Alexie condemns "Native Extraction" ad

Valerie Taliman writes an op/ed piece condemning the "Native Extraction Service" classified ad.

Stop the racist attacks on our children

By Valerie TalimanThe message is clear: Native people are like pests or vermin, and can be disposed of by simply calling a free service to have them “extracted.”

It was the cyberspace equivalent of a “Wanted” poster, reminiscent of bounties once paid for Indian scalps in the old West. And in my view, it’s a classic hate crime, carried out for the sole purpose of inciting racism and hate against indigenous peoples.More Natives condemn the ad:Tracy Rector, Longhouse Media executive director, said the use of their photo in such a “hateful and demeaning way was deeply hurtful to these young men and their families, and to the Native community as a whole.

“This ad could intimidate and incite violence against indigenous youth in North America, and we are joining with Manitoba chiefs to call for an end to hate crimes such as these. We want to see the perpetrators brought to justice.”

Author and poet Sherman Alexie, a founding board member of Longhouse Media, called for collective action. “As much as the world has changed for indigenous people in good ways, there are still many violent and hateful folks out there who seek to harm us, and we must condemn them in print and in action, and we must do this together.”Why people should take this seriously:Walter Lamar, a twice-decorated FBI special agent and former national director of law enforcement for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, said it was hard to imagine why a news organization would publish such a sinister advertisement.

“Those willing to demonstrate their hate publicly are equally capable of violence,” said Lamar, who now owns a firm that specializes in helping to reduce violence and drug abuse on reservations. “As a former FBI agent and Blackfeet Nation citizen, I have seen firsthand the carnage left by those consumed by racist hatred. History can produce example after example of racist hatred being translated to violence.”Comment:  This is a textbook case of how to respond to a media controversy, especially in Indian country. Here's how it went:

When the story broke, I saw it first on Facebook. I think my boss Victor was the first to post it, but others soon followed. I posted an item on it in my blog that night.

When people discovered the misuse of the March Point photo, Tracy Rector posted a comment on my blog item. She or Valerie Taliman wrote a statement for Longhouse Media and posted it on the Longhouse Media website. They both e-mailed me about the statement to make sure PECHANGA.net was aware of it.

Now Taliman has written a followup piece to keep the issue in the public eye and make sure everyone knows about it. Indian Country Today has published it, PECHANGA.net is linking to it, and Indianz.com may link to it also. She and others are posting this followup on Facebook and probably on Twitter as well.

At this point, anyone who follows the Native media must've heard about this story. I'm not sure what they can do about it, but at least they're aware of it. From a PR standpoint, that's a good result.

For more on the subject, see Racists Lack Self-Esteem and Tribes Need Better PR.

"Native Extraction Service" classified ad

Ad offering 'Native Extraction Service' condemnedFirst Nations leaders in Manitoba are expressing outrage about an online classified ad that offered to round up and "extract" aboriginal youth from parts of Winnipeg and transport them like wild animals to reserves or an area of the city where many aboriginal people live.

The ad, titled "Native Extraction Service," was posted on the website UsedWinnipeg.com, but was taken down by 1:38 p.m. CT on Thursday.And:The text of the ad read: "Have you ever had the experience of getting home to find those pesky little buggers hanging outside your home, in the back alley or on the corner???

"Well fear no more, with my service I will simply do a harmless relocation. With one phone call I will arrive and net the pest, load them in the containment unit (pickup truck) and then relocate them to their habitat."And:On Thursday, First Nations leaders at Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO), an organization representing most First Nations communities in northern Manitoba, said they want police to investigate the ad as a hate crime.

"The way it's worded, 'to relocate them to their habitat.' Here we are trying to teach our kids better. The kids out there are told they're not wanted, said MKO Grand Chief David Harper.Comment:  At first I thought this was a dentistry service for Natives. I guess not.

No word on whether the "extraction service" is limited to Native youths. If David Yeagley, Ward Churchill, or various fakes and wannabes get ornery, can we have them removed?

Ahem. Nice to see racism that's so plain even the deniers can't deny it. This is a "nice" northern counterpart to the reports of nooses and KKK hoods at UC San Diego.

It also seems like a textbook example of a hate crime. It exists for no other reason than to incite hatred. And it incites people to act on their hate: to call someone and have Natives "extracted."

And the ad used three real Native kids without their face blurred. Classy. I'd say these kids and their parents have a good chance of winning a libel suit against whoever placed the ad.

Why the ad is stereotypical

If it isn't obvious, this ad is promoting the idea that Native youths are criminals, thugs, and lowlifes. In other words, modern-day savages. In that regard, it's kind of like SCALPED.

It's reminiscent of other anti-Indian ads such as the infamous "hunting season" one from a decade ago. The message of them all is that Indians are lazy, good-for-nothing wretches. In other words, scum, parasites, or vermin. That the only good Indian is a dead or "extracted" one.

For more on the subject, see Savage Indians.

Below:  "This online classified ad offered the free removal and relocation of aboriginal youth from parts of Winnipeg. CBC News has blurred the faces in the picture. The ad has since been pulled down." (UsedWinnipeg.com/CBC)

Need hard data on Native movies

Most of the arguments about why Hollywood won't make Native-themed movies, including mine, have been speculative. We're theorizing why investors, studio execs, and distributors won't support these movies.

What I'd like to hear from people in the industry is something like this:I'm a Native producer with N years of experience just like black producer X or Latino producer Y. I pitched a project A which was similar to producer X's project B, but with Native instead of black stars. The studios turned it down.

Why? The studios said project B lost money for reasons 1, 2, and 3. Here are the numbers they gave me: xxx, xxx, xxx. Because of these numbers, the studios said, we won't fund your project A.

It has nothing to do with race, they explained, and everything to do with money. We'd greenlight your project in a second if we thought it could earn a profit. But Project B (as well as C, D, and E) proves that the audience for pictures like yours simply isn't there.I consider the lack of such examples telling. If people had this kind of hard evidence, and were smart, they'd use it to prove their cases. The omission suggests to me that, again, they're just theorizing.

Well, I'm theorizing too. Someone was willing to fund The Missing, Windtalkers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Apocalypto, Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Comanche Moon, The Ruins, Aztec Rex, and so forth. Not coincidentally, these all had flawed or negative takes on Indians.

Of course, someone also was willing to fund more positive movies as long as they were set in the distant past. Hence The Last of the Mohicans, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo: An American Legend, Squanto: A Warrior's Tale, Pocahontas, The Emperor's New Groove, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, Brother Bear, Hidalgo, and so forth.

So it's not true that Hollywood won't consider Native-theme movies. It simply won't consider Native-themed movies with a modern storyline. Hence no New Moon or Avatar until somebody forces the issue.

My conclusion: Hollywood's investors, studio execs, and distributors have a stereotypical view of Indians. These people think Indians lived primarily in the past, on the Plains, as primitive savages. If any Indians are left, these people think they're modern-day savages: bums, moochers, thieves, mobsters, or killers. I.e., people who would sell their mothers for a drink, a welfare check, or a pile of casino cash.

Needless to say, that view is racist.

If you don't think my view of Hollywood is correct, show me the hard data. For instance, low-budget comedies, romances, dramas, thrillers, or horror movies with no-name minority casts that failed to make money despite studio backing. Then I'll believe Hollywood is turning down pitches for similar Native movies for reasons other than racism.

For more on the subject, see Indians Hold Steady at 0.3% and Roscoe Pond or a Big-Name Actor?

Below:  "Savage Indian killers? Sure, we'll spend a few hundred million dollars on that. No problem!"

Racism in Heinlein's Friday

I recently read the sci-fi classic Friday. Here's the story:

FridayFriday is a 1982 science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein. It is the story of a female "artificial person," the titular character, genetically engineered to be stronger, faster, smarter, and generally better than normal humans. Artificial humans are widely resented, and much of the story deals with Friday's struggle both against prejudice and to conceal her enhanced attributes from other humans. The story is set in a Balkanized world, in which the nations of the North American continent have been split up into a number of smaller states.One scene in this novel is worth mentioning.

The story is set in the mid-21st century. Friday, going by the name Marjorie, has joined a free-love sort of family in New Zealand. Since they're uninhibited about sexuality, Friday doesn't expect them to have other hangups.

The family includes Anita, who's in charge; Vickie; and Anita's daughter Ellen. Ellen has done something disgraceful and Marj (Friday) asks Vickie what she did:"Vickie, what is this about Ellen's husband? Does he have two heads or what?"

"Uh, he's a Tongan. Or did you know?"

"Certainly I knew. But 'Tongan' is not a disease. And it's Ellen's business. Her problem, if it is one. I can't see that it is."

"Uh, Anita has handled it badly. Once it's done, the only thing to do is to put the best face on it possible. But a mixed marriage is always unfortunate, I think—especially if the girl is the one marrying below herself, as in Ellen's case."

"'Below herself!' All I've been told is that he's a Tongan. Tongans are tall, handsome, hospitable, and about as brown as I am. In appearance they can't be distinguished from Maori. What if this young man had been Maori . . . of good family, from an early canoe . . . and lots of land?"

"Truly, I don't think Anita would have liked it, Marj—but she would have gone to the wedding and given the reception. Intermarriage with Maori has long precedent behind it; one must accept it. But one need not like it. Mixing the races is always a bad idea."

(Vickie, Vickie, do you know of a better idea for getting the world out of the mess it is in?) "So? Vickie, this built-in suntan of mine—you know where I got it?"

"Certainly, you told us. Amerindian. Uh, Cherokee, you said. Marj! Did I hurt your feelings? Oh, dear! It's not like that at all! Everybody knows that Amerindians are— Well, just like white people. Every bit as good."

(Oh, sure, sure! And "some of my best friends are Jews." But I'm not Cherokee, so far as I know. Dear little Vickie, what would you think if I told you that I am an AP? I'm tempted to . . . but I must not shock you.)

"No, because I considered the source. You don't know any better. You've never been anywhere and you probably soaked up racism with your mother's milk."

Vickie turned red. "That's most unfair! Marj, when you were up for membership in the family I stuck up for you. I voted for you."

"I was under the impression that everyone had. Or I would not have joined. Do I understand that my Cherokee blood was an issue in that discussion?"

"Well . . . it was mentioned."

"By whom and to what effect?"

"Uh— Marjie, those are executive sessions, they have to be. I can't talk about them."Without spoiling the story, let's say Friday doesn't agree with this irrational racism and pays for it.

It's not clear why Friday told the family she was Cherokee if she didn't think she was. But her boss later confirms that she is part Indian:"Before your records were destroyed, I once scratched my curiosity by listing the sources that went into creating you. As near as I can recall they are:

"Finnish, Polynesian, Amerindian, Inuit, Danish, red Irish, Swazi, Korean, German, Hindu, English--and bits and pieces from elsewhere since none of the above are pure."Rob's reactions

A few thoughts on this:

Two of Friday's top four ethnic groups are Native and another one (Polynesian) is indigenous. I'd say she counts as an indigenous or Native person. As much as one can when one's cells were mixed and grown in a test tube, that is.

Did Heinlein really think the world's people would overcome their prejudice against promiscuity and homosexuality in a mere 50-75 years? If so, he must've been high on something. It'll take much longer than that.

Racial and sexual prejudices often go together. Really, the enlightened people of New Zealand have 22nd-century attitudes toward sex but 19th-century attitudes toward race? How did their racial attitudes lurch so far backward that they'd embarrass Archie Bunker?

Alas, this subplot is interesting but unrealistic. It's like a textbook that gives you a case study of racism without any of the flesh-and-blood messiness.

The publisher who authorized the cover must not have read the book. Friday looks like a pure Aryan or Scandinavian type. The Finnish, Danish, red Irish, German, and English strains are evident, but not the Polynesian, Amerindian, Inuit, Swazi, Korean, or Hindu strains. I guess the publisher figured a blond beauty would sell better than a brown-skinned beauty.

As for the rest of the book, Heinlein has some interesting ideas about the future, but his view of women is misogynist. Moreover, as two Amazon.com critics put it, "the secret-agent intrigue peters out partway through" and "the main story meanders around pointlessly for over half the book." Rob's rating:  7.5 of 10.

For more on the subject, see No Natives in Science Fiction? and The Best Indian Books.

Below:  Friday the brown-skinned Cherokee...



...and the Tongans she supposedly resembles.

Scholar: Huck and Twain were racist

Commercialism sold Huck Finn character down the river, Twain scholar says

The retired chairman of UCLA's English Department has a collection of tchotchkes, gadgets and artwork that show how the 1884 classic has been romanticized by fans, the public and even the author.

By Bob PoolA close reading of the book shows that the supposedly warm relationship between Huck and Jim has been manipulated over the last century, he said.

"Jim was an encumbrance for Huck. There's been a great deal of romanticizing about the bond that the two of them form on the voyage down the river. But Huck never realizes slavery is wrong."

Was Huckleberry Finn a racist?

"Yes," Wortham said. And so was Mark Twain.

Twain used the "N-word" 206 times, according to Wortham. "Each time that word is used is calculated" by Twain for its shock value for an audience that at the time was unaccustomed to literature written in the vernacular, he said.Comment:  Actually, it doesn't take that close of a reading. I read Huck Finn in high school. Twenty years later, I remembered it well enough to successfully argue it's racist.

The use of the n-word is just the tip of the iceberg. The best arguments for Huck Finn's being racist are Jim's ignorance and superstitiousness. Being unschooled isn't the same as being dumb, but Jim is as foolish as a child. And Jim's over-the-top Negro dialect. He talks like every minstrel clown in history, not a real person.

By the way, rafting downriver to the South, where slavery is more pervasive, is a pretty damn stupid mistake. For Jim the character and for Twain the writer. I wonder why Twain wrote it that way, and why critics haven't pounced on this blatant mistake. What next...a Jew fleeing Nazis who hides in Auschwitz?

For more on the subject, see Is Huck Finn Racist? and Mark Twain, Indian Hater.

Below:  Childlike blacks and savage Indians were Twain's youthful view of minorities.

"Help me, massa! I sho nuff is so ignorant I can't speak no good!"

Extreme racism = mental illness

Is Extreme Racism a Mental Illness?

Yes
It can be a delusional symptom of psychotic disorders

By Alvin F. PoussaintThe American Psychiatric Association has never officially recognized extreme racism (as opposed to ordinary prejudice) as a mental health problem, although the issue was raised more than 30 years ago. After several racist killings in the civil rights era, a group of black psychiatrists sought to have extreme bigotry classified as a mental disorder. The association's officials rejected the recommendation, arguing that because so many Americans are racist, even extreme racism in this country is normative—a cultural problem rather than an indication of psychopathology.

The psychiatric profession's primary index for diagnosing psychiatric symptoms, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), does not include racism, prejudice, or bigotry in its text or index. Therefore, there is currently no support for including extreme racism under any diagnostic category. This leads psychiatrists to think that it cannot and should not be treated in their patients.

To continue perceiving extreme racism as normative and not pathologic is to lend it legitimacy. Clearly, anyone who scapegoats a whole group of people and seeks to eliminate them to resolve his or her internal conflicts meets criteria for a delusional disorder, a major psychiatric illness.

Extreme racists' violence should be considered in the context of behavior described by Allport in The Nature of Prejudice. Allport's 5-point scale categorizes increasingly dangerous acts. It begins with verbal expression of antagonism, progresses to avoidance of members of disliked groups, then to active discrimination against them, to physical attack, and finally to extermination (lynchings, massacres, genocide). That fifth point on the scale, the acting out of extermination fantasies, is readily classifiable as delusional behavior.Comment:  I'm not sure we need to limit this claim to extreme racism. One could argue that any kind of racism is a mental illness.

Time after time we see how racists are unable to process information. You tell them their words and images are stereotypical and they deny it. Even though the stereotypes are obvious to an objective observer. Consider Chief Wahoo, for example.

We've seen how crazy people get about their Indian mascots. Their devotion is totally out of proportion to the mascot's minor role. It borders on religious fanaticism. People defend their mascot as if it's their child, their parent, or their god.

We see religious and racial fanaticism come together in Jack Chick's Crazy Wolf. Chick thinks Navajos are devil-worshipers because he can't conceive of a non-Christian religion. He's like some autistic child whose senses don't function properly. Show him a picture of Changing Woman, explain her un-Satanic story, and he'll cry, "Devil!"

For more on the subject, see Everybody Is Racist and Highlights of the US Report to the UN on Racism

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:

Vermont to apologize for sterilization?

Vt. lawmakers weigh apologizing for eugenics

By Dave GramIf the state of Vermont had carried out a plan to sterilize his grandmother, Don Stevens said Tuesday, he “wouldn’t be here.”

Many Vermonters of mixed French Canadian and Native American heritage, like Stevens’ grandmother, as well as poor, rural whites, were placed on a state-sanctioned list of “mental defectives” and degenerates in the 1930s and placed in state institutions like the Home for the Feeble Minded in Brandon.

Some had surgery after Gov. Stanley Wilson in 1931 won enactment of a sterilization law. It was designed to reduce the number of people seen as placing demands on public services, and to purify what University of Vermont zoology professor Henry Perkins, a national leader of the so-called “eugenics” movement, called “the fine old stock of original settlers in Vermont.”

Now the Vermont Legislature, which once endorsed breeding people like cattle, is considering a resolution expressing regret. It vows never to repeat “this dark chapter in Vermont’s history” and expresses the Legislature’s “profound sorrow and sincere regret that such a program of sterilization was sanctioned.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see The Straight Dope on the Sterilization of Native Women.

Warpaint and feathers for Cowboys game

Push for American Indian garb at CSU game draws fire

By Monte WhaleyStudents and administrators at Colorado State University will meet today to talk about a Facebook posting that encouraged fans to wear war paint and feathers to a basketball game this Saturday.

CSU sophomore Ben Margolit asked that CSU fans wear the American Indian garb at the men's home basketball game against the Wyoming Cowboys. His posting sparked comments from detractors who thought it was racist and degrading to American Indians.

Supporters, meanwhile, wrote that Margolit's critics were being too politically correct.

A statement by CSU administrators decried the posting, and students who objected to the posting held a rally Wednesday on campus.CSU students drop plan for Indian costumes at Wyoming game following protestsA student-created effort to get CSU students to dress up as American Indians for the weekend's Wyoming-CSU basketball game has sparked a campus protest and a nasty discussion on Facebook.

Organizers of the event have already decided to change the dress to "Orange Out" to honor CSU's history as the Aggies. But the damage appears to have been done.

In a letter to the campus community, CSU administrators said they can understand why some students think dressing up might be fun. However, they said, such events perpetuate "cartoonish cultural stereotypes."

CSU administrators noted that students have a First Amendment right to free expression, so they took no official action to stop the planned event. But they did reach out to the organizers in an effort to persuade them to change their focus.Comment:  Margolit, the student who posted the notice, took it down immediately when notified of the backlash. He didn't mean to denigrate anyone. It was just good clean fun.

So Margolit's racism is unconscious and ignorant rather than conscious and mean-spirited. It's still racism. For whatever reason, he thought it was okay to characterize a race with cartoonish cultural stereotypes.

Ironically, schools with Indian mascots often hold events like this. And the schools' administrators support these activities rather than criticize them. I guess Colorado State University is more enlightened than other schools.

For more on the subject, see Tricking or Treating Indians and Team Names and Mascots.

Below:  Similar "fun" at sporting events.

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.

Indians hold steady at 0.3%

Native Americans Still at the Bottom in Hollywood

By Roscoe PondThe "screen actors guild" (SAG) diversity "report card" has been around for ten years (1998-2008). The last report was October of 2009. It tracks the shared acting roles for theatrical films and television. Caucasians have dominated all roles from 79.1% in 1998 to 72.5% in 2008. African American roles went from 13.4% to 13.3%. Native Americans shared fewer supporting roles plus background extra work from 0.20% to 0.30%. They peaked in 2005 to 0.40%. By the end of 2008 SAG reported that, "American Indians held steady at 0.3% of all roles for each of the last two years. While the feature film, low budget and episodic television categories all dropped in proportion to total roles."

Those statistics are not good. It is now 2010 and still there are no lead acting roles for native men or women on primetime television. The same can be said of no lead characters in major studio films.

Movie executives care only about money and top box office receipts. Network TV cares only about top ratings. Where would the Native American fit in on all of this? They don't. They have never had a chance to be "tested" in any lead roles on TV. Sponsors would never buy advertising of a TV show with a lead native actor or actress. The reason is clear. The public only wants to see Native Americans in "buckskins" and "loincloths." That's why the mini-series, "Into the West" (2005) and "Comanche Moon" (2008) produced good TV ratings. Both are westerns.Comment:  Natives make up 1-1.5% of the US population but get only 0.3% of the roles. That means they're getting about a fourth of the roles they should be getting.

I think Pond's analysis is correct as far as it goes. But let's discuss it further.

If movie executives care only about money, why aren't they rushing to do movies with Native themes or actors? The biggest hits of the last year are Avatar and New Moon. Why isn't some exec saying, "Let's combine Avatar and New Moon! A wolfish Native soldier fights blue-skinned alien vampires...it's a guaranteed hit!"

Answer: Because Hollywood, like much of America, is culturally conservative. Which is another way of saying it's prejudiced against minorities. Minorities such as, say, Barack Obama, whom a significant number of Americans believe is a Kenyan and a Muslim.

As Pond said, people want to see stereotypical Indians. (Or think they do until movies like Avatar and New Moon prove them wrong.) Indians like the ones in countless old Westerns, sports logos, statues and paintings, and on and on.

They get angry when someone tells them the reality contradicts their fantasies. That Indians are doctors, lawyers, and teachers, not half-naked warriors on horseback. They insist they're "honoring" Indians by asserting their stupid and stereotypical beliefs are more important than the facts.

So Hollywood cares only about money, but ignores the fact that Natives make money when given half a chance. So money can't be what's holding Native actors back. What's holding them back is the racist attitudes shared by studio execs and other Americans.

Racism, not profits

No other explanation makes sense. And why would anyone even look for another explanation? Studio execs come from the same population that worships stereotypical mascots and gets angry at modern museums. They love their racist beliefs about Indians.

These Americans aren't championing stereotypes because it's profitable. They're championing stereotypes because they've been brainwashed since childhood to believe our foundational myth. Columbus, Pilgrims, and Founding Fathers good! Indians, blacks, and immigrants bad! Taming the wild frontier! Progress and civilization! God bless America!

With that cultural mindset, the idea of a movie or TV show starring modern-day Indians causes cognitive dissonance. Most executives can't imagine it, and they can't imagine audiences imagining it. So they trot out their money-making excuses--e.g., the fallacy of the big-name actor--to avoid greenlighting Native projects. So no Twilight until Stephenie Meyer forces the issue and no Avatar until James Cameron forces the issue.

Translating from Hollywood-speak to English, what these execs are really saying is, "When I grew up, Indians were savages. My parents and teachers believed it, I believe it, and everyone I know believes it. Therefore, we won't make a movie with Native themes or actors unless it's a Western. No one would believe in modern-day Indians as soldiers, astronauts, or vampire fighters. The movie would fail and I'd be unemployed like some lazy, drunken wretch of an Indian."

In short, it's all about Hollywood's racism, not its quest for profits. Get it now?

For more on the subject, see Roscoe Pond or a Big-Name Actor? and Producer Says No to Pond. For more on the subject in general, see The Best Indian Movies and TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Below:  The only acceptable Indians (from Comanche Moon).

White History Month needed?

'White history' topic creates buzz

By Steve LynnFarmington resident Zang Wood, who is white, said prior to Monday's meeting that he felt the commission was discriminating against him by celebrating black, Hispanic and American Indian cultural periods, while not recognizing whites.Wood's "colorblind" argument:Wood, a member of the San Juan County Historical Society, said he only wanted to make a point that the commission should celebrate all races and cultures or none at all. He said he wasn't trying to promote one race over another.

Commission member Catalina Liles said she would organize a white history month, but she withdrew her motion to do so Monday after criticism from people at the meeting and fellow commissioners.

Wood, who missed Monday's meeting because relatives were in town, didn't expect the commission to celebrate white history month.

"What made this country great is the melting pot," Wood said. "You either make a level playing field and honor everybody or honor nobody."

Wood doesn't think the city should "honor some of the citizens some of the time, but none of the citizens the other times," Wood said.Comment:  How about a month for whiny crybabies? We don't have one of those yet.

As one website put it:When most of us were little, and asked our mom why mothers got a special day, we may have heard, "Every day is children's day!"Similarly, every month is White History Month.

Wood's colorblind argument is essentially racist. Why? Because it argues for maintaining the status quo, which is racist. Because Americans have devoted the vast majority of their historical studies and "honors" to whites. Even though the country was originally 100% nonwhite and is still 30% nonwhite.

If Wood wants a colorblind society...great. Let us know when 30% of the history textbooks, TV and movie roles, statues and monuments, comic books and cartoons, coins and stamps, etc. feature minorities. Until then, the country isn't colorblind. And you're deluding yourself with racist blinders if you believe otherwise.

For more on "white history," see White History Means "We Won." For more on the subject in general, see The Trouble with Stereotyping...and What to Do About It and Highlights of the US Report to the UN on Racism.

Below:  "Colorblind" (white) casting in The Last Airbender.

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.

Aleuts interned during WW II

WW II internment of Aleuts recounted in documentary

By Jeannette LeeA new documentary film, Aleut Story, includes this testimony from ... Aleuts in chronicling the little-known internment of 881 Alaska Natives from the Pribilof and Aleutian Islands during World War II.

Many in the film are speaking publicly for the first time about their experiences in the camps, where they were sent after troops from Japan invaded Alaska's western outposts in June 1942.

"My mother, when she was living, she used to start crying, so we wouldn't talk about it," Bourdukofsky told The Associated Press. Bourdukofsky, now 82, was a young mother of two during the evacuation.

Many Aleuts were thankful to be ferried out of the war zone, until they arrived at five overcrowded, disease-infested sites scattered throughout damp spruce rainforests.

"There was a lot of sickness at the camp," said retired Maj. Gen. Jake Lestenkof, who was 11 years old when his mother died of pneumonia at a camp at Funter Bay.

"There was a lot of pneumonia and tuberculosis that was going around and not treated. There were certainly no medical facilities or personnel," Lestenkof, 73, told the AP.

One in 10 people died in the camps from 1942 to 1945, according to federal estimates cited in the film.

Sanitation and pipe systems were never installed. Residents drank water tainted with sewage and—at one camp—runoff from the expanding cemetery.

Sites included an abandoned fish cannery and a rotting gold mining camp.

"It was terrible," said Maria Turnpaugh, 78, from her home in Unalaska. "We lived in little shacks full of holes, and no running water. People got sick all the time."

Aleuts weren't suspected of spying or sabotage, as were tens of thousands of Japanese Americans corralled into federal internment camps after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

"I looked hard for evidence that there had been any suggestion at any time" of Aleut spies, said Marla Williams, who wrote, directed and produced the film. "There was no question of their loyalty whatsoever."

The film includes letters from officials who thought internment would protect Aleuts from the fighting in Alaska's distant western islands.

Still, Aleuts weren't allowed to leave the camps without penalty unless they had been drafted into the military, or threatened into working the Pribilof fur seal hunt, which brought millions in income to the U.S. government.

Evacuation and Internment, 1942-1945In response to Japanese aggression in the Aleutians, U.S. authorities evacuated 881 Unangax from nine villages. They were herded from their homes onto cramped transport ships, most allowed only a single suitcase. Heartbroken, Atka villagers watched as U.S. servicemen set their homes and church afire so they would not fall into Japanese hands.

The Unangax were transported to Southeast Alaska and there crowded into "duration villages": abandoned canneries, a herring saltery, and gold mine camp-rotting facilities with no plumbing, electricity or toilets. The Unangax lacked warm winter clothes, and camp food was poor, the water tainted. Accustomed to living in a world without trees, one open to the expansive sky, they suddenly found themselves crowded under the dense, shadowed canopy of the Southeast rainforest. For two years they would remain in these dark places, struggling to survive. Illness of one form or another struck all the evacuees, but medical care was often nonexistent, and the authorities were dismissive of the their complaints. Pneumonia and tuberculosis took the very young and the old. Thirty-two died at the Funter Bay camp, seventeen at Killisnoo, twenty at Ward lake, five at Burnett Inlet. With the death of the elders so, too, passed their knowledge of traditional Unangan ways.Myth Blaster-–Revealing the Truth About the Internment of Aleutian Alaskans During World War II

Comment:  Removing people from an alleged war zone is one thing. But if there was no question about the Aleuts' loyalty, why did the government put them in disease-ridden prison camps with no plumbing or electricity? The 10% death toll was worse than that of Manzanar or Guantanamo Bay, America's most famous concentration camps.

To reiterate, interning Japanese Americans was one of the worst constitutional violations ever. But the government didn't suspect the Aleuts of anything, yet imprisoned them in even worse conditions. How do we explain that?

I can only imagine it had something to do with the Aleuts' race. They were closely related to the Asians across the Bering Strait. Asians who came from one totalitarian state or another (the USSR, China, or Japan).

The Aleuts had the same stoic demeanor as the Japanese Americans, who were also suspect. Sure, the Aleuts acted as if they were loyal to the US, but who knew what evil lurked behind those inscrutable eyes? Better to be safe than sorry, the reasoning undoubtedly went.

Can't trust those Asians?

I think the book Mother America--A Living Story of Democracy by Carlos Romulo summed up what many Americans thought (and still think) about Asians:The Oriental mind has ever been an insoluble mystery to the white man. ... I know that many a white man is prone to blanket the Oriental under the damning conclusion: "He is a liar. You can't trust him. He is slippery."Summing up America's history of concentration camps:

American Indians: Fort Cass, Bosque Redondo, various reservations.

Japanese and Aleutian Americans: WW II internment camps.

Arabs and Muslims: Guantanamo Bay.

Although we also imprisoned some German and Italian Americans during WW II, brown-skinned people from Asia are most likely to become our prisoners of war. Perhaps not coincidentally, Asians, Indians, and Arabs aren't featured much on the screen. There seems to be a pattern here--i.e., discrimination against anyone with Asian roots.

For more on the subject, see Native Documentaries and News.

Racist replies to MSN apology

In MSN to Apologize for Quileute Video, I noted that MSN was about to apologize (since done) for filming on the Quileute reservation without permission. In the comments on the original article, several people objected to this. It's instructive to see what non-Indians think of Indians when given a chance to express themselves.Posted by Capt Lewis Brantley on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 7:18 am Pacific Time.

Get over it. Why do I feel a monetary settlement coming?

Posted by Chris Peterson on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 8:44 am Pacific Time.

If I hadn't seen what happened on the PA waterfront with my own eyes, I would have thought this story was pure fiction. Instead of being grateful for what Twilight has done for the tribe, they are being stupid. I also see a monetary settlement coming Mr. Brantley. Including money for counseling for quote~ "This situation has caused an enormous amount of pain and suffering to the Quileute Nation as a whole, but especially to the descendants of the Quileute chief."

Posted by Jordan Hamrick on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 9:11 am Pacific Time.

"This situation has caused an enormous amount of pain and suffering to the Quileute Nation as a whole." Are you kidding me?

"We need to use the situation as an educational opportunity to teach the world how to conduct themselves when visiting a sovereign nation."

Whats next? Are they going to sue Stephenie Meyer for depicting the Quileute nation as a bunch of werewolves? Get over it.

Posted by Comon Senz on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 9:22 am Pacific Time.

"An apology will never erase that hurt."

But some cold hard cash might make the suffering a bit easier....

Posted by Jack Briar on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 11:49 am Pacific Time.

The Quileute Nation is not sovereign--they're quasi-sovereign. They depend on U.S. taxpayers for most of their money. They don't pay taxes, but they can vote just like everyone else.

Natives have all the rights of every citizen; they also have special casino rights, and the right to our money. They have more rights than the rest of us. "All men are created equal," but Indians are more equal than we are.

But yes, sadly, instance after instance, immediately after the get their feelings hurt, they put their hands out.

Posted by Amanda Hugenkiss on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 12:50 pm Pacific Time.

If they cared so much about their precious land, they would start by cleaning up all the trash and animal mess. Not even Stephen King could write a horror story involving the amount of filth strewn about La Push. Always looking for a handout, in my opinion.

Posted by Chris Peterson on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 3:00 pm Pacific Time.

If my family member had done for me and my family, and neighbors, and the community at large what Twilight has done for the west end, the Quileute Nation included, then no, I wouldn't have a problem with them filming around my home or my family members grave...MSN was trying to do something good, and the Quileutes have turned it into a "poor us, we have been abused" mess.

Posted by Chris Peterson on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 3:58 pm Pacific Time.

It's not my intent to get into an argument either, I was just trying to explain that to have my home, neighborhood or family grave site filmed wouldn't hurt my feelings none if all the publicity had done so much good for my family and the community at large. Who, besides the West End, had ever really heard of the tribe until these books? I was born and raised in PA, and have been to LaPush many, many times, but I didn't really know there was a tribe...I think they should be grateful for what all the publicity has done for them, instead of using this as a platform to say that this "situation" has caused them an ENORMOUS amount of pain and suffering.Fortunately some good comments were interspersed among the bad ones:Posted by Robyn Johnson on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 9:19 am Pacific Time.

I understand where they are upset. It's sacred land to them. If you are going to be filming on a place of different beliefs you make sure you follow the abiding customs. You would expect that if they were to go into a church or another more common system where respect was demanded. Though I don't feel a settlement is necessary.

Posted by don williams on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 11:16 am Pacific Time.

Imagine a group that has no true understanding of the practices within your church films the church and/or service, without permission, and then sets it to 'dark' music. I can well bet that those chastising the tribe's position would have the own righteous indignation and, most likely, would have already filed suit. "Get over it?" You wouldn't!

Posted by Mike Messerschmidt on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 12:25 pm Pacific Time.

I thought bigotry was a thing of the past on the Olympic Peninsula, especially the West End.

Apparently, from reading some of these posts, it is not.

Posted by Konstantina Halas on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 1:35 am Pacific Time.

I have to say that I'm honestly baffled by some of these responses. Being part of a culture that is proud of its roots and traditions, I would be just as upset if someone came to Greece and went to sacred temples or places and didn't show them the respect that they deserved. Not everything is about publicity and money. Just because some of you don't consider anything sacred in this world, it doesn't mean that everybody else is the same.

To the Quileute people, their cemeteries and graves are sacred places. To have some moron from MSN zoom in and out of a person's grave and post the video on there like it's some kind of a video you took of your back yard shows blunt disregard and disrespect of these people's traditions and culture. If some people don't have the brains to understand that, then I really feel sorry for them.Comment:  You can find comments like these on almost any article where Indians or other minorities stand up for their rights. Normally, I don't bother repeating people's ignorant opinions. But I thought I'd do it this time.

So Ms. Peterson has visited LaPush many times, but didn't know a tribe lived there? Thanks for weakening your remarks by admitting your ignorance. The only question is why the tribe should care if you can't or won't educate yourself.

To help these dummies so they don't end up as ignorant as Peterson:

With a few minor exceptions, Indians pay the same taxes as everyone else.

I don't know about the Quileute Nation, but many tribes depend on treaty payments for their income. So what? These payments are like payments on the national debt: a mandatory legal obligation, not a taxpayer "handout."

Casino rights aren't special rights. Any state is free to legalize gaming and let anyone open a casino. Do these morons really not understand that Indian gaming exists in its present form because of the democratic wishes of each state's electorate?

If you don't want Indians to have casinos, idiots, ban gambling in your state. Utah has done it and...guess what? No gambling in Utah means no Indian casinos in Utah.

Protesting = seeking payoff?!

Perhaps the most offensive assertion is that the Quileutes are protesting because they want a payoff. Really? Because there's such a long history of protesters getting paid for ruffling people's feathers? I'd love to see a list of all these payoffs.

I'm wondering who paid Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi for protesting injustices against their people? Who paid the Founding Fathers for complaining about taxation without representation? Who paid Jesus for noting the evils of the Roman establishment? I must've missed all those payoffs for airing legitimate grievances.

Sheesh. Here's a clue, idiots. The vast majority of protests have nothing to do with getting paid off. In case you were too stupid to notice, the world is full of illegal and immoral acts. Filming on someone's property without permission is one of them.

Like the last hundred times someone said or did something offensive, the offended party demanded an apology. Period. In this case, they got one. The case is already closed, so the numbskulls who think a demand for money is forthcoming are wrong.

Racists show true colors

So a large number of people--roughly half the commenters on the original article--think Indians are greedy bastards who are trying to cheat the system. In other words, that Indians are craven, immoral, and uncivilized--i.e., modern-day savages trying to rob us of our birthright. In other words, a large number of people are racists.

Thanks for proving what I keep saying, Americans: that many of you are racists. Glad to see the evidence in black and white. Keep demonstrating that bigots like you are the problem, not critics like me.

For more on the subject, see Indian Rights = Special Rights? and The Essential Facts About Indians Today.

Below:  Patrick Henry, who uttered the immortal words: "Give me Liberty, or give me Money!"

Oh, wait...he was a white Christian. Never mind. Only brown-skins are greedy bastards who are trying to cheat the system.

If you're not sure about this, ask any teabagger who's the problem in America. You can bet they won't name the people who start illegal wars or game the financial system. To them, the problem is blacks, Latinos, and other brown-skinned people, not "real Americans" like them.

Jack Chick's Crazy Wolf

I reported on fundamentalist bigot Jack Chick back in Tract Portrays Drunk Indians Needing Christ for Salvation (2001). For those of you who don't know Chick, here's the scoop on him:

Jack T. ChickJack Thomas Chick (born April 13, 1924) is an American publisher, writer and comic book artist, and has been called the most published comic book author in the world. His company, Chick Publications, claims to have sold over 750 million comic-style tracts (known as Chick Tracts), comic books, videos, books, and posters designed to promote Protestant evangelism from a fundamentalist point of view. Many of these are controversial, as they target beliefs and cultures in what many perceive as a negative manner.

Chick claims that Satan and his demons promote the occult through New Age beliefs, Rock Music (including Christian Rock), Wicca, role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons, and the celebration of Halloween to deceive people and send them to Hell. Chick is opposed to abortion and preaches against pre-marital sex. He believes homosexuality is a sin, and makes reference to the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah in tracts treating homosexuality.Now Chick is back with another anti-Indian tract. The story tells about Navajos who send a witch to kill an old woman because they can't stand her Christian beliefs.

You can read Crazy Wolf online, but here are some excerpts:

Navajos threaten Old Mary the Christian with death:



The witch (skinwalker) consorts with Satan:



An angel smashes the shape-shifting witch:



Comment:  The ugly racism in this tract is obvious. I'll just point out some of the less obvious problems.

The name "Crazy Wolf" is blatantly prejudicial.

The traditional Navajos all have ugly or twisted features.

While some traditional Navajos may disapprove of Christian Navajos, the reverse is much more likely. Moreover, Christians have a history of forcibly converting Navajos to their religion, while traditional Navajos don't. In fact, on many if not most reservations, Christian Indians are a majority, not some poor, persecuted minority.

Some Navajos believe in witches and skinwalkers, but if they exist, they exist at the margins of Navajo religion. Chick is setting up a false dichotomy between saintly Christianity and witchy Navajo religion. He ignores the central Navajo beliefs that have nothing to do with snakes, corpse powder, spirit bodies, shape-shifting, etc. Presumably he can't demonize these beliefs because there's nothing unholy about them.

Incidentally, the "him" in John 1:3 refers to God, not Jesus. Chick the bigot can't even quote his own Bible correctly. The Navajo woman should've responded, "No, God created the sun. That's why we call him the Creator. Our religions agree on God's central role, though you're apparently too biased to realize it."

The only good thing about this tract is that Chick has depicted the Navajo clothing, buildings, and landscapes with some accuracy. That may not be much, but it's better than most comic books and comic strips manage.

For more on the subject, see "Primitive" Indian Religions.

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."