term.

“It is astounding that his mind can separate himself from Sen. Reid when it comes to deciphering racist remarks,” said Ronnie Washines, president of the Native American Journalists Association.And:The Steele scenario has called increased attention to the complexities of racial language in America--and the sometimes divergent ways people think about Native Americans and racism, compared to African Americans and racism.

Michelle Bernard, a political commentator for MSNBC, hit that point home when discussing Reid’s words on-air Jan. 11.

Bernard, an African American, discussed the Reid situation, saying she didn’t think the words he used were completely “off the reservation.”

Ironically, many Native Americans have a problem with the “off the reservation” phrase, saying it’s disparaging and [implies] that Indians should be kept in line.Comment:  For more on the subject, see "Injun" as Bad as N-Word? and Steele:  "Honest Injun on That."

Why the right hates Avatar

Avatar and the Genocides We Will Not See

Cameron's blockbuster half-tells a story we would all prefer to forget

By George MonbiotWhile the Spanish were mostly driven by the lust for gold, the British who colonised North America wanted land. In New England they surrounded the villages of the native Americans and murdered them as they slept. As genocide spread westwards, it was endorsed at the highest levels. George Washington ordered the total destruction of the homes and land of the Iroquois. Thomas Jefferson declared that his nation's wars with the Indians should be pursued until each tribe "is exterminated or is driven beyond the Mississippi." During the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, troops in Colorado slaughtered unarmed people gathered under a flag of peace, killing children and babies, mutilating all the corpses and keeping their victims' genitals to use as tobacco pouches or to wear on their hats. Theodore Roosevelt called this event "as rightful and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier."

The butchery hasn't yet ended: last month the Guardian reported that Brazilian ranchers in the western Amazon, having slaughtered all the rest, tried to kill the last surviving member of a forest tribe. Yet the greatest acts of genocide in history scarcely ruffle our collective conscience. Perhaps this is what would have happened had the Nazis won the second world war: the Holocaust would have been denied, excused or minimised in the same way, even as it continued. The people of the nations responsible--Spain, Britain, the US and others--will tolerate no comparisons, but the final solutions pursued in the Americas were far more successful. Those who commissioned or endorsed them remain national or religious heroes. Those who seek to prompt our memories are ignored or condemned.

This is why the right hates Avatar. In the neocon Weekly Standard, John Podhoretz complains that the film resembles a "revisionist western" in which "the Indians became the good guys and the Americans the bad guys." He says it asks the audience "to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency." Insurgency is an interesting word for an attempt to resist invasion: insurgent, like savage, is what you call someone who has something you want.Comment:  "Revisionist history" apparently is Podhoretz's term for "real history." According to the Indians, the Americans were the bad guys.

I guess the right hates Avatar because so many people are seeing its message. Unfortunately, that message is too black and white, too painfully obvious, to change many minds. It's like putting horns on Columbus or Hitler's mustache on Bush. It may feel good, but it's not a rational argument.

Despite its gee-whiz special effects, liberals dislike Avatar because it's a waste of $300 million. James Cameron could've made a convincing science-fiction story about the pitfalls and perils of colonialism. Instead he made a CGI version of FernGully for today's 12-year-olds. If it changes one adult mind about environmental awareness or multicultural tolerance, I'll be surprised.

For more on the subject, see The White Messiah Fable and Monotheism vs. Pantheism in Avatar.

Below:  "Bully for the Marines in Avatar. Bully!"

Gun nuts vs. Indians

Charles Trimble:  Frontier mentality continues with guns[T]he most frightful and dangerous market is represented by paranoid yahoos who see enemies around every corner and behind every tree. These are people who are driven by fear--mostly fear of minorities whose rights they have trampled over the years, and fear of their own government’s every action to secure human and civil rights and opportunity for those minorities.

In the original American colonies and later the ever-expanding frontier, hunting was important to survival; but it was fear of Indians mostly that there was at least one blunderbuss in every home. And this persisted down through the years. Even as late as 1973 when the American Indian Movement occupied the village of Wounded Knee, many whites in a wide area surrounding Pine Ridge and other reservations drove around in their pickup trucks displaying racks of weaponry in the rear windows. Although it has always been in manly vogue to carry hunting rifles in the pickups, some of these were assault rifles that wouldn’t have left enough carcass for much of a venison dinner.

In frontier of the late 1830s there was great danger along the Oregon Trail and other routes westward. At demarcation points from Kansas City north to Omaha, booklets were being sold to the emigrants preparing for the trek; warning of Indian raids and giving advice on protecting against them; and, of course, selling guns to them. Gun sales boomed.

History tells, however, that Indians were no great threat if the pioneers would behave and stick to their routes.And:Fresh shallow graves could be found all along the trail, as death was ever present. But most deaths came from drowning at river crossings, from wagon accidents, snakebites, and the dreaded Cholera that resulted from drinking the human and animal-fouled water. The biggest killer, however, was firearm accidents, those very same weapons sold to the immigrants to protect them from marauding Indians.

The same scare tactics used back then to sell weapons are being used today, much for the same purpose. Reports tell of a new arms mania, with gun shows overflowing, gun factories going flat out in production, and annual sales of guns in the U.S. reaching over $3 billion. Reportedly, Smith and Wesson stocks are up 115%, and Sturm/Ruger stocks are up 85%. Cabela’s arms sales are up 70%.

The following opening sentence of one report, however, causes me the greatest concern: “Barack Obama’s victory in November sent weapons sales shooting upward.” That report noted a major factor being fear that the new President would outlaw all guns. I would hate to guess what the other factors might be.But Trimble guesses anyway:At least publicly, none dare mention Obama’s race in their attacks on him, but there can be little doubt that it is a prime factor among many of those critics.Comment:  Good guess. In the olden days, fear of Indians motivated gun sales. Now it's fear of other minorities--especially blacks, Latinos, and Muslims. Grab your guns because "they" are coming to get "us." First "death panels," then death camps, and finally a Communist/Nazi/fascist/Muslim dictatorship!

For more on guns, see A Well Regulated Militia... and Some Arguments for Gun Control. For more on conservative thinking, see Right-Wingers Foment Hate and Hate Abounds in "Post-Racial" America.

Below:  American "heroes"...



...and "villains."

"Injun" as bad as n-word?

Michael Steele's 'honest injun' comment sparks backlash

By Dawn Turner TriceSusan Power, 85, the last living founding member of Chicago's American Indian Center, said she was offended by Steele's comment.

"I'm really disgusted with him," said Power, a longtime activist and member of the Dakota nation. "He's an intelligent man and I know he's probably kicking himself all over his office for saying it, but he should know better. It would hurt if he were white, but it hurts more because he's black. How can you be so stupid?"

She said that "injun" is one of two words--the other is "squaw"--that should never be used because they are throwbacks to a time when Native Americans were defined almost exclusively by negative stereotypes.

"Are we so unimportant that he couldn't have caught himself?" she said. "I would never use the N-word. I know not to. This man must know nothing about native people, that's what's so hard about this. Native Americans know everything about everybody else, but there's so little interest in knowing who we are."Comment:  So "injun" and "squaw" are the two words people shouldn't say? Does that mean it's okay to say "redskin"?

From what I've seen, most Indians would say "redskin" is worst, "squaw" is second worst, and "injun" is a distant third. By describing "injun" in mild terms, most dictionaries would agree.

Given that Steele didn't direct his comment at Indians or refer to actual Indians, I'd say his offense wasn't serious. If it were me, I wouldn't spend a lot of time pressuring him to apologize.

If you're not familiar with Michael Steele, here's more on him:

Michael Steele:  Should He Go Now...or Later?

By David Corn"Michael Steele is a...."

The Republican consultant I was talking with paused. In anger. In frustration. In exasperation.

"Fool?" I asked. "Buffoon?"

"You name it," he said.And:Steele is having another one of those banner stretches. In recent days, he's come under fire--from people inside and outside his own party. He has had to defend the practice of accepting big-dollar speaking fees. (Blogger Greg Sargent couldn't get a straight answer out of the Republican Party as to whether Steele is pocketing all the profits from his just-released book.) During a soft-ball interview with Sean Hannity earlier this week, Steele declared that his party was not going to win back Congress this November--and that Republicans weren't ready to run the House and Senate. What a vote of confidence!For more on the subject, see Steele:  "Honest Injun" on That." and R-Word = N-Word.

Steele: "Honest Injun on that"

Steele Calls GOP Platform "One Of The Best" Political Documents In 25 Years, "Honest Injun On That"

By Matt FinkelsteinOn Fox News last night, Sean Hannity hosted RNC Chairman Michael Steele to promote the release of Steele's new book, Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda. During the interview, Steele emphatically denied that the GOP needs "more modern" ideas, calling the party's platform "one of the best political documents" produced in the last quarter-century. "Honest Injun on that," he added.

HANNITY: There are those that are saying for the Republican Party to be successful, they've gotta quote be more modern.

STEELE: No, no! But that's what's gotten us into trouble, when we walked away from principle. Our platform is one of the best political documents that's been written in the last 25 years. Honest Injun on that.Native American Caucus head demands Steele apologize for 'racist' comment

By Michael O'BrienThe Co-Chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus demanded an apology from RNC Chairman Michael Steele for using a "racist" phrase on national television.

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), the Democratic co-chairman of the caucus, slammed the Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman for having used the phrase "honest Injun" during an appearance on Fox News.

"I am outraged and disgusted that the head of the National Republican Party would make such a derogatory and offensive statement about Native Americans on national television," Kildee said in a statement. "In an effort to cover up Michael Steele’s racist comment, Fox News altered the transcript online to read ‘honest engine’ instead of ‘honest Injun.’"

Steele has come under fire on Tuesday for that statement, as well as predicting that Republicans are unlikely to win back control of Congress this fall.Comment:  When I saw the first story, I posted it on Facebook with the heading "Republican sensitivity to minorities." I was going to leave it at that until Kildee demanded an apology. Then it became a story worth noting.

Some online sources suggest how bad the phrase is (or isn't):

honest injunThis phrase is considered to be impolite (not politically correct) because injun is a slang term for American Indians.honest injun(used to emphasize the truth of a statement; sometimes considered offensive)Here's what a couple of commenters said:Here is a Congressman whose state is the worst in the nation, rarely says 'boo', and what is he most upset about? Stimulus? No. Greater entitlements? No. An unfunded Health Care Bill? No. National security? No way. He is upset over the language someone used. Something Ahmadinejad said about the Holocaust? Nope. Al Qaeda's latest video threat? Still no. How about mischaracterizations of other Congressional members or the opposition party? Nope. He is outraged by Michael Steele's comment, and the 'ridiculous' comment about indians possibly being 'honest.' OR he is upset about Steele's mispronunciation of 'indian'. Now I am being a bit facetious, but come on! We hardly ever hear anything from the Congressman from Michigan and THIS is what he is barking about? Rep. Dale Kildee needs to start representing his failing state instead of pretending to 'crime-fight' as a 'language cop.'

BY MarkV on 01/05/2010 at 17:33

This is one Indian who sees no harm in this old expression. There are plenty of real slights and serious damages that have been done and are being done to American Indians. Ever hear of the IIM Accounts scandal? Why not focus your outrage on the real damages, the sticks and stones if you will, and let the harmless words blow away in the wind.

BY Cawoonache on 01/05/2010 at 17:34I wouldn't be as dismissive as these commenters were. I think the GOP doesn't care about minorities and this is more evidence of that. Republicans, even minority ones like Steele, approach problems and solutions from a white-privilege position.

But the commenters have a point. Most issues are more important than this one. As a mild slur, "injun" deserves attention only when it's used in a negative, disparaging way, as in Cowboys Catch an "Injun" and Limbaugh Calls Native Americans "Injuns"—for the 4th Time.