Jamestown settlers were cannibals

Starving Settlers in Jamestown Colony Resorted to Cannibalism

New archaeological evidence and forensic analysis reveals that a 14-year-old girl was cannibalized in desperation

By Joseph StrombergThe harsh winter of 1609 in Virginia’s Jamestown Colony forced residents to do the unthinkable. A recent excavation at the historic site discovered the carcasses of dogs, cats and horses consumed during the season commonly called the “Starving Time.” But a few other newly discovered bones in particular, though, tell a far more gruesome story: the dismemberment and cannibalization of a 14-year-old English girl.

“The chops to the forehead are very tentative, very incomplete,” says Douglas Owsley, the Smithsonian forensic anthropologist who analyzed the bones after they were found by archaeologists from Preservation Virginia. “Then, the body was turned over, and there were four strikes to the back of the head, one of which was the strongest and split the skull in half. A penetrating wound was then made to the left temple, probably by a single-sided knife, which was used to pry open the head and remove the brain.”

Much is still unknown about the circumstances of this grisly meal: Who exactly the girl researchers are calling "Jane" was, whether she was murdered or died of natural causes, whether multiple people participated in the butchering or it was a solo act. But as Owsley revealed along with lead archaeologist William Kelso today at a press conference at the National Museum of Natural History, we now have the first direct evidence of cannibalism at Jamestown, the oldest permanent English colony in the Americas. “Historians have gone back and forth on whether this sort of thing really happened there,” Owsley says. “Given these bones in a trash pit, all cut and chopped up, it's clear that this body was dismembered for consumption.”

It’s long been speculated that the harsh conditions faced by the colonists of Jamestown might have made them desperate enough to eat other humans—and perhaps even commit murder to do so. The colony was founded in 1607 by 104 settlers aboard three ships, the Susan Constant, Discovery and Godspeed, but only 38 survived the first nine months of life in Jamestown, with most succumbing to starvation and disease (some researchers speculate that drinking water poisoned by arsenic and human waste also played a role). Because of difficulties in growing crops—they arrived in the midst of one of the worst regional droughts in centuries and many settlers were unused to hard agricultural labor—the survivors remained dependent on supplies brought by subsequent missions, as well as trade with Native Americans.

By the winter of 1609, extreme drought, hostile relations with members of the local Powhatan Confederacy and the fact that a supply ship was lost at sea put the colonists in a truly desperate position. Sixteen years later, in 1625, George Percy, who had been president of Jamestown during the Starving Time, wrote a letter describing the colonists’ diet during that terrible winter. “Haveinge fedd upon our horses and other beastes as longe as they Lasted, we weare gladd to make shifte with vermin as doggs Catts, Ratts and myce…as to eate Bootes shoes or any other leather,” he wrote. “And now famin beginneinge to Looke gastely and pale in every face, thatt notheinge was Spared to mainteyne Lyfe and to doe those things which seame incredible, as to digge upp deade corpes outt of graves and to eate them. And some have Licked upp the Bloode which hathe fallen from their weake fellowes.”

Despite this and other textual references to cannibalism, though, there had never been hard physical evidence that it had occurred—until now.Comment:  I'm reminded of the song Savages from Disney's Pocahontas. It's about the same Jamestown settlers now revealed as cannibals:[Powhatan]
This is what we feared
The paleface is a demon
The only thing they feel at all is greed

[Kekata]
Beneath that milky hide
There's emptiness inside

[Native American]
I wonder if they even bleed

[Native Americans]
They're savages! Savages!
Barely even human
Savages! Savages!

[Powhatan]
Killers at the coreYes, the white man was a cannibal. Please refer to this article whenever someone claims the so-called Anasazi were cannibals. Their alleged cannibalism may have happened under similar circumstances for similar reasons.

For more on Indians as cannibals, see Caribbean Cannibal in I Love Lucy and Cannibal Indians in Green Inferno.

Below:  "Detail of cut marks found on the girl’s jaw, or lower mandible in a stereo-microscopic photo." (Smithsonian Institution/Don Hurlbert)

First American Indian poet

National Poetry Month: Jane Johnston Schoolcraft, the First American Indian Poet

By Mark FogartyOjibwe poet Jane Johnston Schoolcraft set many precedents during her short life in the Midwest in the early 1800s.

“The first known American Indian literary writer, the first known Indian woman writer, by some measures the first known Indian poet, the first known poet to write poems in a Native American language, and the first known American Indian to write out traditional Indian stories,” as her modern-day editor Robert Dale Parker puts it.

Born on January 31, 1800 in what is today Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Schoolcraft was known primarily by the names of her white father and then her white husband. But in truth she moved fluidly between two cultures and never forgot her Indian name, Bamewawagezhikaquay (Woman of the Sound the Stars Make Rushing Through the Sky). She wrote poems in her original language, though only a few survive; defended her American Indian grandfather against attacks on his reputation; dreamed of a place that had “no laws to treat my people ill,” and proudly noted one poem as being “by an Ojibwa female pen.”

Schoolcraft’s story provides an appealing example of the literary sleuthing required to lift her out of the obscurity she had been in for more than 150 years following her death on May 22, 1842. In addition to her literary accomplishments—which Parker puts in the same league as early Puritan poet Anne Bradstreet and Phillis Wheatley, an early African-American poet—Schoolcraft suffered a life of keen pain and loss. Today her significance to Indian poetry in general and Ojibwe poetry in particular is becoming more and more widely recognized.Comment:  For more on Native literature, see Stories in a New Skin and Erdrich Wins Rough Rider Award.

Why doesn't Depp buy Wounded Knee?

The imminent sale of two Wounded Knee properties prompted me to post this on Facebook:

Hey, Johnny Depp...wanna prove your American Indian cred? Take a fraction of your Lone Ranger salary, buy Wounded Knee, and donate it to the tribe.

Charles Trimble: Saving sacred ground--Wounded Knee saga

It might cost you a hundred times more than the scholarships you've given to Navajo students...but that's kind of the point.

I said something similar when the Lakota were trying to buy Pe' Sla. But this is even more of an opportunity for Johnny to ride to the rescue.

What can we do?

A brief discussion of the proposed sale:Paying anything more than 10 grand for the 40 acres would encourage further robbery. I've been talking to some folks over the Eminent Domain issue trying to see if it can get any traction. Also the tribe should make it public that it will refuse business licenses to anyone who buys the land and also refuse their access to utilities. There is actually an amazing opportunity for Indian Country as a whole to utilize the courts on this case in a way that may have very positive future implications. It's just whether anyone in tribal council can access the legal minds to map it out.Several good points here. The tribe should use its legal and governmental powers to the fullest. Activists should use their power to instigate media attention and protests. And the rest of Indian country should see this as an opportunity to join in and establish a precedent. No more highway robbery of land from Indians!

Heck, if Depp made a video protesting the sale of Wounded Knee, the Keystone XL pipeline, or sequestration's effects on Indian country, I'd be impressed. But a greeting for the Gathering of Nations? No.

For more on Johnny Depp, see Hammer Says Indians Love Depp and Little Criticism of Depp's Tonto?!

Natives criticize pro-gun billboard

Pro-gun Native American billboard draws criticismTwo billboards in which images of Native Americans are used to make a gun rights argument are causing a stir with some residents who say the image is offensive and insensitive.

The billboards in this northern Colorado city show three men dressed in traditional Native American attire and the words "Turn in your arms. The government will take care of you."

Matt Wells, an account executive with Lamar Advertising in Denver, said Monday a group of local residents purchased the space.

"They have asked to remain anonymous," he said.

He also refused to disclose the cost, but said the billboards are only appearing in the Greeley area. Wells said he has not received any complaints so far.

"I think it's a little bit extreme, of course, but I think people are really worried about their gun rights and what liberties are going to be taken away," Wells told the Greeley Tribune (http://tinyurl.com/cdtkgj2).

Greeley resident Kerri Salazar, who is of Native American descent, said she was livid when she learned about it. She said she doesn't have a problem with the gun rights message, but she's offended the Native American people were singled out, apparently without their consent.

"I think we all get that (Second Amendment) message. What I don't understand is how an organization can post something like that and not think about the ripple effect that it's gonna have through the community," she said.

Irene Vernon, a Colorado State University professor and chairwoman of the ethnic studies department, said the message on the billboard is taking a narrow view of a much more complicated history of the Native American plight. She said it's not as if Native Americans just gave up their guns and wound up on reservations.

"It wasn't just about our guns," said Vernon, a Native American.

Fox Defends Controversial Pro-Gun Billboard Despite Native American Complaints

By Thomas BishopFox News defended a billboard that uses images of Native Americans to push a pro-gun agenda, claiming the message is not offensive despite widespread reporting of condemnation from Native American groups.

Fox's The Five defended a billboard purchased in Greely, Colorado by an anonymous group that depicted three Native Americans with the message "Turn in your arms, the government will take care of you."

After guest host Juan Williams claimed Native Americans found the billboard insensitive, Eric Bolling replied "I can't find what's insensitive... others think it was accurate." Bolling added that if you read the Denver Post article "the comments by Native Americans were hey I'm not offended by this." Co-host Dana Perino agreed, saying "I am not offended by this at all, I think it's effective advertising."

But reporting on the billboard has highlighted the concerns of several Native Americans from the area. FoxNews.com reported on the billboards in an article titled "Native Americans incensed over pro-gun rights billboard in Colorado." The article included statements from three Native Americans from the area who expressed anger over the billboard. One resident, Maureen Brucker felt "the billboards are making light of atrocities the federal government committed against Native Americans. Kerri Salazar, also a Native American said she was "livid when she learned about it."Secretive gun group uses Native Americans to push against gun safety measures

By Arturo GarciaLamar Advertising, the company that owns the billboard, said the two-week ad was bought by a group that wishes to remain anonymous.

“I think it’s a little bit extreme, of course,” said Matt Wells, an account executive with Lamar. “But I think people are really worried about their gun rights and what liberties are going to be taken away,

But while Wells said he had not heard any complaints, some residents, like Kerri Salazar, are indeed upset about the billboards.

“You don’t do this,” Salazar said. “You don’t take something that is indicative of an ethnicity and use it to prove your point. It is just not acceptable. No matter what the ethnicity, no matter what the point, you don’t do it.”Natives respond

I posted this on Facebook, which led to a brief discussion:Indians had more to fear from those "well-regulated militias," didn't they?

This picture is [the] aftermath of centuries of abuse well before Natives had European weapons. Too little too late for pro gun morons not wanting any logical regulation.Right. In fact, Indians had guns for much of their resistance. It wasn't a lack of guns that hurt them. It was the diseases, the dirty tricks (broken treaties, etc.), and the overwhelming numbers against them.

"It wasn't just about our guns," said Vernon, a Native American. Which is putting it mildly.

In reality, hordes of gun-toting settlers forced Indians off their land. Guns were part of the problem, not the solution. If guns had been limited to well-regulated state militias, as the Founders intended, Indians would've been much better off.

For more on gun control, see Why White Men Worship Guns and Phony Pro-Gun Indian Image.

First painting of Natives ever?

Images of Native Americans Revealed During Vatican Fresco CleaningDuring meticulous cleaning of a fresco titled “Resurrection” painted by Italian artist Pinturicchio on a wall in the Hall of Mysteries in the Borgia apartments, the Vatican declared in its newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, that they may have uncovered the first painted images of Native Americans.

“Just behind the Resurrection, behind a soldier who is enthralled by the incredible event he is seeing, you are able to discern nude men wearing feathers who appear to be dancing,” says Vatican Museums Director Antonio Paolucci, according to a report in the Gazzetta del Sud, about the revealed images. The images were painted in 1494 shortly after Christopher Columbus returned from what he had dubbed the “New World” and handed over his diary describing what he saw.

“It would be far-fetched though to believe that the papal court was oblivious to what Colombo saw when he got to the other end of the world,” Paolucci said. “If the impressions of those nude, good, happy men who gave parrots as gifts and painted their bodies red and black are the dancing figures of Pinturicchio’s Resurrection, this would be the first representation of Native Americans.”How native Americans hid in the Vatican for more than 500 years

Native Americans hidden in the Vatican for 509 years

Native American encounters took art into pastures nude

Traditionally the rebirth of nudity in art was traced to classical influence, but long-lost images of the New World in a Pinturicchio fresco hint at a different provenance

Comment:  For more on the subject, see Europeans Hated Indians' Virtues and Stereotypical Thanksgiving Paintings.

Below:  "Nude figures in the background of Pinturiccio's Resurrection."

Warpath in new X-Men movie

Apache Superhero Warpath to be in New X-Men Movie

By Steve MohanJames Proudstar, better known as Warpath, is a superhero from the Marvel Universe that grew up on an Apache reservation. "X-Men: Days of the Future Past" director Bryan Singer tweeted out a video(see below) showing that Warpath will be featured in the upcoming movie.

The short video shows chairs from the movie set with the character names on them. One of those chairs shows "James Warpath Proudstar" as one of those characters. Although not confirmed it is assumed that Booboo Stewart from the "Twilight" franchise will be taking on the role of Warpath.

In the comics, Warpath plays the younger brother of Thunderbird, a former X-Men who died in the line of duty. Warpath started off as a villain who blamed the X-Men and Charles Xavier for his brother's death. He eventually becomes a hero and has been a major character in many Marvel titles since then.Comment:  Warpath started off as a grief-stricken antagonist, not a villain. He's turned into a one-dimensional killing machine in recent years--i.e., a stereotypical savage.

Booboo Stewart isn't Native and shouldn't get the role. That's another casting crime perpetuated against Native actors.

For more on Indians and the X-Men, see Why Thunderbird Was Killed and No Indians in X-Men Movies.

Why white men worship guns

Many American White Men Worship Guns Because of Sexual Insecurity, Entitlement, and Profit

By Mark KarlinYou won't find anyone willing to dare say it much in the media, but a good percentage of the white men who oppose gun control of any sort – and who back measures that would even allow alleged terrorists and straw purchases for drug dealers to buy guns–are just afraid that without their guns, their phallic power will be reduced to size.

You can feel at least temporarily reassured when a long-barreled assault weapon compensates for just another average manhood; it's an irresistible testosterone high to the beleaguered white male.

Call this Freudian psychobabble analysis, but when you add it into the mix of just angry white males who want their guns to show that they are still top dog on the political, social and marital hierarchy, you got a good percentage of the psychologically need gun owners. A gun, particularly assault weapons and lethal militarized handguns, are at least two things: a prosthetic dick and a sign that even unemployed white guys still rule the Western World and sit at the head of the kitchen table.

We're talking about a dying patriarchy making a last stand with the ownership and brandishing of weapons that provide the semblance of ultimate power over life and death.

And:The reality is that for many of the gun "culture warriors" (and remember that they have the gun industry with a profiteering motive egging them on through the NRA and other gun groups), they are standing at the edge of a cliff with the multi-cultural hordes surrounding them, even governing them. And women are now supervising them in the workplace or in the same jobs as they do, if they are employed. And many women are now sexually independent and don't put up with a male sense of sexual prerogative.

Oh yes, and the American empire is facing threats on several fronts. Globalization is eating away at its post World War II dominance, with nations like "the yellow peril" of China becoming economic power houses. Jobs are hard to come by and terrorists abound behind every paranoid turn of the head.

It's not a good time to be a white man wistfully lamenting the age when white men ruled without dissent.

But like a nervous eater who turns to food to resolve anxiety, there's nothing like guns to restore a sense of glories past.

This is not an issue about self-defense; this is about psychological need--born of sexual and cultural displacement--assuaged by the possession of a killing machine.Confirming the point is the collection of NRA magazine covers below. They're heavily weighted toward scaremongering about President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder--two black men.

Check Out The Last 16 Covers Of The NRA’s ‘Pure News Magazine’

This gem makes it clear what gun nuts really fear: a country run by women and minorities, especially blacks.



These white men want to restore a past when they clearly ruled over everyone. They're scared of losing all the power and privilege they've amassed over the centuries.

Fear of the "other"...America's original sin since 1492.

For more on the subject, see Boston Bombing Triggers Islamophobia and Conservatives Fear Minorities.

Canada owes billions for unfulfilled treaties

Indigenous rights are the best defence against Canada's resource rush

First Nations people–and the decision of Canadians to stand alongside them–will determine the fate of the planet

By Martin LukacsIn a boardroom in a soaring high-rise on Wall Street, Indigenous activist Arthur Manuel is sitting across from one of the most powerful financial agents in North America.

It's 2004, and Manuel is on a typical mission. Part of a line of distinguished Indigenous leaders from western Canada, Manuel is what you might call an economic hit-man for the right cause. A brilliant thinker trained in law, he has devoted himself to fighting Canada's policies toward Indigenous peoples by assailing the government where it hurts most–in its pocketbook.

Which is why he secured a meeting in New York with a top-ranking official at Standard & Poor's, the influential credit agency that issues Canada's top-notch AAA rating. That's what assures investors that the country has its debts covered, that it is a safe and profitable place to do business.

This coveted credit rating is Manuel's target. His line of attack is to try to lift the veil on Canada's dirty business secret: that contrary to the myth that Indigenous peoples leech off the state, resources taken from their lands have in fact been subsidizing the Canadian economy. In their haste to get at that wealth, the government has been flouting their own laws, ignoring Supreme Court decisions calling for the respect of Indigenous and treaty rights over large territories. Canada has become very rich, and Indigenous peoples very poor.

In other words, Canada owes big. Some have even begun calculating how much. According to economist Fred Lazar, First Nations in northern Ontario alone are owed $32 billion for the last century of unfulfilled treaty promises to share revenue from resources. Manuel's argument is that this unpaid debt–a massive liability of trillions of dollars carried by the Canadian state, which it has deliberately failed to report–should be recognized as a risk to the country's credit rating.Comment:  For more on Idle No More, see Nishiyuu Walkers Arrive in Ottawa and Idle No More in Europe.

Below:  "First Nations protesters are silhouetted against a flag as the take in a Idle No More demonstration in Toronto, January 16, 2013." (Mark Blinch/Reuters)

Navajo play about domestic violence

Spencer tragedy inspires student play

By Shondiin SilversmithThe play is called "Fadeaway," but it is intended to shed light on domestic violence as it showcases for the last time at the University of New Mexico Experimental Theatre on April 20.

Masters of Fine Arts student Zee Eskeets, 27, of Albuquerque, N.M. premiered her play at the University of New Mexico over a week ago as part of her dissertation for the dramatic writing program with the university. The Diné student's play is part of the 2013 Words Afire, a festival of new plays.

"I wanted to write something about domestic violence, suicide and alcoholism because those are the things that really effect the rez," said Eskeets. "I wanted to bring light to it."

Eskeets said the story itself is loosely based on a true story. She drew from her own personal experience with domestic violence, but she also wanted to honor her late cousin Brooke Spencer, a Gallup High School basketball star who was a victim of domestic violence.Comment:  For more on Native theater, see Williamsburg Teaches Black, Native History and Enduring Racism in Café Daughter.

Below:  "Actress Lynnette Haozous (right) plays out an emotional scene as the female lead Kai Yazzie with actor Jerome Olona (left) who plays Jason Black in the play Fadeaway."

Native-themed Olympics in Tulsa?

Tulsa wants 2024 Olympics, would bring Native American theme

By Stephen WilsonThe U.S. Olympic Committee is talking to 10 cities about a possible bid for the 2024 Summer Games, including a joint proposal from San Diego and Mexican neighbor Tijuana.

Following failed bids for the 2012 and 2016 Olympics, the USOC sent out letters to 35 American cities in February to gauge interest in a potential run for 2024.

“We’re in discussion with about 10 cities actively now,” USOC chief executive Scott Blackmun said in an interview after speaking to the Associated Press Sports Editors in New York. “The process is really working the way it was supposed to.”

Los Angeles, which hosted the 1932 and 1984 Olympics, and Philadelphia have announced their interest. The mayor of Tulsa, Okla., Dewey Bartlett, told the USOC in a letter last month the city would be interested in submitting a bid with a “Native America theme.”Indian Country to Host 2024 Olympics?

Comment:  For more on Indians and the Olympics, see Brazil Threatens to Evict Indigenous Squatters and Cowichan Athlete at Paralympic Games.

Tonto vs. Wendigo

A 20-minute excerpt of The Lone Ranger suggests Natives will find even more to dislike in the movie:

Preview: 20 Minutes Of 'Lone Ranger' Features Giant Trains, Possessed Rabbits And Palpable Chemistry

By Drew TaylorWhen John goes outside, Dan is there with his crew. He tells John that they're going to go round up whoever was responsible for whatever happened on the train (again–it was a little hard to tell what, exactly, was going on). Dan tosses John a badge and deputizes him a Texas Ranger. John looks down in disbelief–the badge was their father's. They go riding off in search of villains. The other members of the team make fun of John's dandy attire and oversized hat. At one point they spot a lone white horse on a butte. Dan explains that the horse is known for shuttling spirits between this world and the next (he's taken up some Native American spirituality, as is evidenced by the chain around his neck). John scoffs at the superstition.

There's then a cut (again) and we see John wake up. This is a scene that has been teased endlessly in the trailers–he's caked in some kind of ceremonial mud, and awakens on a huge platform high above the earth. When he gets down from the platform, he's greeted by Tonto, who says that John came back from the dead after his brother and their posse were murdered–that same white horse has identified John as a "spirit walker," one who cannot be killed by conventional weapons. He bemoans the fact that Dan wasn't the one who came back and proposes that the two of them ride off in search of his brother's killer, who was also responsible for the death of Tonto's family.

What's interesting is, after initial claims that "The Lone Ranger" contained supernatural elements and staunch denials by Disney, it looks like the supernatural stuff is still a part of the movie, at least tangentially. Tonto explains that the man they're out for isn't simply a man but rather a "wendigo," a Native American monster. The monster disrupts the aura of those around them and turns them into similarly horrendous creatures, as is evident by the group of monster bunnies that surround their campfire. (The visual effects weren't finished but the image of a peaceful bunny opening its mouth to reveal giant fangs was pretty startling nonetheless.)

The Comanche Tonto confronts a northern woodlands Wendigo...because all Indians are, you know, the same.

From what we've heard so far, I expect Depp to give us a generic "mystical Indian." I'd be surprised if there's anything more culturally specific than "wendigo"--which is from the wrong culture.

Adrienne Keene reposted on the Native Appropriations Facebook page, leading to these comments:It's genocidal. It's racist on every level and is [a] direct assault on our identity and culture. Johnny Depp is one of the worst racists of our time because so many natives worship a man who is committing genocide against them.

In a word: Disney.

The wendigo must've wandered down there...

This is some tired bullshit. Witikow is definitely part of Northern traditions.

Not to mention that Tonto is a Potawatomi word and was, in the story, originally of that group. To me it seems that this is more a case of people thinking the old west consisted of the desert southwest. When most of the famous stories were in places like Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma or Montana...not Texas and Arizona.

Not only is it a Woodlands concept, but they aren't even using it correctly! Aside from the word itself, the entire concept is wrong...

I once read about an incident where a white doctor was unable to communicate with an elderly Navajo patient who did not speak English. He asked a Native nurse to translate, but she explained that she was Pueblo, and did not speak Navajo. The doctor replied 'surely you all speak Indian, don't you?' I think the script writers have the same attitude--they're all Indians aren't they?

I wasn't aware the Comanche believed in any Ojibwe/Cree concepts like the Wendigo. Must not matter when you are bent on using stereotype, panindianism and fictional depictions to make your lame movie. Sad part is, I'd there is going to be a whole new crop of Pretendians after this comes out.

I've tried to type something coherent about this use of northern woodlands concepts in southern friggin' Utah. About five times, I've erased it as I just gaped into the distance. Aside from the Wendigo being completely misrepresented, it simply doesn't make any SENSE there. Even if all you did was listen to a single story about the Wendigo, you'd know that. There is a reason the concept exists where it does.

The Wendigo is not "generic North American monster!" There is a purpose and a meaning. It is not "monster that makes monster bunnies." A person transformed by greed, who can never be satisfied, who devours those around him and yet starves? Sounds more like the filmmakers to me.

Yes, Ojibway (Anishinaabe) and I believe there is similar version in Cree. In the Ojibway version the Windigo was a bad spirit that materialized in the winter and would turn the starving Anishnaabe into cannibals, or so one version goes, the story was used to teach young children a lesson about greed, not too take too much during times of plenty but to store away some for the long winters, least not you would starve from your summertime gluttony and become a Windigo during the winter and resort to cannibalism in order to survive.

This 20 minute preview showcases one of Native America's hardest working negative stereotypes. One we constantly have to speak to. 1 language/1 culture/1 tribe. This is a movie that carries the flame for past Disney movies that work hard to reinforce this lie of the beautiful and diverse people we are. In the wonderful world of Disney, Indigenous peoples are caricatures, enrolled citizens in the Tribe of 'Indian', where we all speak 'Indian', dress in 'Indian clothes' that can be found in the costume section during Halloween at Walmart. Our primitive 'Indian' culture is a mix of the images of our first oppression.

I assume it's that white "melting pot" idea. All tribes are actually just one group of people, and we all know each other, right?We know some filming took place in Monument Valley. We'll see if the movie explains why a Texas Ranger and a Comanche are facing a northern woodlands Wendigo in southern Utah's Navajoland.

For more on Johnny Depp, see Hammer Says Indians Love Depp and Little Criticism of Depp's Tonto?!

Persecute Muslims for Boston bombing?

As if we needed it, the evidence of Islamophobia is already mounting:

The huge, unanswered questions post-Boston

Why did some seem giddy that suspects were Muslim? Will good police work change our treatment of public employees?

By David SirotaOf course, now that the suspects are alleged to be Muslim, we will see if America follows the same historical path that we have before--one involving mass surveillance of whole religious communities, hate crimes, new Patriot Acts and calls for other punitive measures. Rush Limbaugh insists that we won’t see such a response--and I sincerely hope he is right.

But events suggest history may already be repeat itself. Indeed, in the last few days, we’ve seen reports of hate crimes against Muslims (before the suspects were identified, by the way) ; Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY) call for mass surveillance of all Muslims; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) demand that the suspect--an American citizen--be deemed an enemy combatant and denied due process; the Obama administration deny Miranda rights to the suspect; and New York State Sen. Greg Ball (R) call for the use of torture. Notably, these kinds of affronts to civil liberties and the constitution are almost never seen when terrorism suspects are white non-Islamic Americans.

All of this underscores my argument about why I had hoped the suspects ended up being white non-Islamic Americans. It also begs the aforementioned question: knowing the differences in how we react to Muslim terrorism and non-Islamic white American terrorism, why are so many conservatives gleefully cheering the possibility that the suspects are the former? Could it be that some Americans actually want to see the kind of bigoted, violent, civil-liberties-trampling reaction we tend to see when terrorism suspects end up being Muslim?Fox News' Ugly, Selective War On Terror

Only Acts Of Violence By Muslims, Not Far-Right Extremists, Warrant Collective Blame

By Eric BoehlertOn August 5, 2012, just before 10:30 in the morning, Wade Michael Page pulled up outside the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, WI., took out his semi-automatic handgun and started killing worshipers. An Army veteran and an avid bass player in a neo-Nazi rock band, Page murdered two Sikhs outside the house of worship and then made his way inside. There, he reloaded and killed four more, including the president of the temple who was shot while trying to tackle Page. Three more were critically wounded in the massacre.

When local police descended, Page opened fire and shot one officer nearly ten times. When the authorities returned fire and shot Page in the stomach, he took his 9mm pistol, pointed it at his own head, and pulled the trigger.

According to acquaintances, the 40-year-old killer hated blacks, Indians, Native Americans and Hispanics (he called non-whites "dirt people"), and was interested in joining the Ku Klux Klan. Immersed in the world of white power music, Page's band rehearsed in front of a Nazi flag.

Note that back in August 2012, Fox News didn't care very much about Wade Page and the wild gun shootout he unleashed in an act of domestic terror in the Milwaukee suburb, nor did Fox suggest the event was connected to a larger, more sinister terror trend. In fact, in the days that followed the gun massacre, there were just two passing references to Page during Fox' primetime, one from Bill O'Reilly and one from Greta Sustern. No guests were asked to discuss the temple shooting, and after one day the story was completely forgotten.

In one rare occasion when the conversation did turn to Page's motivations, Fox's opinion hosts were quick to criticize the notion that he was a far-right extremist. (He clearly was.) On The Five, after co-host Bob Beckel referred to Page as "right-wing skinhead," he was quickly shouted down by his colleagues. Co-host Andrea Tantaros stressed that the killing was an isolated event that didn't have any larger implications. "How do you stop a lunatic?" she asked. "This is not a political issue."

Fox's guarded response to an extremist's murder spree was striking, considering that in the wake of the Boston Marathon bomb attack Fox News has gone all in (again) with its war on Islam as the channel fights its latest bigoted chapter in the War on Terror. It's striking as Fox tries to blame a larger community for the act of two madmen because it's the same Fox News that often can't find time to even comment, let alone report, on what's become regular, and often deadly, right-wing extremist attacks in America.

From neo-Nazi killers like Page, to a string of abortion clinic bombings, as well as bloody assaults on law enforcement from anti-government insurrectionists, acts of right-wing extreme violence continue to terrorize victims in the U.S. ("Fifty-six percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in the U.S. since 1995 have been perpetrated by right-wing extremists.") But Fox News is not concerned. And Fox News does not try to affix collective blame.

It's clear that Fox is only interested in covering and hyping a single part of the War on Terror; the part that targets Muslims and lets Fox wallow in stereotypes. The part that lets Fox accuse Obama of being "soft" on Islamic terrorists and perhaps sharing a radical allegiance. The part that lets Fox advocate for bugging mosques and eliminating other Constitutional rights, and lets it unleash a collection of anti-Islam crusaders onto the cable airwaves.

Most importantly, Fox covers a War on Terror that lets it uniformly blame Muslims.Comment:  As the image below indicates, we obviously need to profile Caucasians.

Should we profile, lock up, and torture Muslims? If you ask conservatives, the answer is yes.

For more on Islam, see The Logical Conclusion of Extremism and "Why Do They Hate Us?" 2012.

Depp's Gathering of Nations greeting

Even more than the 20-minute Lone Ranger excerpt featuring wendigos, this video stirred up some antipathy in Indian country:



Depp continues his preemptive PR campaign to forestall criticism of his redface Tonto portrayal.

Sounds like he's reading off a teleprompter to me. Unnatural and not especially heartfelt or sincere.

I wonder if he thought he had to speak slowly and carefully for a Native audience. Not because they're stupid, but because they're dignified and spiritual and deserve respectful worship. Which is still stereotypical thinking, of course.

The candles are probably a similar idea: trying to look all natural and authentic to get down with his Native brothers and sisters. Because Indians still live in teepees without electricity, I guess.

Natives respond

Adrienne Keene's tweet on this video was:I can't believe this is real. Why the eff do we worship this guy??Another Native comment I saw was:Just saw a video of J Depp opening the Gathering of Nations Pow Wow. Seriously? By the sounds of it, his English must be in its fourth iteration--baby talk English, Pirate English, TV NDN English, English with a TV NDN English accent.But the most detailed response so far was this:

Johnny, Johhny, Johnny. Are you kidding me? This is embarrassing for you and just plain stupid to those of us who get it.

By Michelle Hall Shining ElkYou know how there are people who tell you they want to help you, but you look at them and think to yourself "Yeah...thanks, but no thanks." Well that's what I thought when I watched this video. I thought that, and I thought "WTF were they thinking? Whyyyyyyy? Whyyyyyyyyy people! Whyyyyyyyyy!"

Anyways, I watched this and I think to myself...

1. Is he high? Is that why he is talking so slow (like a buffoon)?

2. He wasn't adopted by the Comanche Nation, he was adopted by a family of the Comanche Nation, neither of which make him a bona fide member of the Comanche Nation, nor a real Native. He remains, as he forever shall be, not Native.

3. What is the point of this...other than to try and make a pathetic attempt to convince his audience he is really and truly connected to our Indian community--as if he is one of us. Frankly, I couldn't understand what language he is speaking in this video, he lost me at "Greetings."And:6. Does he think that we are so clueless that we don't know that if "that" film wasn't coming out in July, he would have remained as he always has always been--not interested in our people or communities.

7. Does he not know that we get that it's only because he is playing "that Indian" character in "that" film that he is doing stunts like the Comanche adoption, showing up at the Comanche Nation Fair, doing this video, and so on.

8. Does he believe that we don't see that he is so transparent that we see he truly doesn't have an ounce of respect for who we are, or what we are about. Because if he did, he would have rethought how he is portraying and playing "that Indian" character in "that" movie coming out in July.For more on Johnny Depp, see Hammer Says Indians Love Depp and Little Criticism of Depp's Tonto?!

Below:  If Depp thinks his crow-head portrayal is honest and respectful, why doesn't he wear a crow-head today? When he appeared in the Comanche Nation's parade, for instance, or this video. Wouldn't that have been a great way to honor the Comanches he's portraying in the movie?

"Cherokee" crooks steal copper wire

Thieves posting as Cherokee Indians steal 40,000 pounds of copper wire from Seattle City LightAbout 40,000 pounds of copper wire were stolen from Seattle City Light after crooks tricked staff into showing them exactly where it was stored.

The thieves claimed to be from an Indian tribe trying to raise money for disabled kids.

The theft took place here at City Light's South Service Center, but the thieves didn't have to get over the security fence. Someone there let them in.

Seattle City Light admitted it was tricked.

“They had a very convincing hoax that we’re now investigating as to why we fell for that,” said City Light Spokesman John Gustafson.

Gustafson said it happened Tuesday when two men dressed in Native American attire claiming to be Cherokee Indians were escorted onto the secure property. They said they wanted to collect a few pounds of scrap metal to raise money for a disabled children's charity.

Instead, investigators said the thieves used two large trucks to haul away 20 tons of scrap copper wire.Comment:  I wonder what kind of "Native American attire" the crooks were wearing. Jeans? Overalls? Business suits? And how did this "attire" make them look different from anyone else?

Oh, you mean they were wearing "leathers and feathers"--i.e., stereotypical Indian outfits? And that convinced someone they were Indians?!

If I saw two guys dressed like that, I'd assume they were wannabes. Or escapees from a Halloween/frat/bar party. The idea that they were actual Indians would be well down the list.

Even if the "Cherokees" looked and acted genuine, why would you believe their story about a charity? Because all Indians are noble and spiritual like the wolf and the eagle? How about doing a background check on them and watching them collect "scrap metal" like you would with anyone else.

And this story took place in Seattle? Which is about as far as you can get in the continental US from any center of Cherokee activity. While there may be Cherokee-run charities in Seattle, the notion screams for skepticism and scrutiny.

So I wonder again how the thieves pulled it off. And how stupid were the security guards to fall for it? Pretty stupid, I guess.

For once, the people with stereotypical beliefs suffered for their ignorance. If people learned the facts about Indians, they wouldn't fall for scams like this. Duh.

For more on Cherokee pretenders, see My Thoughts on Brown vs. Warren and Sumter Native American Family Tribe.

Native murals at Jazz Fest

New Orleans Jazz Fest displays Native American graffiti-style murals

By Doug MacCashThe New Orleans Jazz Fest will include graffiti-style murals by Arizona artists Douglas Miles and Thomas "Breeze" Marcus. The 2013 fest places an emphasis on the arts, culture and cuisine of Native Americans. Miles is part of the San Carlos Apache Nation, Marcus descends from the Tohono O'odham Nation.

During an eerily quiet visit to the mostly deserted Fair Grounds on Thursday (April 26) afternoon, I met Miles in the ground floor of the grandstand, where the 80- foot mural he and his collaborator painted earlier this week spans an entire wall. The dramatic black on white aerosol painting has the feel of an enormous pen and ink drawing.

At the center of the symbol-laden image is a huge angel, which Miles said represents the Crescent City. People everywhere know that New Orleans is the mother of much of American music, he said, but people also know that the city "has been through a lot."

The face of the angel figure is based on the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival presented by Shell's cultural heritage coordinator, Rachel Ornelas. She posed next to the painting with her hands pressed together in prayer to demonstrate the likeness.Comment:  For more on Native murals, see Native Mural Protests Ethnic Studies Ban and American Indian Mural Krew.

Hammer says Indians love Depp

Armie Hammer apparently talked to some Natives who love Lone Ranger

By Adrienne KeeneOh Armie Hammer. The guy who played twins in The Social Network, the guy who’s name sounds like baking soda. Now he’s playing the Lone Ranger opposite our good friend Johnny Depp as Tonto, and recently he said in an interview about the movie that all the Natives he talked to were SO SUPER STOKED that the film was being made. Guys, that’s the movie equivalent of “but I have a black friend!”

Here’s his quote in the LA Times, defending the casting of Tonto, saying there were plenty Natives he talked to who loved it, and only white people were upset:They were nothing but excited about it. They loved it—they’re thrilled. It’s so funny, because every Native American we talked to was like, ‘This is awesome! I’m so excited.’ And every white person we talked to was like, ‘How dare you cast a non-Native American?’ It’s like, the white people are the one who have the problem, but the Indians—the Native Americans—are like, ‘This is great. We love it.’Adrienne addresses the casting issue, but says it may be the lesser offense compared to Depp's portrayal. She continues:The second part really bothered me as well–that only “white people” were complaining about the movie. I’m sorry dude, but I know PLENTY of Indians that are not happy with this film. Circling back to our invisibility, just because the white voices are louder and get more publicity, doesn’t mean that we aren’t pissed off too. And I’m sorry, if “every white person” you talked to had an issue with the film, you might want to listen. Additionally, if the only Indians that you talked to were the ones getting paid by your film or from the reservation benefitting economically from your film’s presence, you might want to rethink your sampling method there. The comment also just feels so patronizing–”but the Indians love it!”–and invited a host of comments on the LA Times and others about the “whiny, overly sensitive, hyper ‘PC’” culture we live in. Which is nothing new, but still no fun.

This film is going to be a mess. There’s no two ways about it. Every picture that has been released, every trailer where we hear more of JD’s horrible Indian-pirate-I-don’t-even-know-what accent, I roll my eyes even harder. They’re clearly realizing that this was maybe not the best idea, given JD’s sudden interest in Indian Country and Indian causes, and all these super defensive comments coming out. I feel like they’re on a damage control tour.

So in conclusion:

Hey Armie Hammer–I’m an Indian, and I’m mad about this film. I think Depp’s choices around Tonto’s costuming and speech are demeaning, stereotypical, and set us back a bunch of years in the small gains we’ve made in Hollywood. I don’t feel “honored” that Johnny has decided to make Tonto less of a sidekick and more of a main character. I don’t appreciate that Native protest against this film has been all but ignored. I’m glad you chatted with some Indians, but I’d encourage you to chat with a few more. Because I can promise you not all of us are “thrilled” about the Lone Ranger.At least one non-Native writer had a similar reaction:

Armie Hammer says he talked to some Indians and Johnny Depp’s bird hat is totally cool

By Vince ManciniI don’t think it’s always wrong for a white actor to play a non-white role, but if you’re an American Indian actor or an actor from another historically marginalized group, I can understand why you’d be pissed about one of the precious few roles specifically tailored to you going to a white dude. (Though for what it’s worth, Depp does describe his great grandmother as “quite a bit of a Native American.”). Meanwhile, Depp’s Lone Ranger co-star Armie Hammer, possibly the whitest man alive, says it wasn’t an issue at all, because the American Indians they talked to during filming (some of them paid consultants, presumably) all thought his kemosabe’s kabuki was hunky-dory. Hakuna matata and all that shit.And:On a serious note, Armie Hammer has to walk a delicate line defending the dubious decisions of people cutting him a huge paycheck, and as such it’s all but impossible for him not to say the occasional kinda dumb thing. I don’t have a problem with Johnny Depp playing an American Indian (not that it’s my place to…), but I do think it’s hilarious to watch them try to spin Johnny Depp starring in a Jerry Bruckheimer movie as some kind of tribute to the proud American Indian peoples. That’s basically like McDonalds calling their breakfast burritos a show of solidarity with the Latino community.Comment:  For more on Johnny Depp, see Little Criticism of Depp's Tonto?! and Michelle Shining Elk on Johnny Depp.

Michaels runner-up in Project Runway

Taos fashion designer comes up short in ‘Project Runway’

By Phaedra HaywoodThe judges called her collection spectacular, different, cool and unique. But Taos Pueblo fashion designer Patricia Michaels on Thursday night didn’t win Season 11 of Project Runway, the fashion-design-themed reality show on cable television’s Lifetime channel hosted by supermodel Heidi Klum. Michaels came in second.

“Sorry guys,” the designer said to supporters who gathered for a $100-a-plate dinner at a private home on Santa Fe’s east side to watch results of the competition’s finale, which was recorded last summer but kept secret until Thursday night’s broadcast.

Michaels’ second-place finish means she won’t get the $100,000 top prize to create a new line to sell at Lord & Taylor department stores. She also didn’t win a fashion spread in Marie Claire magazine or a new Lexus.

Those prizes go to first-place finisher Michelle Lesniak Franklin, who some partisans considered the “mean girl” on the show.

But Michaels’ 12-piece collection, inspired by trees and embellished with horse hair and handmade sterling silver sequins, created quite a stir amongst the celebrity judges on the panel, including famed dress designer Zach Posen, who dubbed it “techno pow-pow.”

And Michaels—the first Native American to appear on the show and a season-long favorite of host Klum—has already begun to parlay the exposure into a number of lucrative and creative projects.Taos designer Patricia Michaels: Oh so close

By Joan LivingstonMichaels, the show's first Native American contestant, clearly was inspired by her roots via her creative use of textile, texture and shape.

She employed materials such as horsehair and mica. Silver pieces were fashioned in her stepfather's blacksmith shop.

One judge labeled an outfit as "techno powwow."

Michaels was one of 16 contestants at the start. Originality was a key element in her designs throughout the season.

"We expected your collection to be one of a kind," Heidi Klum, head judge, told Michaels at the finale.Comment:  For more on Patricia Michaels, see Michaels in Project Runway Finals and Michaels Remains in Project Runway.

Richie Havens dies

Folk Singer Richie Havens, Blackfeet, Walks OnFolk singer and activist Richie Havens, Blackfeet, died at his home in Jersey City, New Jersey, on April 22. He was 72 years old.

Havens will always be remembered as the opening act at the Woodstock music festival in 1969. It wasn't his scheduled slot (the band Sweetwater was supposed to open), but because the highways were choked to a standstill with traffic, many of the other artists hadn't arrived. Festival co-organizer Michael Lang gave Havens the task of taking the stage first, and holding it for as long as need be. "It had to be Richie–I knew he could handle it," Lang later wrote, according to a Havens obituary at RollingStone.com. Havens gave a marathon performance that included numerous encores and an on-the-spot composition of what would become an anthem of the documentary film, and the era.And:He was also a Native American. He spoke of his heritage in an NPR interview in 2006:

My mother’s family came from the British West Indies. And my father’s family came from, well, my father’s father came from the Montana/South Dakota area. They were Blackfoot Indian. And him and his brother came with Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, got off in New York City, and left the show there and ended up on Shinnecock Reservation in Long Island. And he got married there, and moved to Brooklyn, and that’s how my father was born in Brooklyn. And how I ended up being born in Brooklyn as well.And:Another cause near to Havens' heart was the music of American Indians, his father's people. He helped advance the unity and visibility of Native recording and performing artists by playing a key role in the establishment of the Native American Music Awards.

"Richie Havens offered his support and commitment as a performer with Blackfoot Indian heritage during the formation of the Native American Music Awards," the organization said in a statement. "He proclaimed his Native American heritage at a press conference announcing the launch of the Native American Music Awards in lower Manhattan on April 22, 1998, exactly 15 years ago. He was also asked by the family of the late Jimi Hendrix to perform a musical tribute for Hendrix’s induction into the N.A.M.A. Hall of Fame at the First Awards ceremony held in May 1998 at the Foxwoods Resort & Casino."Comment:  For more on Native music, see Star Nayea's Wellness Tour and Navajo Musician in The Voice.

Austerity = termination

Austerity & Termination are twin ideologies

By Mark TrahantIf you look at the failed history of termination--the idea of ending the federal-treaty relationship with tribal governments--there were two distinct motives. Some believed it was the next logical step for Indian progress, an economic integration. While others hated government and used termination as a method to shrink and attack government.

National Congress of American Indians President Joseph Garry, a member of Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene Tribe, said at the 1958 convention, that Congress adopted the termination resolution in good faith ... “believing it would be good for Indian people” even though it was clearly dangerous and a disaster. That’s why nearly everyone, friends and foe alike, were at least partial supporters of termination policy.

Utah’s Republican Senator Arthur Watkins was from the shrink-and-attack government camp. He was zealous about termination, badgering tribal witnesses when they came to Capitol Hill, refusing to even consider alternatives. He dismissed treaty obligations outright. Indians, he said, “want all the benefits of the things we have--highways, schools, hospitals, everything that civilization furnished--but they don’t want to help pay their share of it.”

This story should have a familiar ring to it. The same forces are at play when it comes to austerity. One camp sees the problem--the country’s demographic imbalance--and opts for austerity as a solution or at least a partial solution. While the other camp hates government and sees austerity as a tool to shrink and attack. Arthur Watkins would be at home in a Tea Party crowd.Trahant's conclusion:The United States sharply cut government spending after World War II when debt levels exceeded 120 percent of GDP. Indian Country remembers that era well because it paralleled the termination era. Severe austerity and termination are related ideologies.Comment:  We've seen how conservatives demonize welfare recipients, and how it's a thinly veiled attack on women and minorities. "Austerity" is the name people are increasingly giving to this attempt to preserve white male privilege.

Termination was an Indian-specific version of this political philosophy.

For more on Indians as welfare recipients, see Natives "Filed Away" by Stereotypes and Canadian Candidate Quits Over "Hateful" Comments.

People hate being bombed and killed

In a stunning revelation to most Americans, we're learning that most people don't like to be bombed and killed.

Anti-Drone Movement Grows: Ethics, Legality and Effectiveness of Drone Killings Doubted

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret FlowersIn light of recent very public violent episodes, from the Boston Marathon bombing to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Americans now have a greater sense of what it must be like for people living in countries where the US attacks people with drones on a constant basis. Could you imagine experiencing mass killings involving innocent civilians every day? It is particularly alarming that US drones have murdered nearly 200 children.

Growing up in a war zone with constant fear of attack at any time and being forced to flee your home and community to live in a refugee camp or some other foreign place has dramatic psychological impacts. Civilians living in war zones suffer economically and experience shortages of basic necessities such as food, water and medicines. They also suffer from the threat or experience of being raped or beaten, losing a loved one and forced labor. Mental illness, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (or PTSD) are high in areas of conflict. Women, children, the elderly and the disabled are the most vulnerable.

The use of drones has dramatically increased the geographic reach of war zones to countries with which the United States is not formally at war. How many young people around the world are growing up in fear because of US military policy that monitors them with the constant buzzing of drones overhead? In some remote places, all that the population knows about the United States is our drones.

The two bombs at the Boston Marathon killed three and injured nearly 200 people. On the same day in Iraq, torn apart by US war and occupation, across Baghdad, Kirkut, Tikrit and several other Iraqi cities, 55 were killed and more than 250 were injured.

On April 17, two days after the marathon bomb, US drones attacked a vehicle in Yemen's Dhamar Province, killing five people, one of them identified as a local al-Qaeda leader in the Arabian Peninsula. We received an email from a Yemeni who was from the village where the attack occurred. He says: "Last night while I was enjoying a farewell dinner with a dear American Friend in Sana'a, the United States of America droned my village. There, my fellow village people joke that 'God himself doesn't reach their area' due to how deprived and miserable a place the area is ... It is the capital of misery and poverty and needed anything but a drone ... The same hand that taught me English and changed my life one day, droned my village last night. Horribly, unbelievable."

Attacks such as this create situations in which violence begets violence. Each Tuesday, President Obama meets national security advisers, reviews potential targets and approves drone killings. Then the US radicalizes whole populations in order to check a name off its kill list. Therefore, the first question we must deeply consider about US drone policy and military policy is, Does widespread use of drones make us less secure? Is there a better way?

A coalition of faith leaders wrote President Obama on April 16: "The use of these lethal weapons within the borders of other sovereign nations, at times without their permission, shrouded in secrecy and without clear legal authority, raises serious moral and ethical questions about the principles and the implications of this practice for US foreign relations and the prospects for a more peaceful world."

The faith leaders point out that it would be more effective to use policies that do not "boost recruitment for extremist organizations," but instead go to the root causes of violence "by creating conditions that defuse the hostility, including strategies to prevent violent conflict and to promote restorative justice practices, and effective economic development programs."

‘Growing hatred of US’: Yemeni testifies to Senate on drone program falloutWashington’s drone war has turned Yemenis against the US and sparked “intense anger and hatred,” which Al-Qaeda has exploited for recruitment, according to witness testimony at the Senate’s first public hearing about the legality of drone strikes.

Yemeni writer Farea Al-Muslimi has revealed the shock and hatred felt towards the US after a drone bombed his home, the village of Wessab: “The attack terrified thousands of simple, poor farmers,” Muslimi told the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights in its hearing titled ‘Drone Wars: The Constitutional and Counterterrorism Implications of Targeted Killing.’

"The drone strike and its impact tore my heart, much as the tragic bombings in Boston last week tore your hearts and also mine," he added. “What radicals had previously failed to achieve in my village… one drone strike accomplished in an instant: There is now an intense anger and growing hatred of America.”

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is using US drone strikes to “promote its agenda and try to recruit more terrorists,” Muslimi explained.

The drone attack on Muslimi’s village killed an Al-Qaeda leader and four militants, according to Reuters. But Muslimi argued that the target was already known to many in Wessab, and Yemeni officials could have easily arrested him if the US had made the request.Comment:  For more on the subject, see "Why Do They Hate Us? 2013 and Boston Bombing Triggers Islamophobia.

Below:  "Protesters loyal to the Shi'ite al-Houthi rebel group burn an effigy of a U.S. aircraft during a demonstration to protest against what they say is U.S. interference in Yemen, including drone strikes, after their weekly Friday prayers in the Old Sanaa city April 12, 2013." (Reuters/Khaled Abdullah)

Russell Means honored for "rap-ajo"

The Late Russell Means to be Inducted into the Native American Music Awards Hall of FameAs a musician, Russell Means released two national recordings, the 16 track Electric Warrior, on Warrior Records in 1993, and The Radical, released on the American Indian Music Company, Inc., in 1995. He described his music as a Tribal Experience that included all genres of music; Classical, Country & Western Rock-n-Roll, Hard Rock, Hip-Hop, R&B, Jazz and the Blues. He called his own music and words, Rap-ajo because he said, “It's my version of Rap.”

The 14th Annual Native American Music Awards will be inducting the late American Indian activist, actor, and musician, Russell Means, into the Native American Music Awards Hall of Fame on May 10 at the Seneca Niagara Hotel & Casino in Niagara Falls, New York.

The New York Times described him as, "the charismatic Oglala Sioux who helped revive the warrior image of the American Indian in the 1970s with protests that called attention to the nation's history of injustices against its indigenous peoples". The LA Times called him, "the most famous American Indian since Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse." Means is remembered as an "Oglala Lakota patriot and freedom fighter" by his family.

An inspirational visionary, Russell Means, passed away in October of 2012 at his ranch in Porcupine, South Dakota at the age of 72.Comment:  For more on Russell Means, see Russell Means Was a Fighter and Russell Means's Funeral.

Below:  "Russell Means with Senator Ted Kennedy."

Docudrama about Hominy Indians

Movie Set To Highlight Hominy Indians' 1927 Gridiron Feat

By Ashlei KingA "Twilight" star is teaming up with the Osage Foundation and Fully Funded Films to shed light on an untold story.

They hope to make a film called "Playground of the Native Son."

The 1925 Hominy Indians professional football team represented 14 different tribes from 1925-1936.

"This is just another minority team that was really never recognized and we think it's about time they're recognized," associate producer Julia Lookout said.

In 1927, the world-champion New York Giants agreed to play Hominy in what they thought would be a joke.

"The coup de grace is the fact that they played the New York Giants and they beat them, so we decided to do a documentary and talk to a lot of the ancestors," Lookout said.‘Twilight’ actor to tell Hominy Indians story

Filming complete for docudrama on Hominy Indians team

Film's producer hopes to have it ready for a June release

By Shannon Shaw DutyThe filming for the docudrama Playground of the Native Son has wrapped and producer Celia Xavier hopes to have the documentary finished by June of 2013.

“We should have it finished in six months,” Xavier said at the Osage Nation Foundation Christmas Celebration Dec. 15, where cast and crew were invited. Director of the docudrama, Michael Nash, heard Xavier’s comment and said jokingly, “Eight months.”

Xavier said that when the film is finished she plans on having a showing in Pawhuska for Osages and area Natives. Xavier also wrote the Osage Tribal Murders documentary about the Osage Reign of Terror. Nash directed the 2010 documentary Climate Refugees, a film investigating mass migrations caused by the changing climate, according to the IMDb.com Web site.

According to the documentary Web site, the docudrama is based on the 1920s all-Native Hominy Indians professional football team and their 28-game winning streak. The 1925 Hominy Indians professional football team represented 14 different tribes from 1925-1936.Comment:  For more on Indians in football history, see AMC Develops Carlisle Football Drama and The NFL's Oorang Indians.

Below:  "The 1925 Hominy Indians professional football team represented 14 different tribes from 1925-1936."

Native American Boarding School Project

Native American Boarding School Project gathers oral historiesThe Native American Boarding School Visual History Project is gathering oral histories from alumni of boarding schools in an effort to remember and heal.

The nonprofit Cante Sica Foundation is sponsoring the project and calls the Native American boarding school experience a legacy for alumni, their families and communities.

The project will consist of a visual history archive and an interactive website that will educate people about the history of the American Indian boarding school system. The system was a policy of forced assimilation experienced by more than 100,000 Native American children between 1879 and 1975.

Phase 1 of the project will train teams of Native historians and filmmakers to collect visual testimonies from alumni now living in Southern California, including alumni of the Sherman Institute (now Sherman High School) in Riverside.Comment:  For more on boarding schools, see Canadian Natives Denounce Kevin Annett and Phony Pro-Gun Indian Image.

"Why do they hate us?" 2013

The same motive for anti-US 'terrorism' is cited over and over

Ignoring the role played by US actions is dangerously self-flattering and self-delusional

By Glenn Greenwald"The two suspects in the Boston bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 were motivated by the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials told the Washington Post.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 'the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack,' the Post writes, citing 'US officials familiar with the interviews.'"

In the last several years, there have been four other serious attempted or successful attacks on US soil by Muslims, and in every case, they emphatically all say the same thing: that they were motivated by the continuous, horrific violence brought by the US and its allies to the Muslim world - violence which routinely kills and oppresses innocent men, women and children:

"I had an agreement with at least one person to attack the United States in retaliation for US support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants."

"If the United States does not get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries controlled by Muslims, he said, 'we will be attacking US', adding that Americans 'only care about their people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die' . . . .

"As soon as he was taken into custody May 3 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, onboard a flight to Dubai, the Pakistani-born Shahzad told agents that he was motivated by opposition to US policy in the Muslim world, officials said."

When he was asked by the federal judge presiding over his case how he could possibly have been willing to detonate bombs that would kill innocent children, he replied:

"Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It's a war, and in war, they kill people. They're killing all Muslims. . . .

"I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. And, on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their own people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die."And:It should go without saying that the issue here is causation, not justification or even fault. It is inherently unjustifiable to target innocent civilians with violence, no matter the cause (just as it is unjustifiable to recklessly kill civilians with violence). But it is nonetheless vital to understand why there are so many people who want to attack the US as opposed to, say, Peru, or South Africa, or Brazil, or Mexico, or Japan, or Portugal. It's vital for two separate reasons.

First, some leading American opinion-makers love to delude themselves and mislead others into believing that the US is attacked despite the fact that it is peaceful, peace-loving, freedom-giving and innocent. As these myth-makers would have it, we don't bother anyone; we just mind our own business (except when we're helping and liberating everyone), so why would anyone possibly want to attack us?

With that deceitful premise in place, so many Americans, westerners, Christians and Jews love to run around insisting that the only real cause for Muslim attacks on the US is that the attackers have this primitive, brutal, savage, uncivilized religion (Islam) that makes them do it. Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan favorably cited Sam Harris as saying that "Islamic doctrines ... still present huge problems for the emergence of a global civil society" and then himself added: "All religions contain elements of this kind of fanaticism. But Islam's fanatical side–from the Taliban to the Tsarnaevs–is more murderous than most."

These same people often love to accuse Muslims of being tribal without realizing the irony that what they are saying-Our Side is Superior and They are Inferior-is the ultimate expression of rank tribalism. They also don't seem ever to acknowledge the irony of Americans and westerners of all people accusing others of being uniquely prone to violence, militarism and aggression (Juan Cole yesterday, using indisputable statistics, utterly destroyed the claim that Muslims are uniquely violent, including by noting the massive body count piled up by predominantly Christian nations and the fact that "murder rates in most of the Muslim world are very low compared to the United States").

As the attackers themselves make as clear as they can, it's not religious fanaticism but rather political grievance that motivates these attacks. Religious conviction may make them more willing to fight (as it does for many in the west), but the motive is anger over what is being done by the US and its allies to Muslims. Those who claim otherwise are essentially saying: gosh, these Muslims sure do have this strange, primitive, inscrutable religion whereby they seem to get angry when they're invaded, occupied, bombed, killed, and have dictators externally imposed on them. It's vital to understand this causal relationship simply in order to prevent patent, tribalistic, self-glorifying falsehoods from taking hold.

Second, it's crucial to understand this causation because it's often asked "what can we do to stop Terrorism?" The answer is right in front of our faces: we could stop embracing the polices in that part of the world which fuel anti-American hatred and trigger the desire for vengeance and return violence. Yesterday at a Senate hearing on drones, a young Yemeni citizen whose village was bombed by US drones last week (despite the fact that the targets could easily have been arrested), Farea Al-Muslimi, testified. Al-Muslimi has always been pro-American in the extreme, having spent a year in the US due to a State Department award, but he was brilliant in explaining these key points:

"Just six days ago, my village was struck by a drone, in an attack that terrified thousands of simple, poor farmers. The drone strike and its impact tore my heart, much as the tragic bombings in Boston last week tore your hearts and also mine.

"What radicals had previously failed to achieve in my village one drone strike accomplished in an instant: there is now an intense anger and growing hatred of America."Terrorism: Are American Citizens Retaliation Victims of the Bush-Obama Immoral Wars?

By Jacqueline MarcusI realize that the media refuses to discuss the motives of political acts of terrorism. But we need to have that discussion after ten years of killing and torturing Iraqis and Afghans. The Bush-Cheney administration lied to Americans and cruelly blamed Iraqis for 9-11. The truth is that Iraqis were a kind and generous people before 9-11, they sympathized with Americans when 9-11 happened; they had nothing to do with 9-11, and did nothing to harm us. And that’s true for Afghans as well. These war crimes are now all documented and have been revealed through the work and courageous efforts of independent journalists like Jeremy Scahill and Julian Assange via WikiLeaks. Independent journals such as Truthout.org have continued to cover these stories—so that the public can distinguish between facts on the ground and corporate media lies-propaganda.

There is a simple solution to diminishing violent acts of terrorism that this government refuses to acknowledge: Leave these poor people alone! Stop invading them, stop killing them! Send drones that drop boxes of food, bread not bombs, so that the healing can begin. Of course, by now, they probably don’t trust anything that comes from the U.S. government, including food and water—they’ll assume it will all be poisoned. Can you blame them?Comment:  Attacking us because of their "primitive, brutal, savage, uncivilized" beliefs and practices is exactly what we blamed Indians for. And it's true that Indians sometimes terrorized and murdered "innocent" settlers who had "done nothing" to them.

I put those words in quotes because the settlers were the vanguard of genocidal policies that intended to push the Indians into the desert or the ocean. And the Indians knew it.

The Indians were fighting for their way of life, their very existence. They couldn't strike at the generals in their forts or the politicians in the statehouses. So they struck at the frontline purveyors of these genocidal policies.

The point is that almost no one wages "terrorism" because they're mad or evil. They're human beings just like everyone else. And they have motives and goals just like everyone else.

It may be foolish to try to stop an onslaught by killing civilians. It probably does nothing but inflame your opponents against you. That's why Jesus, Gandhi, and King preached nonviolence--and succeeded with it.

But people do foolish, desperate, even horrible things when their backs are to the wall. The Indians tried the peaceful way; they signed 400 treaties. The white man broke every treaty, interred the Indians in concentration camps (reservations) and boarding schools, and watched them die slowly of disease and hunger.

With that in mind, I can understand why the Indians resorted to the occasional massacre. When you're fighting for your people in self-defense, the unthinkable becomes thinkable.

For more on the subject, see "Why Do They Hate Us?" 2012 and Why Don't "They" Like Us?

Boston bombing triggers Islamophobia

Before the identity of the Boston bombing suspects was known:

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

There is a double standard: White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats

By David Sirota“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”

Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.

To know that’s true is to simply consider how America reacts to different kinds of terrorism.

Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to a new torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.

By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite—according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating—the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)I still hope the bomber is a white American

The identity of the person behind the Boston bombings will strongly affect our response--even O'Reilly agrees!

By David SirotaI’m not the kind of person who hopes to ever find conservative Fox News host Bill O’Reilly agreeing with me. But with my Salon piece on the Boston bomber now on the front page of Drudge, I think it is worth pointing out that last night O’Reilly effectively agreed with my piece by confirming the very simple self-evident truth that the Boston bomber’s demographic profile will, indeed, dictate how America responds to the atrocity.

O’Reilly starts out by stating something every American almost certainly agrees with: We should all be first and foremost hoping that the perpetrator—whoever he or she is—is apprehended as quickly as possible. Then he moves into an analysis of the future reaction. As O’Reilly put it, “If this is an international terror attack, the repercussions will be severe,” but, he added, “if it’s home-grown” that will just “be another stain on American history.”

In stating such an obvious truth, O’Reilly has (inadvertently) spotlighted the double standard that drives so much of our public policymaking and our cultural attitudes toward national security.

As he said, if the bomber ends up being a foreigner there will be a “severe” response—and if history is any guide, that means potentially a full-scale mobilization of military assets, passage of draconian civil liberties legislation, police surveillance of entire demographic groups and even perhaps a scuttling of the pending immigration bill. By contrast, if the bomber is one of the many “home-grown”—read: white domestic terrorist—attacks we’ve seen in recent years, it will merely be chalked up as “another stain on American history,” but will not necessarily prompt any kind of societal mobilization against any one particular group.

The reason, then, to hope that the bomber ends up being a white American is because the double standard may prevent an overreaction to the heinous attacks in Boston. Indeed, if the bomber ends up being a white American, there’s a decent chance we will not see a redux of the post-9/11 period when we (among other things) initiated reckless wars, passed privacy-trampling bills like the Patriot Act, overspent on the Pentagon and targeted wide swaths of the population for surveillance/warrantless wiretapping.

The same cannot be said if the bomber ends up being a Muslim—in that case, the double standard will work in the opposite way, encouraging another post-9/11 redux and all the attendant bad policies that came with it.

Bombers = Muslim Caucasians?

And after:

I am not the Tsarnaevs

The Tsarnaevs have nothing in common with me or other Muslims. But don't tell that to the political opportunists

By Wajahat AliLast Monday, before the brothers’ capture, a few friends and I wondered what the reaction would be if the suspect was a white Muslim. I often joke with my white Muslim friends that they are like the vampire superhero Blade, known as the “Daywalker,” gifted with “all of our strengths and none of our weaknesses.” As long as they hide their Muslimyness, their Whiteness serves as a protective cloak that mainstreams them as “American” shielding them from public interrogations regarding their loyalty and “otherness.”

The emotional press conference with Ruslan Tsarni, the suspects’ estranged uncle, proved that the privileges of Whiteness are lost when the individual is Muslim or born abroad. We all empathized with the uncle who said the suspects brought “shame” to his family. He volunteered to passionately defend his ethnicity, religion and patriotism in front of a sensationalistic court of public opinion for the alleged misdeeds of two family members, whom he called “losers” and not deserving to live on Earth. A reporter then asked, “What do you think of America?” – a question never posed to family members of white criminals. Tsarni passed the loyalty test by responding, “I respect this country. I love this country.”

Muslim mass murderers excluded from “Whiteness” are usually labeled “terrorist” as opposed to being categorized as “lone wolf,” “lone radical/gunman ” or “deeply disturbed.” The latter applies to white men, such as mass murderers Wade Page, Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Anders Breivik.

This raises the legitimate question: What’s the difference between the “terrorism” of the Tsarnaev brothers and the “lone radical” violence of white supremacist Wade Page, who shot and killed six Sikh Americans at their temple? What are the definitions and standards for “terrorism”? Who decides?

Apparently, it’s new media, which covered the police hunt for the brothers as a “Choose Your Own Adventure” novel scripted by amateur Hardy Boys and “CSI” aficionados. Overnight, the world witnessed the birth of a great career opportunity for self-proclaimed experts on Chechnya, jihad, radicalization and counterterrorism, who emerged instantly using Google and Wikipedia to obtain their dubious scholarship.

This includes Chuck Woolery, self-identified conservative and a relic of ’80s game shows, who displayed brilliant, evidence-based, sociological insights with this helpful tweet: “Muslims can’t seem to live in peace with anyone. Even each other. FACT.” He continued his love connections with Muslims by adding, “All Muslims are not terrorists. Most, if not all terrorists are Muslims. Please dispute that.”

Sure, Chuck, I will. In the U.S., 56 percent of terrorist attacks and plots have been perpetrated by right-wing extremists, 30 percent by eco-terrorists and 12 percent by Islamic extremists. The Southern Poverty Law Center recently reported the highest number of extremist hate groups ever recorded in U.S. history, with the sharp rise attributed to massive growths in white supremacist, anti-immigrant and radical anti-government groups. Anti-Muslim hate groups have also increased by 300 percent.

No one denies that radicalized Muslim violence is a problem, as evidenced by Nidal Hassan Malik, the unhinged Army major who killed 13 soldiers at Fort Hood and injured 31, and Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square bomber.

When minority groups highlight double standards in language, labeling, media representation and government prosecution, we are accused of whining and espousing victimhood. However, Mr. Woolery, a privileged white male, implies America is still more oppressive to white, Christian Republicans: “If these guys [Boston bombing suspects] were white southern, christian, conservative, tea partiers we would know what they had for breakfast 3 yrs ago on May 16th.”

That explains why Daryl Johnson, a former counterterrorism expert for the government, submitted a study on the rise and danger of right-wing extremists and white supremacists only to be pressured, criticized, repudiated and ultimately sidelined by conservative members of Congress and the Department of Homeland Security.Are the Tsarnaev brothers white?

Whatever their racial status, they seem to resemble young American mass murderers more than al-Qaida members

By Joan Walsh[A]re we sure the Tsarnaevs aren’t white? They are quite literally Caucasian, as in from the Caucuses: Rebecca Eisenberg helps with this handy map. And ethnically in this country, we count Americans of Russian descent, as well as Chechens, as white. Dzhokhar was a naturalized American citizen; Tamarlan had applied for citizenship but reportedly didn’t get it because of FBI concerns about his possible ties to Islamic radicals.

So why are the Tsarnaev brothers not white, at least to right-wingers? Is it only because they’re Muslim? Muslim immigrants? Or is it because they’re “bad,” and whiteness must be surrendered when white people are bad?

Over its long history America has regularly featured a process of sorting white from non-white, even among European immigrant groups. I’m not a huge admirer of the now-dated whiteness studies academic movement, but those scholars did help illuminate the way various groups of European immigrants, particularly the Irish, but also Jews, Italians and Eastern Europeans, “became” white over time, in a complicated process of determined assimilation, gradually lessening prejudice by existing “white” society, and most important, the arrival of newcomers to take the place of the scapegoated non-white other, alongside the definitive non-white scapegoats, African-Americans. Embracing racism and xenophobia, sadly, could be a shortcut to white status for previously non-white European immigrants.

These days, though, Americans of Russian or Chechen descent are unambiguously categorized as “white” by the U.S. Census Bureau, which says it counts as white all “people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who reported ‘White’ or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.” As I wrote Friday, the anguished outburst of Ruslan Tsarni, the brothers’ uncle in Maryland, was the quintessentially American cry of a newcomer wanting to be identified as a good, patriotic American–not necessarily as white, but certainly not as suspicious “other.”

So conservatives’ insistence the Tsarnaevs are absolutely not white is curious, to say the least.The Boston Bombers and Why White Privilege Hurts White America

By Chauncey DeVegaRace is a social construction. There is only one race, the human race.

But race has historically been something negotiated by the courts, something that has legal standing, and something that has impacted people's lives across the color line. As Cheryl Harris and Ian Haney Lopez have written, to be "white" is to have a type of property in America. Because "whiteness" is property, it can be inherited, passed down from one person to another as an inheritance, and has value--both symbolic and monetary--under the law, and in the broader society.

European immigrants understood (and continue to understand) the value of whiteness. They knew to distance themselves from black folks as a way of becoming fully "white" and a "real American." The United States government helped to create race and reinforce the value of whiteness when it passed immigration laws that privileged "desirable races" from Europe over those "less desirable" from Africa, Asia, and other parts of the world.

And, of course, the racist implementation of the G.I. Bill and FHA Housing Programs after World War II helped to create whiteness again by creating a segregated place called "suburbia," and creating a stark divide in the racial wealth and income gap that is still with us today.

Race works through a type of "common sense" that is based on individual experiences, cultural norms, (misunderstandings of) history, the law, politics, as well as psychological motivations and decision-making that operate on both a conscious and subconscious level. In total, the race business is a type of magic and pseudo-science. This makes it no less real or important.

Whiteness is synonymous with "American" for those who have socialized into what sociologists such as Joe Feagin have termed "the white racial frame." Here, common sense dictates that "those people" look "American" and those "other people" do not.Comment:  Needless to say, Americans applied the same kind of thinking to Indians, blacks, and Jews and other immigrants. Anyone who didn't fit America's definition of "white," including the Irish and other pure-white immigrants, was considered inferior and potentially evil.

For more on Islam, see The Logical Conclusion of Extremism and "Why Do They Hate Us?" 2012.

Below:  Past and present savages, killers, and terrorists, according to Americans.