Horn-Miller on TIME Canada cover

Some comments about this on Facebook:That's Waneek Horn-Miller from Kahnawake when she was on the Canadian national water-polo team...a few years ago. Yes, it was a real cover!

@ Taiaiake, she's insanely beautiful, stunning really! But, I'm curious (perhaps you can proffer some insight): If this cover had come out in the U.S. I'm guessing there would have been a tiny-but-mighty uproar &, generally speaking, it just would not have "flown"...is there some divide between the U.S. and Canada in this regard? I mean, I'm good with, like, the entire cover (with a tiny-but-mighty caveat, that we might discuss later) EXCEPT for the feather. I mean, what's THAT about?

Someone once said to me "if there are going to be stereotypes then let it be the ones you want." This version of "naked savage" is one that I can tolerate. It shows us as the beautiful people we are. I know, I know, the women argue that there are no men like this but frankly they're aren't any Native men's butts that are that shapely. :-P

There was a bit of grumbling about playing to stereotype, etc., and she did a LOT of news shows to explain her motives and view on what it accomplished. I agree: she was looking good and it reflected on Mohawks well in spite of breaching pol. correctness. But to your question...I think that Canada is less Protestant than the US culturally, and there is the French/European influence in the culture as well, so that's why this sort of thing isn't as big a deal.Comment:  The feather is to prove she's Native, obviously.

I'd say this is more of a sexy princess stereotype than a naked savage stereotype. It's borderline acceptable since the pose emphasizes her athleticism rather than her body parts. By altering the pose slightly, the image could've veered into unacceptable territory pretty easily.

For more on Horn-Miller, see Marriage or Mohawk Membership?

Neil Gaiman on "dead Indians"

In a 2008 interview, author Neil Gaiman discussed his novel The Graveyard Book:"The Graveyard Book” is a metaphor for life, family and leaving home, Gaiman says. The book opens with a baby boy escaping an assassin who has massacred his parents and older sister. The boy totters to a decrepit cemetery, where he’s adopted by ghosts, christened Nobody Owens (Bod for short) and given the Freedom of the Graveyard.

"Essentially, the world of the graveyard is this glorious extended family,” says Gaiman, who chose a British cemetery as the book’s setting so Bod could interact with historic characters.

"The great thing about having an English cemetery is I could go back a very, very, very long way. And in America, you go back 250 years (in a cemetery), and then suddenly you’ve got a few dead Indians, and then you don’t have anybody at all, unless you decide to set it up in Maine or somewhere and sneak in some Vikings.”Educator Debbie Reese posted her thoughts on Gaiman's comment about Indians:"A few dead Indians"--Given his reference to 250+ years ago, we can assume he's thinking of 1750 or thereabouts. In fact, by 1750, millions were dead due to warfare and disease. Estimates of the population of American Indians range from 18 million (Henry F. Dobyns estimate) to 75 million (Russel Thornton's estimate).

"...and then you don't have anybody at all" suggests the continent was an empty land. In fact, prior to European contact, there were thriving Native communities all across the continent. At Nambe (my Native Nation), we established ourselves at our current village location in 1300. Before that, we were in other, nearby villages, and before that, the Pueblo people were in places like Mesa Verde, Bandelier, and Chaco Canyon.Gaiman responds

Gaiman posted a response to Reese on her blog:I was replying to a specific question about European-style graveyards in the US and who you'd find in them and why I didn't set THE GRAVEYARD BOOK in America, which was that they didn't go back far enough, and they didn't give me the dead people I wanted for the story to work. Obviously (or obviously to me) I wasn't saying or implying that the country was uninhabited prior to the arrival of Europeans, or trying to somehow render invisible hundreds of millions of people who had inhabited this content for tens of thousands of years--especially after having very specifically written about them, and about that timespan in American Gods.

(And, of course, European Graveyards in the US go back much further than 250 years.)

A more sensible answer to why I didn't set The Graveyard Book in America was that I didn't want to, but I had a microphone stuck in front of my face by the Hornbook in front of a crowd of people at Book Expo or ALA, and I babbled.

Also apologies to any Icelandic or Norwegian readers who are offended by my imprecision. Obviously none of the Newfoundland settlers were Vikings.Commenters joined in, with some taking Gaiman's side:Angel Of Wrath said...

I'm part Native American and I didn't really glean any sort of racist lean from what he said.

And I'm really sick of people looking for reasons to be offended.

There are so many other travesties going on in the world today, you should better save your time trying to call attention to them and not caring so much about what an author says.

Get offended because gay marriage is still illegal in most states, get upset about the recession...do something a touch more productive. Seriously.

Taylor said...

Debbie, to put it bluntly, you need to calm down.

Neil's not discounting the deaths of millions of Native Americans. You jumped the gun, acted out of emotion, and didn't pause to really read what he said. There were no Native Americans being buried in European-style graveyards. Of course not.

What he was getting at is that a graveyard in England can go back a couple thousand years, to early AD, when the Romans first settled Britannia and earlier. There is more history. There are more peoples.And some taking Reese's:Anonymous said...

"And in America, you go back 250 years (in a cemetery), and then suddenly you've got a few dead Indians, and then you don't have anybody at all..." How could this not be read as anything except ignorant? Dr. Reese is not being emotional here. Mr. Gaiman specifically said "a few dead Indians." It's so tiring and stupid for people to continue to imagine that history in the Americas only began when Europeans invaded. Maybe Mr. Gaiman should have just specified that he wanted to write a book about werewolves or vampires or whatever and chose to situate the book in Europe since that continent has a long literary tradition peopled with such mythical creatures. That would have been preferable to disparaging Native peoples, as he did in the initial interview.

Anonymous said...

I like how so many of these comments essentially crack up to "how could you be such a jerk? Why would the phrase "a few dead Indians" be offensive? It doesn't offend me, and my great-great-great-great grandmother was a Cherokee princess! Get over being a minority, because none of us can relate, and you're just picking on famous person of the week."

If people don't know why a comment that SOUNDED LIKE it downplayed the mass genocide of a people could be offensive, then I don't know what to say. The OP could only take this comment in the context it was given where she first saw it. Neil explained its original context and it then made sense. But, in the context as it was from the blog she got it from, it seemed pointless and sensationalist to use the phrase "a few dead Indians," which, historically, has been used malevolently. Not to mention that it makes it seem that Indians are a thing of the past, and that there aren't currently millions of those Indians buried in European-esque cemeteries, thousands more with every passing year.

It must be nice to be unaffected by the constant derogatory comments about NAs, and to never have to wonder if someone you may respect is making one. I love Neil Gaiman, but he really worded this poorly. Full stop. It seems like a lot of you are just being troll-y to get into his good graces.(Excerpted from Debbie Reese's American Indians in Children's Literature, 4/18/10.)

Rob weighs in

I understand the point Gaiman was trying to make. I think he did it poorly enough to deserve the criticism he got. In other words, I'm on Reese's side.

First, to reiterate the obvious, European history in North America goes back 500 years, not 250. By 1750 there were substantial European settlements along the Atlantic coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific coast as well as the Southwest and the Great Lakes area.

Some of the European settlements were built on top of Indian settlements. The Europeans might've buried their dead where the Indians previously buried their dead. So the "European-style graveyards" might have Indians buried informally, if not formally, in the same grounds. That would work fine for a story about ghosts inhabiting a graveyard.

More to the point, Europeans and Indians quickly began mingling in the same settlements. From 1550 to 1750 they were cohabitants in California, New Mexico, Texas, and Florida, and from 1625 to 1750 in New England, New York, Virginia, and on down the coast.

In some cases Indians joined the settlements voluntarily, became Spanish or English citizens, and intermarried with the foreigners. In other cases they were enslaved or forced into servitude. The Europeans coaxed them to convert to Christianity, after which they could receive a proper Christian burial. Pocahontas is merely the most famous example of an Indian who could've been buried in a European-style cemetery in America. (She's actually buried in England.)

Indeed, New Englanders created "praying towns" for the converted Indians to live in. Yes, towns full of Christianized Indians. Presumably their European-style graveyards had as many Indians as Englishmen.

Gaiman:  right or wrong?

True, few of these old graveyards remain. So technically speaking, Gaiman is correct. Few of the American cemeteries established by Europeans go back before 1750.

But in a broader sense, he's incorrect. With his "Vikings" comment, he clearly implied that America was uninhabited between 1000 and 1750. At best his remarks grossly oversimplified the complex history of pre-Colonial America.

I presume he knows about Columbus and the Pilgrims, but it's not clear what else he knows about this period. In his MARVEL 1602 comic-book series, he wrote about an alternate timeline where the Roanoke Colony of North Carolina survived. In this universe, the New World was populated by a few shadowy Indians and dinosaurs.

This suggests Gaiman's attitude toward American history. Until his English ancestors came over and started civilizing the place, America was a mythical land. Indians, dinosaurs, monsters, and gods all mingled in a prehistoric Neverland. There were no cultures here with burial grounds or cemeteries--just forests and plains with Indians running free like animals.

Incidentally, Angel of Wrath's opinion that we shouldn't spend time correcting historical mistakes and stereotypes is just plain stupid. Experts have noted the harm of Native stereotyping again and again. Angel may be ignorant of why stereotyping is one of the most significant issues facing Indians, but we aren't.

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

Stereotypes in Dancing with the Indians

Educator Debbie Reese reviews another children's book about Indians:

Angela Shelf Medearis's DANCING WITH THE INDIANSThe author is Angela Shelf Medearis. In a note in the back of the book she writes that her great-grandfather escaped from slavery in 1862 and ended up in "Okehema, Oklahoma" where she says he was accepted as a member of the Seminole tribe. He married a Seminole woman and they had a son. Their marriage did not last, and he moved near Oklahoma City and married an African American woman in 1909 or thereabouts. Twice a year, he would take his family of nine children to Okehema for a week-long powwow.And:It is because we know so little that I am so disappointed in Dancing with the Indians. The last line in her note says "The text for Dancing with the Indians was inspired by my ancestor's experience." I think, then, the book offers us an important story, but that story is ruined by the stereotypical imagery and factual errors in Medearis's writing and Byrd's illustrations.

Take, for example, the page where Medearis writes:

Our wagon nears the camp.
Drums pound and move our feet.
Soon everyone is swaying
to the tom-tom beat.
And:Turning, now to some of the text and illustration that is stereotypical. Medearis describes the dancers as "fiercely painted" and "reckless" and "fearless and untamed." She says they "stamp and holler." All of those words capture the stereotypical savage Indian that in that stereotypical framework, roamed the land, terrifying the brave pioneers. The accompanying illustrations show a frightened child, drawing back from that "angry cavalcade" as shown:
On the next page, she says, they "sing of ancient battles gloriously fought and won, of shaggy buffalo, and brave deeds they have done." Battles, definitely, but buffalo? Not likely. That illustration shows a man in Plains Indian style clothing, riding a horse, hunting buffalo with a bow and arrow.(Excerpted from Debbie Reese's American Indians in Children's Literature, 4/14/10.)

Comment:  A Google search shows the Seminoles of Florida have or had a Buffalo Dance. This could be from when buffalo roamed most of the US, or they could've borrowed it from Indians to the west.

Many Seminoles moved to Oklahoma in the 1830s and 1840s. Meanwhile, the white man was hunting the buffalo nearly to extinction from 1830 to 1870. It's unlikely the Seminoles of Oklahoma had time to develop their own tradition of hunting buffalo on horseback.

So the book's reference to a Plains Indian hunting a buffalo seems incorrect. Even if the Seminoles do a Buffalo Dance, it probably isn't to honor ancestors who hunted buffalo on horseback.

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

Rapacious cavalrymen in Family Guy

In Sunday's episode of Family Guy, April in Quahog (airdate: 4/11/10), everyone thinks the world is going to end. Peter decides to act out his long-held fantasies, leading to this scene in the kitchen:BRIAN:  What the hell are you doing with a musket?

PETER:  Last day on Earth. I've always wanted to save a Native American family from rapacious cavalrymen.We see a peaceful Indian camp attacked by the US cavalry. An officer chases and grabs an Indian maiden.OFFICER:  Yeah, this one'll do nicely.Peter "saves" her by shooting her, causing her head to explode and spattering the officer with blood.PETER:  Let her go.

PETER [whispering to the headless corpse]:  You don't have to be afraid of him anymore.Killing Indians is a joke?

Most people thought this episode wasn't funny in general and the Native scene wasn't funny in particular. Some reactions to this "joke":The bad jokes continued with Peter shooting the head off of a Native American woman with a musket. It wasn't even dark comedy...it's not even comedy, it's just dark and odd, and another example of the show's hit-or-miss cutaway shtick missing far wide of the mark.

The scene with the Battle of Hastings was boring and Peter shooting a Native American was just horrible humor.

Peter "Saves" Native Americans from the Calvary: In trying to "save a Native American family" from the Cavalry (circa 1880), Peter shoots a Native American woman's head off with a musket. I'm not kidding, it's not funny...so many nopes! Grade: FEveryone agrees: It wasn't funny.

So many potentially bad messages here for people to absorb. Men accost women because they're temptingly attractive. Attacks happened because of "bad men," not genocidal government policies. Murdering Indians is okay, even beneficial.

Peter might as well have said, "Kill the Indian, save the (wo)man." Making this explicit by blowing up the woman's head may be ironic, but it isn't funny. Not even close.

Summing up the stereotypes

The camp consists of tipis, so we immediately know we're in Plains stereotype territory. Other than that, the images aren't too bad.

There's a variety of Indians: male and female, young and old. Their skins are light brown, not red. They're dressed in simple buckskin outfits. A couple men have a single feather each, but there's no stereotypical chief. The older one is smoking a pipe.

The other faux pas is the Pocahontas-style maiden. Hollywood can't resist Indian women who are young and beautiful--i.e, exotic sex objects. If they've ever given us a Plain-Jane princess, I don't remember it.

No other ethnic group gets stereotyped as savage and uncivilized. Only Indians. Sure, Family Guy insults other groups occasionally, but not with the same level of bias. Showing every Indian as a Plains denizen is equivalent to showing every black as a slave.

Of course, the larger stereotype is showing 150-year-old Indians in the middle of a contemporary story. Viewers learn from the umpteenth source that Indians are primitive people of the past. And as we learn from other shows, any remaining Indians are casino owners.

It's a classic case of stereotyping by omission. No modern-day Indians exist in the Family Guy universe, so primitive Indians are the norm. White people live in suburban tract homes and Indians live in tipis.

What audiences learn

Is this just a harmless TV show? Let's do a pre- and post-test of people's knowledge of Indians. Here's the question:

"True or false: Most Indians lived it tipis?"

How much do you want to bet the percentage of wrong answers goes up after watching April in Quahog? Does anyone think the percentage wills stay the same or go down? Of course not. People will vote "true" for "most Indians lived it tipis" even if Family Guy is a piece of fiction.

For more on the subject, see Indians in Family Guy and TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Below:  "The family gathers around the television as the end of the world approaches."



The entire episode:

Indians at the bottom in New Orleans

Some people have argued that because Indians and blacks have a shared history at the bottom of New Orleans society, it's okay for them to appropriate each other's culture. Neither group was in a position to lord it over the other, so this appropriation is a respectful kind of homage.

For some reason this appropriation goes only one way: blacks imitate Indians but Indians don't imitate blacks. I suspect that's because blacks and Indians weren't truly equal in this environment. Blacks had a superior social position, so their "homage" was no homage. It was more of the usual stereotyping: "As Indians we can pretend to be wild and free, even though we're staid members of civilized society."

A posting on the Choctaw shows how Indians were marginalized even in the multicultural gumbo of Louisiana. I believe the first (indented) comes from Joey Dillard, a "recognized authority on black English." "Red Bones" is a pejorative term for Indians who migrated from the Carolinas and Georgia.Both Indians and Red Bones long have been marginal to the plantation areas of Louisiana. The Indian settlements were in the swamps, pine woods, and marshes, and their closest non-Indian neighbors most often were white yeoman farmers, Acadians, and Scotch-Irish, who owned no slaves. If Indians lived near a plantation, the owner became their patron, offering them credit and protection from exploitation, at least by others. In exchange, they were required to hunt, entertain guests with ball games and dances, make baskets, tan hides, and perform other services that might, on occasion, include the recovery of runaway slaves."Half savages and half civilized"

The posting continues:Dominique Rouquette, a friend of the Louisiana Choctaw, has left a lively description of the situations in 1850.

The Choctaw obstinately refuse to abandon the different parishes of Louisiana, where they are grouped in small family tribes, and live in rough huts in the vicinity of plantations, and hunt for the planters, who trade for the games they kill all they need: powder, lead, corn, woolen covers, etc. Their huts are generally [surrounded] by a fence. In this enclosure their families plant corn, pumpkins and potatoes, and raise chickens.
Rosa Jackson Pierite, a Choctaw-Biloxi from Indian Creek, has described how, in the 1920s, her mother and sisters put their baskets in a sheet, bundled it over a pole, and walked twelve miles from their homes near Indian Creek to Alexandria: "We spread them on street corners and sold them to passers-by." Rouquette has described a similar scene from nineteenth-century New Orleans.

Nothing is more interesting to the tourists than to see them [the Choctaw] wandering along the streets of La Reine du Sud (the Queen of the South), La Cite du Croissant (Crescent City) with their pauvres pacotilles (small, cheap wares), in their picturesque costumes, half savages and half civilized, followed by a number of children of all ages, half naked, and carrying on their backs a papoose snugly wrapped in the blanket, with which they envelope themselves, like a squirrel in moss.

Sometimes they squat in a circle, at the big market place, on the banks of the old river, patiently waiting with downcast eyes, for the chalandes [customers] who buy what they offer, more for the sake of charity than from necessity.
Artists such as basket makers were considered to be peddling, a low-status occupation in the eyes of non-Indians. Hunters were considered unreliable, almost objects of ridicule. Social contacts with non-Indians were largely restricted to practically momentary encounters, so the ball games, dances, and the sacred rituals of religion became matters of curiosity and sources of entertainment for white planters' families and friends.

(A Choctaw Belle, 1850, painted by P. Romer.)

Sounds to me like Indians were considered the dregs of society, equivalent to black slaves. They were considered half-savage, with large broods of children, exotic and colorful. They lives in rough huts in the woods and swamps beyond the plantations and didn't interact much with others except to sell their goods.

"Free people of color"

In contrast, here's how the free blacks and mixed-race Creoles lived:

Louisiana Creole peopleAs a group, the mixed-race Créoles rapidly began to acquire education, skills (many in New Orleans worked as craftsmen and artisans), businesses and property. They were overwhelmingly Catholic, spoke Colonial French (although some also spoke Louisiana Creole French), and kept up many French social customs, modified by other parts of their ancestry and Louisiana culture. With enough numbers, the free people of color also married among themselves to maintain their class and social culture. The French-speaking mixed-race or mulatto population came to be called Black Créoles and Créoles of color. "New Orleans persons of color were far wealthier, more secure, and more established than blacks elsewhere in Louisiana."And:Under the French and Spanish, Louisiana was a three-tiered society, similar to that of Brazil, Cuba, Haiti, St.Lucia, Mexico, and other Latin colonies. This three-tiered society allowed for the emergence of a wealthy and educated group of mixed-race Créoles. Their identity as free people of color, or Gens de couleur libres or personnes de couleur libre was one they had worked diligently towards and guarded with an iron fist. By law they enjoyed most of the same rights and privileges as whites. They could and often did challenge the law in court of law and won cases against whites (Hirsch; Brasseaux; Mills; Kein etc.). There were some free blacks, but in Louisiana most free people of color were of mixed race, descended initially from the children of planters and wealthier merchants. They acquired education, property and power within the colony, and later, state.

(Creole woman of color with maid, from a watercolor series by Édouard Marquis, New Orleans, 1867.)

So blacks and Indians apparently weren't equivalent in New Orleans. Blacks enjoyed more status and power, especially if they had mixed blood.

Given this, I can imagine the origin of the Mardi Gras Indians. Just like white college students, Boy Scouts, and Y-Indian Guides, blacks and Creoles started "playing Indian" to assert their identity. "We're a clan, we're tribal, we're connected to this place and its inhabitants. We're stronger, more unified, more authentic than you."

I conclude the Mardi Gras Indians are a form of exploitation, just as I thought. They're pretending to be Indians for the same reason everyone pretends to be Indians: "It feels good to be a wild savage."

For more on the Mardi Gras Indians, see Mardi Gras Indians in Treme and Mardi Gras Indian Stereotypes. For more on the subject in general, see Indian Wannabes and The Political Uses of Stereotyping.

Early Indians were entrepreneurs

The return of Indian entrepreneurship

By Jack StevensAll these new reservation products are cultural matches, but so is entrepreneurship itself. Markets, trade and importation of raw materials for manufacturing were not concepts brought here by Europeans. Sophisticated Indian trade networks veined the continent long before European contact. During the Hopewellian (200 B.C.–400 A.D.) and Mississippian (800 A.D.–1500 A.D.) periods of Native American history, Indians in Illinois, New York and Ohio traded for conch shells from the Gulf of Mexico, obsidian from what is now Yellowstone Park, copper from the Great Lakes, gold and silver from what is now Canada, fossil shark’s teeth from Chesapeake Bay, and mica and crystal from the Appalachians. Southwestern tribes traded in shells, copper bells, and macaws and parrots from what is now Mexico, and turquoise from what is today California. Indians on the Missouri in the Dakotas traded for marine shells from the Pacific and Gulf coasts.

After the Europeans’ arrival, Ojibwe (not English, Spanish, or French) became the lingua franca of trade up to the 18th century. Great Lakes tribes established portages and elaborate schedules for water-borne transportation of furs and other trade goods. Choctaw-based Mobilian was the language of commerce between tribes and the new settlers on the lower Mississippi and the Gulf Coast. In the Northeast, both the Dutch and English adopted as legal tender the Indians’ wampum, intricately crafted strings of cylindrical beads.

It is likely that the Lakota ancestors of Hunter and Red Cloud traded buffalo meat, hides and horns for food crops at Arikara trading centers along the upper Missouri Valley. The forebears of Simon and TurningRobe may have bargained at inter-tribal markets along the Columbia River, where Nez Perce, Wishram, Wasco, Wyampam, Chinookian-speaking coastal people, and members of other tribes traded wares.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution acknowledged the substance and scope of these indigenous exchange networks by adopting the Commerce Clause to regulate trade “with the Indian tribes.”Comment:  Although you occasionally see two tribes meet in movies or TV shows to settle a grievance or arrange a marriage, you rarely see any trade activity. Indians engaged in the beaver trade, guiding Europeans on trade missions...you almost never see anything like that. It's more comfortable to imagine Indians sitting in their tipi villages plotting war or worshiping nature. Either way they're savages. We don't have to credit them with being clever, resourceful businessmen like the Europeans were.

For more on the subject, see Early Inuit Were Entrepreneurs, NCAIED Celebrates 40 Under 40, and Native Women Are Entrepreneurs.

Darwinian view of Indians

The Mask and the Mirror

Savage: The Life and Times of Jemmy Button
By Nick Hazlewood
Thomas Dunne Books St. Martin's Press: 384 pp., $25.95

By Yxta Maya MurrayIn 1833, British naval commander Robert FitzRoy permitted a free-thinking naturalist named Charles Darwin to accompany him on the Beagle en route to Tierra del Fuego, a network of channels and islands off the Straits of Magellan at the tip of South America. FitzRoy intended to return home three Fuegians who had spent a year enduring a "civilizing" education in England, with the hopes that they would convince the natives that Jesus Christ was their lord and savior and that their subjugation to Europeans wasn't such a bad idea, either.

One of the Fuegians traveling with Darwin was the infamous Jemmy Button, nee Orundellico, who had been abducted by FitzRoy three years before and who, three decades later, would be implicated in the slaughter of eight British missionaries on Tierra del Fuego. Darwin saw no signs of the antipathy that would later (allegedly) drive Button to violence; in "The Voyage of the Beagle" he noted: "Button was a universal favourite, but likewise passionate; the expression of his face at once showed his nice disposition." Of the other Fuegians, however, who had not benefited from English instruction, Darwin wrote elsewhere:

"I declare the thought, when I first saw in Tierra del Fuego a naked, painted, shivering hideous savage, that my ancestors must have been somewhat similar beings, was at that time as revolting to me, nay more revolting than my present belief that an incomparably more remote ancestor was a hairy beast."More quotes on Indians

Some quotes from Darwin on the Indians he encountered:

The Voyage of the Beagle

Charles Darwin
Chapter 10--Tierra Del FuegoIn the morning the Captain sent a party to communicate with the Fuegians. When we came within hail, one of the four natives who were present advanced to receive us, and began to shout most vehemently, wishing to direct us where to land. When we were on shore the party looked rather alarmed, but continued talking and making gestures with great rapidity. It was without exception the most curious and interesting spectacle I ever beheld: I could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilized man: it is greater than between a wild and domesticated animal, inasmuch as in man there is a greater power of improvement.

It seems yet wonderful to me, when I think over all his many good qualities that he [Jemmy] should have been of the same race, and doubtless partaken of the same character, with the miserable, degraded savages whom we first met here.

After our first feeling of grave astonishment was over, nothing could be more ludicrous than the odd mixture of surprise and imitation which these savages every moment exhibited.

We have no reason to believe that they perform any sort of religious worship; though perhaps the muttering of the old man before he distributed the putrid blubber to his famished party, may be of this nature. Each family or tribe has a wizard or conjuring doctor, whose office we could never clearly ascertain.

Their skill in some respects may be compared to the instinct of animals; for it is not improved by experience: the canoe, their most ingenious work, poor as it is, has remained the same, as we know from Drake, for the last two hundred and fifty years.

I shall never forget how wild and savage one group appeared: suddenly four or five men came to the edge of an overhanging cliff; they were absolutely naked, and their long hair streamed about their faces; they held rugged staffs in their hands, and, springing from the ground, they waved their arms round their heads, and sent forth the most hideous yells.

Like wild beasts, they do not appear to compare numbers; for each individual, if attacked, instead of retiring, will endeavour to dash your brains out with a stone, as certainly as a tiger under similar circumstances would tear you.

We were well clothed, and though sitting close to the fire were far from too warm; yet these naked savages, though further off, were observed, to our great surprise, to be streaming with perspiration at undergoing such a roasting.

The perfect equality among the individuals composing the Fuegian tribes must for a long time retard their civilization. As we see those animals, whose instinct compels them to live in society and obey a chief, are most capable of improvement, so is it with the races of mankind. Whether we look at it as a cause or a consequence, the more civilized always have the most artificial governments.Darwin attempted a pseudo-evolutionary explanation for the Indians' "savagery":Whilst beholding these savages, one asks, whence have they come? What could have tempted, or what change compelled a tribe of men, to leave the fine regions of the north, to travel down the Cordillera or backbone of America, to invent and build canoes, which are not used by the tribes of Chile, Peru, and Brazil, and then to enter on one of the most inhospitable countries within the limits of the globe? Although such reflections must at first seize on the mind, yet we may feel sure that they are partly erroneous. There is no reason to believe that the Fuegians decrease in number; therefore we must suppose that they enjoy a sufficient share of happiness, of whatever kind it may be, to render life worth having. Nature by making habit omnipotent, and its effects hereditary, has fitted the Fuegian to the climate and the productions of his miserable country.Darwin seems to have thought the Indians were like animals: well-adapted biologically to their environment. He seems to have missed the more obvious explanation: that they were well-adapted culturally to their environment. If their numbers remained stable despite not having clothing, religion, technology, or government, they apparently didn't need these things. They did just fine without them.

Why not become more "civilized"? Well, clothing might've led to status-seeking, technology to an arms race, and religion and government to a power-hungry hierarchy. Perhaps they judged that these things weren't worth the trouble they'd bring. Which is very different from saying they were too bestial to figure out the "benefits" of civilization.

What happened to Jemmy Button?

Murray's book review continues with the outcome of Jemmy Button's story:In 1854, delegates of the Patagonia Missionary Society, "driven by intense religious passions," sailed from Bristol to Tierra del Fuego hoping to find the English-speaking Button and persuade him to aid in their evangelical efforts. Apparently expecting a couth Tarzan, the missionaries instead encountered a "fat little Indian, dirty and naked, speaking understandable phrases of their own language."

What ensued reads like a cross between "Gilligan's Island" and "The Island of Dr. Moreau": The missionaries fought among themselves; one captain sailed home in a huff, threatening to sue; Button promised to return to England with the missionaries, then reneged; he demanded presents from the delegation's Rev. George Packenham Despard but refused to teach the Britons Yamana, his native tongue. Moreover, Button and his kindred resisted laboring for their keepers--an un-Christian trait that the missionaries set out to correct through a program of rewards, beatings and personal searches (the Fuegians could be quite the pickpockets when gifts were not forthcoming).

How successful were the missionaries? After a while, Button seemed to play along, and the Fuegians learned to pray and cover their privates. The time spent with the British, Hazlewood tells us, "turned them from lethargic sloths into energetic, industrious laborers."

Then one day, during a peaceful prayer meeting, 300 Fuegians descended upon eight of the missionaries, slaughtering them in cold blood. Although Button blamed another Fuegian tribe for the butchery, Hazlewood asserts that it is "distinctly probable" that he led the attack.Comment:  Darwin wasn't involved with the second voyage, but the missionaries' views seem similar to his. The Europeans and Americans who encountered North American Indians also had similar views. Basically, they thought Indians were wretched, slothful savages until they adopted the white man's ways. In their natural state they had no technology, religion, or government; they were just whooping, strutting creatures like some sort of peacock.

For more on the subject, see "The Lowest Tribes Are Still Children" and The Myth of Western Superiority.

"The lowest tribes are still children"

A Man for All Seasons; The Prescience of John Wesley Powell and the Meaning of His Legacy Today

A RIVER RUNNING WEST
The Life of John Wesley Powell
By Donald Worster
Oxford University Press: 720 pp., $35

By Patricia LimerickOn the last page of "A River Running West," Worster briefly comments on Powell's standing, so espoused by Stegner and contemporary environmentalists, and he issues what we might call a "permit to admire": "Conservationists and environmentalists would rightly look back on him as one of their founding giants." But he also suggests that those who might want to reshape Powell, retrospectively, into a supporter of any early 21st-century political program will have a tough time of it. Worster lets us know that Powell had an unusual and progressive enthusiasm for the company of Indian people; inspired by his parents' ardent abolitionism, he believed that difference among races derived purely from culture and not from biological inferiority or superiority. And yet, as Worster thoroughly acknowledges, Powell felt certain that Anglo-American culture was far superior to Indian cultures. Near the end of his career, Powell announced his hearty approval of the good work done by the federal government in driving Indian people toward assimilation: "The lowest tribes are still children," he said, "and must be managed by a kindergarten system."John Wesley PowellJohn Wesley Powell (March 24, 1834–September 23, 1902) was a U.S. soldier, geologist, explorer of the American West, and director of major scientific and cultural institutions. He is famous for the 1869 Powell Geographic Expedition, a three-month river trip down the Green and Colorado rivers that included the first passage of European Americans through the Grand Canyon.

Powell served as second director of the US Geological Survey (1881–1894) and proposed policies for development of the arid West which were prescient for his accurate evaluation of conditions. He was director of the Bureau of Ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution, where he supported linguistic and sociological research and publications.

Beliefs and Ideas

As an ethnologist and early anthropologist, Powell was a student of the pioneering anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan. Powell divided human societies into "savagery," "barbarism" and "civilization" based on levels of technology, family and social organization, property relations, and intellectual development. In his view, all societies progressed toward civilization. He was a champion of preservation and conservation. It was his conviction that part of the natural progression of society included a combination of efforts to maximize and make the best use of resources.Comment:  Powell's view is probably what passed for enlightenment in his era. As an Indian advocate, he thought he was helping them by lifting them into civilization.

It took almost another century for activists to push through a radical alternative: "Leave us alone. Stop trying to change us. We'll decide what's best for us, thank you very much."

For more on the subject, see Manifest Destiny = Pathology and The Myth of Western Superiority.

Below:  "Powell with Tau-gu, a Paiute, 1871-1872."



What Powell really thought of Indians:

Excuses for racism in video games

A blogger discusses the lack of Asian characters in video games. In doing so, he addresses some of the common arguments offered by racism deniers.

Final Fantasy XIII:  New game, same colors?

By Bao Phi

It’s fantasy, it’s not real. Exactly–fantasy is only limited by our imagination. If we are free to create entire worlds and characters, why do we only create ones that look white?

Gamers don’t want to think about politics. I hear all the time that gamers bemoan the stereotypes placed on them–that we’re all a bunch of straight male losers living in our parent’s basement, living off of junk food and deathly scared of having a conversation with a woman. I hear that gamers and game developers want to be taken seriously, and that games should be respected as a form of legitimate entertainment. Well, one thing that adults do is consider seriously these issues of race, gender, and sexuality. If gamers and game developers have indeed grown up as we keep demanding we have, then we can’t dismiss or deride any discussions on race, gender, and homophobia the way that they have been.

You’re making something out of nothing. This is actually a part of racism: white people think that they’re the ones that get to tell us whether something is racist or not. People think they can dismiss racism, sexism, and homophobia by blaming people of color, women, and GLBTTs for being ‘overly sensitive.’ That’s like me coming over to your crib after you haven’t eaten for a week, listening to you say “damn, I’m hungry,” and insisting, “no, you’re not hungry,” then preventing you from eating.

Race is not important in video games. If this was true, then there would be a lot more diversity in terms of stories and characters. Because if it doesn’t matter, then why not have more games where there’s an Asian protagonist? Why wouldn’t games made by predominantly Asian men, feature at least one or two Asian men as characters? Look at the gaming climate today–maybe we should ask ourselves, why do game developers only seem to think that white characters make compelling characters? Why are the vast majority of games being made ask us to relate to a white narrative and character? And even if race or gender or sexual orientation doesn’t matter to you, can it matter to someone else?

Comment:  The excuses of the apologists for the status quo apply to other minorities and genres too. For instance, to American Indians in movies, TV shows, books, and comic books.

You can see how these arguments apply to a genre such as old Western movies. If they were just harmless fun, with no covert message, why were the good guys always white and the bad guys always Indians? (Until the 1950s and 1960s, at least.) Why didn't a few filmmakers randomly choose to make Indians the good guys and whites the bad guys?

Answer: Because these movies weren't just harmless fun and were sending a covert message. Namely, that Americans "won" this nation fair-and-square against the savage hordes. That we were and are morally superior to everyone else, including the Nazis and "Japs" and Commies. That we're God's chosen people, just as the Pilgrims claimed when they first arrived.

For a typical example of "harmless" storytelling, see Porky Pig in Wagon Heels. For more on the subject, see The Influence of Movies and The Best Indian Movies.

Below:  A message somehow omitted in the heyday of Western movies.

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.

Vanished Mound Builders in The Prairies

In the comments to Stuff White People Do:  think of the Americas as empty before white people came, someone noted a poem similar to Robert Frost's The Gift Outright. Here are the first few lines of The Prairies by William Cullen Bryant:

The PrairiesTHESE are the gardens of the Desert, these
The unshorn fields, boundless and beautiful,
For which the speech of England has no name--
The Prairies. I behold them for the first,
And my heart swells, while the dilated sight
Takes in the encircling vastness.The second stanza tells us of the mysterious Mound-Builders who once inhabited the prairie. (The references to them are in red.)As o'er the verdant waste I guide my steed,
Among the high rank grass that sweeps his sides
The hollow beating of his footstep seems
A sacrilegious sound. I think of those
Upon whose rest he tramples. Are they here--
The dead of other days?--and did the dust
Of these fair solitudes once stir with life
And burn with passion? Let the mighty mounds
That overlook the rivers, or that rise
In the dim forest crowded with old oaks,
Answer. A race, that long has passed away,
Built them;--a disciplined and populous race
Heaped, with long toil, the earth, while yet the Greek
Was hewing the Pentelicus to forms
Of symmetry, and rearing on its rock
The glittering Parthenon. These ample fields
Nourished their harvests, here their herds were fed,
When haply by their stalls the bison lowed,
And bowed his maned shoulder to the yoke.
All day this desert murmured with their toils,
Till twilight blushed, and lovers walked, and wooed
In a forgotten language, and old tunes,
From instruments of unremembered form,
Gave the soft winds a voice. The red man came--
The roaming hunter tribes, warlike and fierce,
And the mound-builders vanished from the earth.
The solitude of centuries untold
Has settled where they dwelt. The prairie-wolf
Hunts in their meadows, and his fresh-dug den
Yawns by my path. The gopher mines the ground
Where stood their swarming cities. All is gone--
All--save the piles of earth that hold their bones--
The platforms where they worshipped unknown gods--
The barriers which they builded from the soil
To keep the foe at bay--till o'er the walls
The wild beleaguerers broke, and, one by one,
The strongholds of the plain were forced, and heaped
With corpses. The brown vultures of the wood
Flocked to those vast uncovered sepulchres,
And sat, unscared and silent, at their feast.
Haply some solitary fugitive,
Lurking in marsh and forest, till the sense
Of desolation and of fear became
Bitterer than death, yielded himself to die.
Man's better nature triumphed then. Kind words
Welcomed and soothed him; the rude conquerors
Seated the captive with their chiefs; he chose
A bride among their maidens, and at length
Seemed to forget--yet ne'er forgot--the wife
Of his first love, and her sweet little ones,
Butchered, amid their shrieks, with all his race.What it means

Bryant wrote another poem, Thanatopsis, along the same lines. The person who transcribed these poems offers an analysis:Bryant's writing of "Thanatopsis" marks the first mention of America's "lost civilization" in the poetry of her latecomer sons and daughters of European descent. "Thanatopsis" and "The Prairies" are among the poet's most highly acclaimed writings: both point the reader westward--they are sunset poems and it is no coincidence that Bryant's friend, the artist Asher Durand depicts a late afternoon's fading light upon a practically deserted landscape in his mysterious 1850 painting "Scene from Thanatopsis." The death of the unknown past opens wide the early 19th century American frontier to both the hardy pioneer and the dreamy idealist. The "red men" of Bryant's "the Prairies" are thin upon the land, compared to the "millions" who once filled the continent. They are but a shadow of the "disciplined and populous race" who reared "the mighty mounds." Of course Bryant, like most of his contemporaries, got it all wrong--the "red men" were the supposedly extinct "Mound-Builders."

Perhaps a romantic poet could have picked up that truth and colored it with the literary shades of pleasurable remorse, but the effect worked better upon the reader if the living Indian tribes could be ignored and hazy images of noble civilizations, who "heaped, with long toil, the earth, while yet the Greek was ... rearing on its rock the glittering Parthenon" presented in their stead.Here's another quote along the same lines from the same period:In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes. Nor is there anything in this which, upon a comprehensive view of the general interests of the human race, is to be regretted. Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the conditions in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?

Andrew Jackson, First Annual Message to Congress, December 8, 1830Here again we see the myth-making I described in Empty Land in The Gift Outright. There were no Indians here, only a race of giants who built great earthworks before disappearing. Okay, a few Indians were here, since we have to blame someone for killing the Mound Builders. But these Indians were more like animals than humans. They destroyed the Mound Builders like a pack of wolves or a swarm of locusts. When the Europeans arrives, only these vermin-like wretches were left.

For more on the subject, see Indian Mounds in P. Allen Smith Gardens and Lamenting Indians = Letting Indians Die.

Below:  "The brown vultures of the wood flocked to those vast uncovered sepulchres" (illustration for "The Prairies" from Poems, 1876 edition).

Can you have Westerns without Indians?

Based on a previous discussion, correspondent DMarks and I had the following exchange about Western movies without Indians:Thinking about it, I am wondering if stories like the spaghetti western gunslinger flicks and "Dark Tower" get around the idea of "all Westerns having Indians, even if not mentioned" by not being Westerns at all. Many of these stories are other types of stories with Western trappings just added on.Well, clearly you can do a Western without any overt signs of Indians. But true Westerns usually have the "untamed" frontier as a character. That means danger--wild animals, outlaws, and Indians--just out of sight. Implicitly lurking behind trees and rocks or just over the horizon.

If people create a Western in Italy or somewhere foreign, you could say they're just going through the motions. That their characters are fake movie cowboys, not real movie cowboys. It becomes a deep philosophical question on the nature of reality. Can a movie that doesn't involve America or Americans be a true Western?

The same applies to other genres. If I'm making a Japanese samurai movie but film it in America using an American cast and crew, can it be a genuine Japanese samurai movie? Or will it be only an imitation Japanese samurai movie?Then there are also the stories that were Westerns, but aren't called that at all. Think "Road Warrior." It even has marauding "savages." I think that would fit the thesis very well.Right. There are lots of movies featuring "civilized" (usually white) people vs. "savages." The "savages" almost never have a real culture, even though everyone on the planet has some culture.

About all these pseudo-savages do is attack and kill people. It's as if moviemakers think "primitive cultures" are akin to a bunch of mindless zombies.

Zombies and Nazis and Indians

Which reminds me of what I said in Ups and Downs of Hollywood Indians. Whether it's the nature of humanity, our culture, or moviemaking, we seem to need an evil enemy. In the real world (and in movies), it's Indians, blacks, immigrants, Nazis, Communists, or terrorists. In fiction, it's the Devil, ghosts and goblins, vampires and werewolves, Darth Vader, or the Joker.

This enemy is usually pure evil with no redeeming characteristics. We can squash him like a bug and feel good about it afterward. A couple hundred thousand civilians incinerated by A-bombs? No problem...they were evil!

Indians have filled this role in our cultural mythology. We tested ourselves, proved our manhood, by taming the wild frontier. In other words, by taming the wild Indian. We're great because we proved ourselves greater than the most cunning, vicious, murderous savages in existence. We demonstrated we were righteous, even godlike, by vanquishing those devilish creatures.

That's why I say Indians are implicitly a part of Westerns.

For more on the subject, see Racism in King Kong and The Best Indian Movies.

Below:  The zombie-like culture of Skull Island in King Kong.

"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)

Stereotypes in Indian in the Cupboard

From Oyate's review of The Indian in the Cupboard:

The Indian in the Cupboard, The Return of the Indian

Book to AvoidThe setting is England. On his birthday, Omri is given a small, white cupboard. When, for lack of a better idea, he puts a plastic "Indian" in it, the little figure comes to life, still tiny, but very much a human being. Omri's life becomes centered around the needs and wants of "Little Bear." The object here was not to draw an authentic Native person, but to create an arresting literary device. Although the little "Indian" is called Iroquois, no attempt has been made, either in text or illustrations, to have him look or behave appropriately. For example, he is dressed as a Plains Indian, and is given a tipi and a horse.

This is how he talks: "I help... I go... Big hole. I go through... Want fire. Want make dance. Call spirits." Et cetera. There are characteristic speech patterns for those who are also Native speakers, but nobody in the history of the world ever spoke this way.

What one reviewer describes as "some lively battle scenes" are among the most graphic war scenes in modern children's literature. As a whole, the book is brutal, and the Indians are horrifying:

He saw an Indian making straight for him. His face, in the torchlight, was twisted with fury. For a second, Omri saw, under the shaven scalplock, the mindless destructive face of a skinhead just before he lashed out... .The Algonquin licked his lips, snarling like a dog... .Their headdresses... even their movements... were alien. Their faces, too—their faces! They were wild, distorted, terrifying masks of hatred and rage.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Images in Indian in the Cupboard and Thoughts on Indian in the Cupboard.

Alan Eaglewolf on Jonah Hex

Guest blog:  Alan Eaglewolf BryantThe Hollywood Indian, a term I define as a complete false representation of the Indigenous people of this land.

I believe we have come along way in cinema but still there are those that refuse to look into the true representations of Native culture. I say refuse but perhaps that the film makers just do not want to take the time or spend funding on a consultant to add the true representation in their films. They choose to take the easy way out and continue to use the Hollywood Indian Tribes.

On a couple of my films, I was sent to “Makeup” to get “Dirtied up” to make me look like a filthy savage that never baths and teeth that looks like they are about to fall out of my head. I wondered if they were going to have me run around beating on my lips and raising my hand in greetings saying, “How White Man.”

In the back of my mind, I have wondered if I should have refused and just walked off the set. Instead, I stayed and considered it a great opportunity to teach them some of the truths about the Native culture. As I was being applied with make-up I informed them of the truths of hygiene and the Natives compared to the European culture and their hygiene habits. I took the time to educate others on set as well. I became an advisor on several issues regarding the “Costume,” accessories and hair while on set.

When I was cast for the role on the film Jonah Hex and Unearthed, the casting notice was for Native or “Native look.” On both films as extras, I believe I and maybe one other was of Native blood, the rest of the tribe was of Hispanic and Asian descent. Now, it’s not that they chose them over Native heritage; it’s that no other Natives came to audition for these roles. If we are to move forward in the film industry, I think it’s important for us to look into roles requiring Natives and to educate those on set about the true representation of the accuracy of the indigenous people of this land.Comment:  As we've seen in the cases of Winter in the Blood and New Moon, when producers hold auditions near Native communities, people come out in droves. If you can't find Native performers, you aren't trying. You have to go to them; you can't wait for them to come to you.

For more on the subject, see Bird Men in Jonah Hex and The Origin of Jonah Hex.

Below:  This poster says Jonah Hex is about selling Megan Fox to male viewers, not telling an authentic Western story.

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).

"Half Indian and half human?"

Wayne Newton advocates for Virginia state recognition of Patawomeck Indian

By Fredrick KunkleThe Virginia-born tenor, wearing a highflying pompadour and a pair of alligator-skin cowboy boots, set the town aflutter as he argued for the state's official recognition of the Patawomecks--a tribe whose name, in slightly different form, now belongs to the river flowing by the nation's capital.

Playing in the General Assembly building--what had to be one of the smallest venues of his career--Newton, 67, described hearing stories from his grandfather about his Native American heritage and absorbing his appreciation of the culture. Both of Newton's parents were half Native American: His father was Patawomeck and his mother was Cherokee. Newton also displayed a picture of his grandfather in full-feathered regalia and passed around a heavy green sash that bore what Newton called a peace medal his ancestors received from Gen. George Washington.

Speaking in a husky voice, Newton also said that when he told his 7-year-old daughter of their heritage, she replied: "Does that mean I'm half Indian and half human?"

"I realized I had let her down," Newton told reporters after the brief appearance, saying more must be done to preserve the tribe's place in history.Comment:  Why would Newton's daughter think Indians aren't human? Because of a million stereotypes portraying them as savages, demons, and monsters. As nightmarish cartoon characters only vaguely resembling human beings.

We see several examples of this every week. The Stilwell savage, the SCALPED marauders, the Neverland Indians in Peter Pan, the Jack Chick comics, Injun Joe in Tom Sawyer and Warner Bros. cartoons, the "fierce" Yanomami, the pseudo-Indians in Avatar, the Quileute werewolves in Twilight, and on and on.

Again, I say to defenders of Stilwell, SCALPED, and other stereotype sources: If your products aren't giving children like Newton's daughter the idea that Indians aren't human, what is giving them that idea? Name the specific sources you think have given them that idea. Put up or shut up, stereotypers.

For more on Wayne Newton, see Newton Stumps for "Newton Indians" and Wayne Newton's Legal Battles. For more on what Americans think of Indians, see "I Thought John Wayne Killed You All" and The Influence of Movies.

Below:  "Singer Wayne Newton, a member of the Patawomeck tribe of Virginia, testifies during a House of Delegates committee meeting at the Capitol in Richmond, Va., Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010. The committee passed a bill that would officially recognize the Patawomeck tribe. Chief Robert Green, left, looks on." (Steve Helber | AP)

"Cool" moments in SCALPED

Last year the Comics Should Be Good blog ran a series called "A Year of Cool Comic Book Moments." Blogger Brian Cronin devoted a whole week to "cool" moments in Jason Aaron's SCALPED.

Naturally, I had something to say about that. The debates are too tedious to repost, but you can see my comments below. Go to the original postings to see what I was talking about.

Year of Cool Comic Book Moments–Day 193

Two Indians beating on each other...a typical SCALPED comic.

Why would a Lakota in South Dakota care whether someone from Oklahoma was 1/16 or 15/16 Kickapoo? Either way, the Kickapoo is an outsider from another part of the country. I doubt Diesel would fit into a "foreign" tribe any better than Jason Aaron or I would.

Actually, several Natives have expressed outrage over SCALPED's stereotypical portrayals. Others like the comic because it presents the harsh realities of (some of) today's reservations, even if it grossly exaggerates the problems.

Some Natives also root for the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians because they like to see "their" names in the win column. Some Natives don't think much about how stereotyping affects their people.

Re "If it was saying 'this is a story about Native Americans and all Native Americans are like this' then there’d be justified outrage": The outrage is justified because Aaron has said he's researched Indians and wants people to learn from SCALPED. In other words, he's positioned his work at an authentic look at Indian life today. If Aaron had said his stories bear little relationship to reality, he'd be right, but he hasn't said that.

See SCALPED:  Another Comic Book Gets Indians Wrong for more on the Native stereotypes in SCALPED.

Year of Cool Comic Book Moments–Day 194

I wonder if the Kickapoo membership thing has any basis in reality. Or if it's another "literary device" that makes Indians look corrupt and venal.

There were no large-scale Indian casinos 26 years ago, so no membership battles over casino payments. That much is certainly false.

Year of Cool Comic Book Moments–Day 195

When Aaron isn't stereotyping Indians as criminals, thugs, and lowlifes, he's a good writer. Clearly he has a fair understanding of what life on a poor reservation is like.

But the "No more chiefs, braves, bucks, skins, 'breeds, squaws" line doesn't ring true. Poor Bear would encounter more offensive stereotypes off the rez than he'd encounter on it.

A Year of Cool Comic Book Moments--Day 196

A Year of Cool Comic Book Moments--Day 197

I wonder how many of SCALPED's Indians aren't killers, criminals, or drug users. A minority, I suspect.

A Year of Cool Comic Book Moments--Day 198

Uh, Indian casinos are regulated by federal and state agencies, you know. I'm pretty sure these agencies check a casino's investors before letting them proceed. There's also the tribe's elected council, which has to oversee and approve any investment deal. And of course the media, which investigates any deal that looks shady.

But hey...all this regulatory stuff is boring. That's undoubtedly why Aaron didn't include it in his stories. It's a lot more cool to show a badass Indian boss making a backroom deal with Hmong gangsters.

Who cares if it makes Indians look corrupt and venal? They're all a bunch of animals wallowing in their own filth and squalor, right? They're lucky we let 'em continue living in our great country, the good ol' US of A.

That's my take on Aaron's take on Indians.

P.S. It's Red Crow, not Bad Crow.

A Year of Cool Comic Book Moments--Day 199

The pouch may be a medicine bundle containing sacred objects. If so, you're not supposed to show the objects to outsiders, so Aaron wisely didn't depict them.

I haven't read every SCALPED, so I must've missed the issues where Red Crow was spiritual, respectful of his elders, and a benevolent politician. But I didn't miss the scene in #1 where he literally scalped someone.

Thousands of tribal leaders could make the same speech as Red Crow. The main difference is that 99.9% of them aren't murderers. Aaron is literally portraying the most extreme tribal leader ever. He may not be pure evil, but he's more evil than any real tribal leader.

I'm looking forward to Aaron's next comic on a US president who stays in office by being a mass murderer. Should be a lot of fun--just like The Sopranos! Meanwhile, I hope Brian Cronin gets to some "cool moments" in Amos 'n' Andy Comics or Stepin Fetchit Comics. Just because they're stereotypical doesn't mean they're bad!

Can I help it if I know more about Natives than the typical SCALPED reader (or writer), Greg? Sorry to interrupt everyone's fantasies about savage Indians with honest information.

Let's wrap this up by seeing what Native people think about stereotypes such as SCALPED's:

The Harm of Native Stereotyping:  Facts and EvidenceWhether the Indian in your image is villain or victim, it is likely some exotic "other," a more primal being somehow in touch with elemental nature which can be a source of savagery and spirituality.

Michael Hill, "Challenging Old Views of the American Indian," Baltimore Sun, 8/29/04
[As part of a quiz on Indians, moderator Jean Gaddy Wilson] asked participants to write down two positive traits of Indians and two negative traits. Among the positive traits were such things as resourceful, traditional, helpful, knowledgeable of the natural world, survival, spiritual and bravery. Under negatives, responses included words such as alcoholic, lazy, mean, dirty, savages, dishonest, raiders and murderers.

Wilson asked participants where they got their first view of Indians or Native Americans, with the common answer being television and/or movies.

"Discussion Centers on Explorers' Interactions with Indians," Marshall Democrat-News, 4/27/04
No one illustration is enough to create stereotypes in children's minds. But enough books contain these images—and the general culture reinforces them—so that there is a cumulative effect, encouraging false and negative perceptions about Native Americans.

Council on Interracial Books for Children, "Unlearning Indian Stereotypes"
Beginning with Wild West shows and continuing with contemporary movies, television, and literature, the image of Indigenous Peoples has radically shifted from any reference to living people to a field of urban fantasy in which wish fulfillment replaces reality.

Dr. Cornel Pewewardy (Comanche/Kiowa), "Why Educators Can't Ignore Indian Mascots"
I have committed my life to dealing with harmful and negative stereotypes and educating students on my reservation of their culture, traditions, ceremonies and spirituality. As Native people, we experience layer upon layer of stereotypes and images that dehumanize. Eurocentric curriculum and children's literature reinforce stereotypes of the "vanishing Indian," "romantic Indian," "militant Indian" or "drunken Indian." I have seen firsthand how these images, along with poverty or low socioeconomic status, generational trauma and other issues of reservation life contribute to low self-esteem in Native students.

Denise K. Lajimodiere, "VIEWPOINT: Racism at Protest Shames UND," Grand Forks Herald, 4/12/06
Almost every Indian person I know of has been horribly impacted by the imposition of the all-pervasive "categorical" stereotypical classification upon their basic sense of humanity--so much so that I feel quite safe in declaring that all Indian people suffer a unique form of self-esteem deficiency based solely on the widespread mayhem that Indian stereotypes have caused us since before the Boston Tea Party.

Melvin Martin (Lakota), "Identifying Indians with Stereotypes," 2/28/09For more on the subject, see Comic Books Featuring Indians.