Oregon's policy on school mascots

People have been talking about the Oregon State Board of Education's policy on school mascots. Here's a typical story:

With tribal sign-off, Scappoose likely to keep 'Indians' mascot

Superintendent talks to tribal leaders about ways to retain mascot

By Nicole ThillUse of Native American mascots was banned in 2012 in 15 school districts by the Oregon State Board of Education. The resolution required the mascots to be changed by 2017 or risk losing federal funding.

However, after several discussions and amendment changes the board determined last week that school districts could keep their mascots if they entered into an agreement with the nearest federally recognized confederated tribe.

The Scappoose School District has been in communication with the Confederated Tribe of Grand Ronde since early 2015 to reach an agreement like this. Superintendent Stephen Jupe and Tribal Council Chair Reyn Leno agree that it is “very likely” Scappoose will keep its mascot, but imagery and representation of the mascot will likely be altered.

“I’m pretty sure based on discussions ... that the full faced-Indian with the feather headdress, that you see in places and on letterhead and things like that, really has to go. And that’s fine,” Jupe said.

Leno said discussions between the Grand Ronde’s cultural department and each individual school district will help identify what names and symbols are culturally appropriate for each school district. Knowing what tribes traditionally lived in each area, what they wore, what they looked like and what they were known for will be key to determining what aspects will remain and what will change, Leno said.

Comment:  A brief discussion on the subject:

Sounds like Grand Ronde is offering one-stop shopping for every school in Oregon.So the mascots will still objectify and dehumanize, but they will do so with greater authenticity and Native input???Yes!Grand Ronde are sell-outs and should be ashamed of themselves. Who gives them the right to approve anything for any tribe/nation but their own? Reminds me of old black folk in the south saying it doesn't bother them to be referred to as coons, jigga-boo, boy, n-word; don't make waves or you'll make things worse, we have bigger issues to worry about, as long as the man pay me my $$ for a good day's work we be alright; ah ole' Mista don't mean nuffin' by it, it's just good ole Joel Olsen doing his black face comedy he just funnin'....

Bull Sh*t!!!Grand Ronde tribe buys former dog racing track, sparking new casino speculation

Gotta keep the white folks happy!

White male privilege in Chrononauts

A review of a recent comic-book series:

Chrononauts Review (Mark Millar, Sean Murphy)Spoilers--this comic is shit!

Meet the ultimate craptastic time-travel story: Chrononauts!

What happens when two meathead “scientist” dudebros invent time-travel? Dude--they use it to get babes, money and fast cars! Yah, brah, they like totally get laid tons and use their knowledge of history and their timesuits to jump into any timezone and get stuff to make their lives easier whenever they want!

They want to become emperors to 16th century people? Give them 21st century weaponry and lead them in battle against their enemies! Machine guns, planes and bombs will easily make them the victors against spears and horses and they’ll make you their ruler. Then you get gold and women and you just keep doing that everywhere in time because that’s what “rock star scientists” do!

It feels redundant to say Chrononauts is a dumb and lazily scripted comic because so much of Mark Millar’s recent output has been like that; Chrononauts is just the most brazen, to date.Rob's review

As I told someone back in October, I got the first trade paperback becauseMillar is holding a contest to write a four-page (!) Chrononauts story. I know time travel, and now that I've seen how simplistic his stories are, it should be easy to come up with something better.

I'm thinking something about the battle of Little Big Horn. Because even though the Chrononauts go hopping through time, they mainly encountered the usual Euro-American highlights (Rome, Vikings, Columbus, the Civil War, 1920s gangsters, JFK). Most of their stops were confined to the white portions of Western civilization, and not a single Indian appeared.Then I got into a discussion with critic Gregory Burgas:

Except for Old Man Logan and Civil War, I haven't read much Millar, Gregory. Has he always written from such a white-male perspective? This series seems like something Mickey Spillane might've written if he were tasked with doing a modern sci-fi story.Well, I've been boycotting Millar for over a decade, so I don't know about his recent work. Wanted pushed me to boycott him, and that's totally a "I'm a white male and the whole world hates me!" whining rant, through and through. It's odd, because his Swamp Thing is superb and I've heard good things about his Superman Adventures. But your assessment is not wrong at all.The "dudebro" ethos

He isn't ranting in this series. More like celebrating the greatness of strapping white males. Who are manly enough to take what they want from every era.

The two most prominent women are also people of color. They have independent careers but they're marked to be wives and mothers. The racial and sexual implications couldn't be much more obvious.

With all of history to play with, you'd think this series would be less white and male than average. But no...its view of history seems to come from a 1950s school textbook. I bet people like Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, and Seth MacFarlane would love this book.Ha! Well, then he's embraced the "dudebro" ethos and is just enjoying it. Is that progress? :-)Could be. But I'm thinking it's some idea from his childhood that he recently resurrected. He saw some astronauts and thought they were mighty heroes with the "right stuff." How cool would it be if chrononauts had the same rock-star vibe?

It's like doing The New Frontier or Batman '66 and unironically avoiding every social issue of the last 50 years. You can do that for a series set in that era. But this series seems to be set in the present or near future.

Final thoughts

This book is all "What fun it is to conquer people and become king!" Much like Gunga Din, which I think Millar cited as an inspiration.

Never mind all the people our heroes must've killed to accomplish this. The murder, assassination, enslavement, rape, and pillage all happen off-page.

So stupid that these guys spent 20 years becoming top scientists, then threw it all away for fame and fortune. Hey, if you wanted women and money, maybe become a race-car driver, firefighter, rock star, or soldier of fortune. You know, a profession that might appeal to adrenaline junkies and their groupies. Scientist probably isn't a top-10 choice if you're motivated by greed and lust.

Bottom line: This may be the shallowest time-travel story ever. It's as if a men's magazine wrote about all the fun things you could do with women, cars, and guns in the past.

More reviews:

CHRONONAUTS #1

"Inexcusable" Pocahontas Division cartoon

This Funny Isn't Funny; It's Racist and Sexist

By Simon Moya-SmithHere’s what you see in the Bluefield Daily Telegraph editorial cartoon:

A Native American woman in tears, looking circa 18th century in buckskin and fringe, bound at the wrists, barefoot, while some white business-cretin in a suit jubilantly leads her against her will from a building reading “Norfolk Southern Pocahontas Division,” pulling at her like an animal on a leash to somewhere off the page.

As you’ve possibly already surmised, this editorial is not only racist–it’s sexist.

At a time when thousands of Native American women (who are 2.5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than any other demographic) are going missing or found murdered and buried AND BURNED by evil motherfuckers who whimper and cry when caught, this type of assholery is inexcusable. Inexcusable. In-fucking-excusable!

Now, I did a little digging and found out the illustration, published on Facebook on January 17, was a result of Norfolk Southern, a railroad company, relocating its Pocahontas Division about a two-hour drive away–“a move that will impact management and staff positions in Bluefield,” Greg Jordan of the Telegraph reported.

Whitesboro issue increases awareness

After widespread criticism, the town of Whitesboro has agreed to change its seal. That's good, but the larger story is what Native activists are accomplishing:

Whitesboro drops 'racist' seal: Sign of the times for Native Americans?

A decades-long debate over the Whitesboro, N.Y., seal has led to 'victory' for Native Americans who said it was offensive to their heritage. Are America's first people gaining more recognition?

By Lucy SchoutenAfrican Americans have arguably made more progress than indigenous people in scrubbing the American landscape of hateful or racist symbols and celebrating their heritage. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Black History Month in February are longstanding holidays that have honored black Americans for years, yet native Americans are only recently finding similar holiday recognition. The latest effort is to change the existing Columbus Day holiday to Indigenous Peoples Day, reported The Christian Science Monitor's Molly Jackson:South Dakota and Berkeley, Calif., were among the first to pay attention, choosing to use the second Monday in October to honor the New World’s first inhabitants instead of its 15th century newcomers. ... Further protests seemed to fall on deaf ears, until a sudden wave of Columbus cancellations in the past two years: 10 more cities have joined the list, from Albuquerque to Seattle to St. Paul. This new wave may represent a broader shift in how Americans view Native American rights, or at least the growing local political influence of indigenous groups.Comment:  Exactly. It's all about increasing awareness. Which leads to improvements in all areas: poverty, crime, health, etc.

Here's one response to people, including Natives, who say we have more important issues to worry about:

With a simple social media protest, we got a torrent of national exposure in the media: NY Times, Washington Post, The Daily Show, Stephen Colbert, etc. What have you done lately that compares to that?

When you raise a poverty, crime, or health issue that gets dozens of pieces of coverage, let us know. Until then, we are at the forefront of raising awareness of Native issues.

Which is not to say we should stop talking about poverty, crime, or health issues. But it's ridiculous to claim that something earning a ton of media coverage is a waste of time. You don't understand how to mobilize people and instigate change if you think one poverty piece is better than dozens of mascot pieces.

#OccupyWallStreet, #IdleNoMore, #BlackLivesMatter, #OscarsSoWhite, and #ChangetheName!

For more on the subject, see Flipping the Whitesboro Script and Comedians Mock Whitesboro Seal.

Native women in film

Someone asked me if I had a list of Native women in film. Not just Native actors, which would be easy, but writers, directors, and producers.

I didn't, so I went to work. Here are the results:

This is the most comprehensive list I could find of Native filmmakers. In 5-10 minutes of searching, that is:

National Museum of the American Indian
Film & Media Catalog: People

You probably know some of these people. For the others, you'd have to check the female names via IMDB and Google. To see whether they're directors, producers, writers, actors, or some combination thereof.

This article:

Powerful and Resonant: Native & First Nations Women’s Filmic Presence

lists a few of the big names:A very brief list includes Alanis Obomsawin (Abenaki), Sandra Sunrising Osawa (Makah), Christine Welsh (Métis), Shirley Cheechoo (Cree), Beverly Singer (Tewa, Navajo), Loretta Todd (Métis, Cree), Shelley Niro (Mohawk), Valerie Red-Horse, Tracey Deer (Mohawk), Missy Whiteman (Arapaho, Kickapoo), Heather Rae (Cherokee), and Tamara Podemski.These postings:

Through Indian Eyes: Native American Cinema

Native American & Indigenous Film

First Nations & Native American Celebs

list a lot of performers but also some directors, producers, and so forth. You can search them for the words "director," "producer," and so forth. And add them to your list.

I think these combined will give you most of the Native women working in film these days. There may be a few hundred of them, if not more.

Below: Tantoo Cardinal in Shelley Niro's Honey Moccasin.

Movie and TV diversity sells

After the #OscarsSoWhite announcement for 2016, Hollywood once again considered its failure to diversify.

In Hollywood, a major disconnect between economic interests and business practices

Study by UCLA Bunche Center finds that women and minorities are still underrepresented among actors, directors and executives

By Eric GreeneThe report reveals a dramatic disconnect between the reality of America and the Hollywood dream factory. It found that although films and TV shows with casts that reflect the nation’s racial and ethnic diversity are more likely to succeed at the box office or in the Nielsen ratings, minorities and women continue to be severely underrepresented as directors, show creators, writers and lead actors.

For example, although women make up a little more than 50 percent of the U.S. population, only 6.3 percent of the films in the study were directed by women, and only 17 percent of film studio senior management were women. Not a single film studio CEO was a woman during the period studied in the report.

Similarly, while racial minorities are approximately 40 percent of the population, racial minorities directed just 17.8 percent of theatrical films in 2013 and represented only 8 percent of film studio senior management. Only one person of color was a film studio CEO.

The report also reveals that more than half of “frequent moviegoers”—a group that buys half of all domestic movie tickets—are minorities, suggesting that the industry’s hiring practices are out of sync with its economic interests.

“What we’re finding is that audiences want diverse content,” Hunt said. “They want diverse content created by diverse talent. So the industry would increase its odds of success if there was more diversity in the room.”When will Hollywood figure out that diversity sells?

Panel discusses findings of UCLA's Hollywood Diversity Report

By Sarah Rothbard/ZocaloHunt, who wrote the report with Ana Christina Ramon, also with the Bunche center, said that he was not surprised by most of this year’s findings, which came from analyzing 200 films and more than 1,100 television shows released in the 2012-13 season. Film directors, writers and actors remain overwhelmingly white and male; TV is more diverse, but both nonwhites and women remain vastly underrepresented.

Hunt said that the study’s most interesting finding is that “diversity clearly sells.” More diverse TV shows are more popular than shows that aren’t diverse. And movies with diverse casts did best at the worldwide box office.

So why doesn’t Hollywood follow the money and create more diverse content?

Hunt said that white men have dominated positions behind the camera for many years. In a high-risk industry, they want to feel they have the best chance of succeeding, and so they tend to hire people who look and think like them.Diverse movies are a huge business. Why doesn’t Hollywood make more?

By Drew HarwellThe industry is ignoring a gold mine. Every year for the past half-decade, the average white American has bought a ticket to fewer films than the average black, Hispanic or Asian moviegoer, industry data shows. Though 37 percent of the U.S. population, minorities bought 46 percent of the $1.2 billion in tickets sold in the United States last year.

Some of the year’s biggest surprises had diverse actors and small budgets but ended up dominating the silver screen. For five straight weeks ending in September, movies with predominately black casts topped the box office, including the Christian drama “War Room,” thriller “The Perfect Guy” and rap biography “Straight Outta Compton,” which has made $200 million on a $28 million budget to become the highest-grossing biopic of all time.

More recently, “Creed,” a “Rocky” spinoff starring Michael B. Jordan and directed by Ryan Coogler—both 20-something black men who led the 2013 critical darling “Fruitvale Station”—has triumphed with $72 million at the box office and one of the best opening weekends in the boxing franchise’s 40-year history.

High-profile hires of actors such as Jordan in “Creed” and John Boyega in “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” have remained the exception in a Hollywood that has shown only stuttering progress over the past year in getting more-diverse talent into blockbuster roles.How Hollywood Keeps Minorities Out

By Dennis RomeroFilms with casts that are 21 to 30 percent minority fared better than movies with any other racial-ethnic mix, earning a median box office take of $160 million, according to Hunt's last UCLA study. Those films also saw the greatest return on investment. With major network TV, "median household ratings peaked" for shows with casts that were 41 to 50 percent minority, the report found.UCLA Releases Scathing Report on Diversity in Film and TV

By Melissa SilversteinJust when you thought it was safe to be hopeful again, here comes another reality check.

The Bunche Center at UCLA has released its annual "Hollywood Diversity Report" to remind us that we're still nowhere near where we should be in terms of gender and racial diversity. Researchers examined 172 theatrical films released in 2011 and 1061 TV shows aired during the 2011-12 season on six broadcast and 62 cable networks, eloquently explaining their reasoning as follows: "When media images are rooted primarily in stereotype, inequality is normalized and is more likely to be reinforced over time through our prejudices and practices."

Here's the crazy--and yet entirely logical and expected--part: Diversity means money. Broadcast comedies and dramas with more diversity get higher ratings. Films with just 21-30% diversity earned a global median box-office total of $160 million, while films with less than 10% diversity made just $68.5 million.Oscars So White? Or Oscars So Dumb? Discuss.

By Manohla Dargis, Wesley Morris, and A.O. ScottMANOHLA DARGIS I love that so many people are enraged at this year’s whiteout—anyone who yells at the Academy is a friend of mine—but I wish that this anger was being expressed 365 days a year and not when the nominations are announced. As Tony suggested, it’s worth repeating again and again (and again!): The primary reason the Oscars are so white this year and most years is that the movie industry is overwhelmingly white. That’s infuriating, but that’s not shocking, and it sure isn’t news. And if that bothers people, then they need to start complaining loudly and perhaps even begin voting with their dollars. By, say, supporting movies with minorities and women. Because the only way the industry will change is if people give them hell.

WESLEY MORRIS Manohla, wouldn’t you say that’s what happened in the last year and the year before? The audiences paid to see women, films with mostly black actors and racially diverse casts, and paid often: “The Force Awakens,” “Inside Out,” “Furious 7,” “Pitch Perfect 2,” “Spy,” “Mad Max: Fury Road,” “Trainwreck,” “Straight Outta Compton,” “Cinderella,” “Creed,” “Get Hard,” “Sisters,” that second “Divergent” movie and the last “Hunger Games.” There’s demonstrable proof that North America wants to see itself—more of itself—in its entertainment. And the Academy—which is working to add more women, young people and color to its ranks—should want to see more of its ideal self at the Oscars.Comment:  For more on the subject, see The Revenant vs. Life of Pi and Diversity Is "An Artistic Necessity."

The Revenant vs. Life of Pi

More on The Revenant:

Consider Life of Pi. Man (boy) vs. nature (tiger or bear, sea or snow). Who greenlit that without Cruise, Clooney, or DiCaprio and why?

It earned $609 million worldwide on a $120 million budget, which would put it near the top of DiCaprio's hit list. But without a white man as the star...puzzling!

No one even needs The Revenant or the Hugh Glass story. If DiCaprio wanted to work with González Iñárritu on a sweeping Western epic, they could've made a story up. Something with DiCaprio and a co-equal Native star.

With roughly the same ingredients, it would've done roughly as well. DiCaprio could've thanked his Native co-stars without becoming the great white savior. That movie would've advanced Natives, whom he supposedly cares about, more than The Revenant.

My Facebook friend joined in:This is my point, since I'm actually reading the book. it's a story of survival, and in this day when we are sorely lacking in diversity it would've been so much bolder to make this change.

Or how about a screenplay portraying Indians any time after say, 1915? That would be truly revolutionary!Like my Breaking the Code movie!

Lots of indie films

Of course, indie films about modern Natives get made all the time. In the last couple of years there's been Drunktown's Finest, Rhymes for Young Ghouls, Empire of Dirt, The Jingle Dress, Songs My Brother Taught Me, Mekko, Le Dep, and the upcoming Neither Wolf Nor Dog.

I haven't seen most of these, so I'm not sure how good they are. There aren't many (or any) commercial or mainstream stories among the bunch. Nothing I'd send my mom, who doesn't care about Indians, to see.

One could argue against more period pieces like The Revenant, Bone Tomahawk, or the upcoming Diablo starring Adam Beach. Not to mention The Ridiculous 6.

The question is: Does it help Indians to appear as minor characters in old Westerns? Which reinforce the idea that Indians are dead and gone? I dunno.

Yes, it reminds people that Indians were a part of the West. But do people get that modern Indians with jobs, SUVs, and cellphones were only play-acting between their Starbucks and yoga classes? I'm not sure about that.

Upcoming projects

Q'orianka Kilcher, Graham Greene cast in Chickasaw Nation film, 'Te Ata' (VIDEO)

After 1915, so it counts!

Charles Red Corn’s 'A Pipe for February' to be a Film

Only 95 years in the past! Getting closer!

For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see Native Lead in The Revenant? and The Revenant = "White Savior" Story

Bundys hold Paiute artifacts hostage

The 'hostages' of Oregon standoff: 4,000 Paiute artifacts? (+video)

The Burns Paiute tribe, whose ancestral lands are occupied by protesters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, have asked officials to prosecute the armed activists for potential damage to sacred sites and historical artifacts.

By Molly JacksonAs the armed occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge enters its third week, with little public response from the government, many Americans' initial fascination with Ammon Bundy's eclectic group of protesters demands to return the land "to the people" has faded to weary frustration.

For the nearby Burns Paiute tribe, however, much more is at stake: 4,000 tribal artifacts, maps, and hundreds of sacred sites that they fear may be damaged or carted off for profit while their ancestral lands remain under the control of armed activists who see loggers and ranchers, not Native Americans or the federal government, as the land's rightful owners.

"As far as I'm concerned, our history is just another hostage," Paiute Tribal Council Chairwoman Charlotte Rodrique told the Associated Press.

After weeks of speaking out against the occupation, the tribe has written a letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which manages the refuge, asking that the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, as the occupiers are now calling themselves, be prosecuted for any damage to federally protected artifacts. A copy was also sent to the US Attorney for the state of Oregon, Billy Williams, according to the AP.Burns Paiute Tribe: Oregon Occupiers Might Sell Sacred Artifacts on eBay

By Justin StreightCharlotte Roderique (pictured above), chair of the Burns Paiute Tribal Council, released a statement on the occupation Friday.

“Armed protestors don’t belong here. They continue to desecrate one of our most important sacred sites. They should be held accountable.”

Tribal council member Jarvis Kennedy highlighted one particular fear—that the artifacts could end up for sale.

“They could be on eBay right now—we don’t know. With militia members coming and going freely from the refuge, who knows what’s leaving there?”Interior and exterior threats

Oregon Wildlife Refuge Occupiers Rifle Through Native American Artifacts

By Brendan O'ConnorA video uploaded to Facebook on Wednesday appears to show the armed militants occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge rummaging through a storage area, accusing the Bureau of Land Management of improperly storing artifacts belonging to the local, native Paiute tribe. “SHARE!” the video is captioned. “BREAKING UPDATE BURNS OREGON BLM LEFT NATIVE ARTIFACTS TO ROT IN MICE DROPPINGS!”

Earlier this week, Burns Paiute tribal chairperson Charlotte Roderique expressed concern over how the militia was handling the tribe’s history. “We are really worried about the status of the artifacts down there,” Roderique told the Indian Country Today Media Network. (Gawker could not reach Roderique for comment.)

“I understand they took a bulldozer and built a line around the refuge headquarters,” Roderique told Indian Country Today. “You can’t go and bulldoze things. I don’t know what these people are doing if they are doing things to just get a rise or to be martyr—all they are doing is making enemies out of the people they professed to support.”

Last week, the tribe delivered a letter to the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service demanding the militants’ prosecution “if the occupiers disturb, damage, remove, alter, or deface any archaeological resource on the refuge property.”Militants claim they want to return Paiute artifacts from Oregon reserve in new video

By Arturo GarciaMembers of Ammon Bundy’s militant group released a video on Wednesday claiming they want to “open a dialogue” with members of the Burns Paiute Tribe regarding artifacts stored inside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The video, posted on YouTube by multiple-time felon Stanley Blaine Hicks under his “Blaine Cooper” alias, shows LaVoy Finnicum walking through a storage room at the facility, saying it contains artifacts shoved into boxes.

“You can see there’s some rat’s nests in here,” Finnicum says, motioning toward one group of boxes. However, no rats are visible at any moment during the three-minute video.

“My question is, why do they just keep them down here?” Finnicum asks.

Militants Plow New Roads At Refuge, Possibly Damaging Artifacts

By Amanda PeacherKevin Foerster, the agency’s Pacific region chief, also denounced the construction.

“There’s a reason why there’s not a road there,” said Foerster. “If there was a need for a road in that particular location, we would have over the past 108 years put a road in that location.”

The agency said the action is likely a violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, also known as the ARPA.

“Even disturbing 3 to 4 inches on the surface is an ARPA violation,” said Holm. “Investigators will have to excavate to determine depth of disturbance in several areas to understand the extent of the damage.”Summing it up

Bundy Militia Compared To ISIS For Pawing Through Native American Artifacts, Destroying Sites

By Kristina KillgroveOn the face of it, this doesn’t seem like a bad sentiment. For an organization obsessed with individual rights, it makes sense in a way: Finicum and others may actually be convinced that the Paiute objects need rescuing. But their paternalistic concern for people they perceive as downtrodden by the US government is misplaced. The Paiute agree that the objects need to be rescued—but rescued from Finicum and the other militia members. Rodrique is further quoted in Daily Kos as saying that “we feel strongly because we have had a good working relationship with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge” prior to the occupation. “We view them as a protector of our cultural rights in that area.” The Paiute helped archive the artifacts at the refuge in the first place.

The Daily Kos quotes tribal council member Jarvis Kennedy as saying, “They just need to get the hell out of there. They didn’t ask anybody, we don’t want them here.” And the archaeologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Carla Burnside, told ICTMN that militants released photos of themselves in her office rifling through sensitive archaeological files. Fish and Wildlife Service assistant director of external affairs, Jason Holm, further told Oregon Public Broadcasting that the road the occupiers recently bulldozed is “an archaeological site important to the Burns Paiute Tribe.” They also removed a fence that Holm said was “a deterrent to keep fire crews from driving across the archaeological site.”

The actions of the Bundy-led militia almost certainly go against ARPA, in spite of what Finicum and friends seem to think. Legal protections have been put into place over decades in the US to protect Native sites, artifacts, and burials and to help right the wrongs done to Native archaeological remains since Europeans first landed. Finicum may think he is doing the right thing in his misguided attempt to repatriate artifacts that are being stored at the refuge by choice and by design, but the Paiute vehemently disagree. And as it’s their heritage, it’s their right to rebuff Finicum and to bring federal action against the occupants who have no idea how to handle the artifacts or how to safeguard their sacred sites.

Rodrique’s quote in ICTMN sums it up for me, and for many of the people in my Twitter feed outraged by this brash disregard for the opinions of Natives: “I don’t know what these people are doing… if they are doing things to just get a rise or to be a martyr—all they are doing is making enemies out of the people they professed to support.”Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Bundy: Paiutes Lost Their Claim and Paiutes Tell Bundys to Leave.

Native lead in The Revenant?

A Facebook friend wrote the following about The Revenant:I'm reading The Revenant, and it seems after the creators of the film bought the rights they took the liberty of completely adding in the story of Glass having a Native wife and son. So my question is, if they felt they needed to drastically change the story to add more humanity and drama, why didn't anyone think to just make the main character Hawk? He survives a bear attack, watches his white father get stabbed in front of him, and the movie ensues as is, a story of revenge, but with an Indian as the lead character. The movie would be filmed in the same fashion, therefore getting the same nominations, an Indian wins "Best Actor" and the Oscars don't have to explain another year lacking in diversity. BOOM everyone wins.I said something similar!

DiCaprio could've played the Tom Hardy role. Or, if we're further fictionalizing the story, a made-up role.

Marketers don't necessarily care whether a star plays a leading role or a supporting role. E.g., Johnny Depp in Into the Woods.

If DiCaprio's in it, they can sell it as if he's the star. Because audiences don't care that much either.Right. If audiences really cared, the turnout for Star Wars would've been significantly lower after learning of the storm trooper role. That's the logic of "white male leads put more butts in seats."There's also the fact that a star doesn't guarantee anything. See Johnny Depp in The Lone Ranger. No one could tell in advance whether The Revenant would be a hit or a flop.

DiCaprio vs. Depp

Someone else chimed in:Right, but I bet you [Depp] was a huge reason that movie got green lit. And the reason is flopped is, well, that is a TERRIBLE movie.Right, but the "Lone Ranger" experience contradicts your initial claim:

"The sad truth is, Leo [Johnny] sells tickets. He gets movies made. You couldn't realistically make this flick without him. With a budget of about 130m, you need to make sure you're going to get a certain amount back by casting a face who puts people's butts in seats."

The "selling tickets" part isn't a sad truth, it's a wish or a hope. An article of faith. The truth is that except for maybe Tom Cruise, no white actor can guarantee a hit movie. Certainly not Johnny Depp, whom Hollywood considers a hitmaker. These actors can't put "butts in the seats" and "make sure" a movie earns a profit.

I checked and DiCaprio's movies have a solid record of earning profits. But he generally does prestige projects with the likes of Martin Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, and James Cameron. I.e., big names who often have hits because of their directing and producing skills regardless of whom they cast. DiCaprio doesn't take many risks with low-brow popcorn fare like The Lone Ranger.

So The Revenant was a gamble, not a sure thing. A $60 million film with a Native star, DiCaprio as the co-star, and a big-name director also would've been a gamble. We won't know which is the bigger gamble until DiCaprio and Hollywood actually make the second movie.

The "gets movies made" part is the sad truth. Because Hollywood ignores the success of diverse films and continues to operate via its old-boy network aka racism.

In short, the facts are these:

Diverse movies are a huge business. Why doesn’t Hollywood make more?

Not whatever Hollywood thinks they are.

For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see The Revenant = "White Savior" Story and Is The Revenant a Game-Changer?

Means: Geronimo had 100+ errors

Hollywood v. Indians: Russell Means, The Great Mystery and Adam Sandler's Dreck

By Bayard JohnsonRussell came over for dinner one evening and sat down at the table, hardly speaking, staring into space. He was in another world. After a while he sat up straighter, cleared his throat, and came back to our kitchen table. “Got a look at the GERONIMO script,” he said. “It’s the worst piece of trash I’ve ever seen.” I can’t remember how many factual errors about Indians were written into the script. It was a staggering number, over 100. Everything about the script reflected an attempt by non-Indians, who knew nothing about Indians or their culture or beliefs or ways of life, to make money off the popular current interest in movies about American Indians. There was no attempt by the filmmakers to learn anything factual about Indians, or to represent them on screen with any accuracy whatsoever, according to Russell’s reading of the script.Means said he wouldn't do anything about it. The Great Mystery would take care of the problem:How was the Great Mystery going to take care of GERONIMO? I must’ve looked dubious. “If you look at the history of Hollywood,” said Russell, “you’ll see that recent movies that have treated Indians with respect—LAST OF THE MOHICANS, LITTLE BIG MAN, THE OUTLAW JOSIE WALES, DANCES WITH WOLVES—have all done well at the box office. Those like GERONIMO, which trampled roughshod over Indian culture, were box office disasters. Just wait, said Russell. You’ll see.

The numbers became clear later in 1993. GERONIMO cost $35 million to produce. The picture grossed $18 million, meaning that everyone who tried to exploit Indian culture to make money lost their ass instead.Of course, Means also told us what he thought the best Native movies of the 1990s were:Last of the Mohicans and the best one of them all, Pocahontas.Not Dances with Wolves or Smoke Signals but Pocahontas, which must've had hundreds if not thousands of historical errors. So take his claims with a grain of salt.

For more on Russell Means, see Means on His Acting Career and Means on Native Movies.

The Revenant = "white savior" story

The Revenant is not an indigenous story

Grandiose frontier epic never escapes colonial gaze of western genre

By Jesse WenteThe Revenant is not an indigenous story. Like Dances with Wolves before it (among many others) it is an American fable that uses First Nations characters to support its allegorical intent, and one that never escapes the colonial gaze of the western genre.

Like Kevin Costner's more traditional western, The Revenant takes great strides to get period details correct around clothing, language, housing and combat, but does little to elevate the indigenous characters beyond narrative and storytelling devices.Indigenous People’s Stories Need More Than Just Leonardo DiCaprio’s Speech

By Ryan McMahonMy social media is split between people who love the film for what it was—a story about how lost the English and the French were when they arrived in our territories—and people who hated the film for its tired tropes of violent Indians, and the portrayal of sexual violence against Indigenous women (and, yeah, one scene of sexual violence against an Indigenous woman is enough to mention it here). I've accepted the film for what it is: a look at how ugly and violent the fur trade and the settling of North America was.

Among friends, our "inside the circle" conversations (yes, Indigenous peoples have private conversations y'all are not privy to) about The Revenant have revolved around the white savior complex of the story, the bloodthirsty revenge narrative of the Arikara Chief, and the general musings of the violent times that were. For some, the anger and frustration at the representations of Indigenous people in the film don't allow all of us to see that The Revenant wasn't an Indigenous film. It was a film that happened to have a "B story" that included Native people, but it was not an Indigenous story alone.'Revenant' Review: It’s Ok, But Still the Same Ol’ White Savior Stuff for Native People

By Gyasi Ross[T]he actual human story pushed Revenant into the same “white savior” garbage pile that has permeated pretty much any mainstream movie that includes Natives as major characters. DiCaprio’s “Glass” character is a dirty, vicious, capitalistic and brutal white man who is trying to get some quick money at the expense of Native people’s resources just like every other white man in the movie. The only difference is that Glass has a half-Native son (some of his best friends are black) and so that, evidently, somehow makes him different than the rest of the dirty, vicious, brutal and capitalistic white men. Glass instructs his half-Native son to be silent and to not upset white men, for survival, as white men hold the key to Native people’s survival and can exterminate them at any time. “Be invisible.”

When one of those other dirty, vicious, capitalistic brutal white men kills Glass’s son, DiCaprio goes full-on Native; somehow surviving the worst tragedies, misfortunes and pains that the world can throw at him (‘cause that’s what we do). He’s bent on revenge—the only way that he can find redemption is through avenging his Native son. And that’s kinda the way Hollywood historically uses Native people and black bodies: as lesson providers and tragic figures. We usually don’t live long enough to see the glory of the white man’s redemption, but instead have to be killed so that the white protagonist can find his or her humanity.Chris Hemsworth and Leonardo DiCaprio Suffer for Oscars in Their New Movies

Both stars try to prove their seriousness as actors in old-timey survival tales In the Heart of the Sea and The Revenant, but there is a winner.

By Alison WillmoreThe Revenant is so prettily constructed that it’s painful to admit how ridiculous it actually is, and how empty it feels to watch a gruff, pseudo-mystical Western consisting of two actors method-style grunting their way toward an inevitable showdown in the snow. Like In the Heart of the Sea, The Revenant is set in a realm that’s entirely female-free, save for Glass’s ghost wife and an Arikara woman who’s kidnapped and raped. Movies don’t have to have a gender balance to be good, but The Revenant’s monotonous manliness is part of its weakness—it isn’t about anything other than the savage, violent world it’s so convinced has innate weight to it. Its revenge plot brings no satisfaction and its observations about the indifference of nature are prosaic. It’s a movie about survival in which survival seems as meaningless as everything else in its universe.

Though The Revenant is a more ambitious film than In the Heart of the Sea, in the end, the two survival dramas do the same thing: They treat struggle as synonymous with substance, even though one definitely doesn’t guarantee the other.Excellent points, especially in the final review. Even if The Revenant is historically accurate, its portrayals sound disturbing.

Indeed, they sound like a 19th-century version of "poverty porn." See how bad the violence against Indians was? See? See? See?

We could call it massacre porn, genocide porn, or something like that. I'm not sure it serves a useful purpose either artistically or historically.

Someone defended the movie as "based on a true story," to which I said:

If you're going to fictionalize Glass's story--as they did--you could fictionalize it with a female, black, or Native protagonist. Heck, you could set it in Africa with a lion or Asia with a tiger instead of a bear.

It's a choice to make a movie featuring a white male protagonist such as Hemsworth or DiCaprio. Not an unalterable law of nature.

For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see Is The Revenant a Game-Changer? and DiCaprio's Speech Isn't Enough.

Diversity is "an artistic necessity"

More on the #OscarsSoWhite controversy:

Oscars 2016: It's time for Hollywood to stop defining great drama as white men battling adversity

By Mary McNamaraBefore chalking all this up to a discussion of political correctness, Hollywood should take note that there is money at stake.

The movie and TV industries won't solve their main problem—how to capture the eyes of young audiences—by hewing to hallmarks of excellence set by previous generations. Millennials and post-millennials aren't just big franchise fans, they are also the most racially diverse and socially tolerant generations in history. As the crossover audiences for "Straight Outta Compton" and "The Hunger Games" series proved, they don't "need" their heroes to be white and don't expect them to be male or straight or anything but interesting.

So instead of panicking about the logistical challenges of the digital era, Hollywood should remember its own time-honored mantra: What matters is the story. The size and shape of the screens are, to a certain extent, outside the entertainment industry's control. What is playing on them, and how much it moves the audience, is not.

"Diversity," the lack of it and need for it, has been discussed and debated ad nauseam. But diversity isn't a civic duty, it's an artistic necessity. For any art form to remain relevant, it must grow with the society it explores, questions, criticizes and represents.#OscarsSoWhite, Again: A Symptom of Hollywood's Racism

By Jacqueline KeelerThis generation of Native Americans actors do not follow their dreams to Hollywood in order to continue to play buckskin and loincloth Potemkin villager parts that serve only to provide a backdrop to a white male actor’s heroics. I agree with Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie when she said in her TED Talk that “The Danger of a Single Story”—that is, the world seen only from the perspective of the white male—is that, “it robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different rather than how we are similar … Many stories matter.”

In light of this, I call for a moratorium on “buckskin and loincloth parts” until portrayals of Native people are balanced with those featuring modern Native American protagonists. We must get away from the portrayal of Native people as either savage warriors of the past, “Indian princesses” to be courted and conveniently killed off before giving birth to a Mestizo nation north of the Rio Grande, or as stoic stereotypes.And:In this vacuum of diverse portrayals, it is no wonder that stereotypes are all most Americans know about Native people.

The result of this whitewashing of racially diverse American stories—both those based in the real world and those in fantasy—was found in a 2014 UCLA study to reduce minority representation in films by more than half. Racial minorities make up 40 percent of the population but only 17 percent of leads in films, while 83 percent of the lead actors in films are white.

America is rich in stories—embarrassingly so. Let’s bring all the missing stories to the table and then we can begin to see each other as people.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Why Are Oscars So White? and #OscarsSoWhite2016.

Flipping the Whitesboro script

A couple of takes on the Whitesboro seal and what they tell us:



The "Whiteburros" seal is a satire, but it makes an important point. If the real seal shows a friendly wrestling match, then revise it to show both sides as equals. Or the Indian as the superior. Putting the white man in the superior position sends a racist message--whether the town of Whitesboro realizes it or not.



Would any white folks accept this as a seal even if it accurately reflected their history? Then why do you expect Indians to accept an image of an Indian in an inferior position? There's no logical consistency here--just "whites get to show themselves winning because of white privilege."

For more on government seals, see Comedians Mock Whitesboro Seal and Whitesboro Votes to Keep Seal.

Why are Oscars so white?

Some analyses of the #OscarsSoWhite phenomena:

The unbearable whiteness of Hollywood: The Academy should be ashamed—but the problem is bigger than the Oscars

For the second straight year, no performers of color have been nominated. Here's the real reason why

By Jack MirkinsonWhat’s behind all this? Let’s call it one part economics and two parts institutional bigotry.

First, the economics: It’s no accident that television’s explosion of diversity happened at the same time that the economics of the business have morphed so much that it’s hard to articulate what constitutes “television” anymore. The plunge in ratings, the rise of streaming and the insane proliferation of outlets spending money on original series mean that TV creators have the luxury of targeting smaller audiences than movies do, and of taking more risks. The prestige wing of the industry has also embraced the new platforms enthusiastically. Having a show on Netflix is now seen as equivalent to having one on HBO.

Movies aren’t there yet. 2015 was actually the biggest year in both global and domestic box office history. That money, though, was generated on the back of a small handful of films—mostly thundering 3-D blockbusters that were easily exportable to every country in the world. More and more, the movie industry won’t take a chance on anything but the seemingly surest bets, and until it sees a sufficient threat to its way of life, it won’t veer from this path. What’s more, the on-demand platforms that could potentially sustain smaller, more interesting films are still seen as second-class, meaning that they don’t have a chance to break through in the same way that similar TV ventures do.

Here’s where the bigotry part really starts to rear its ugly head. All too often, “risk-free” still means “white men.” There remains a stubborn belief that movies about women or people of color won’t “play” in the international markets that have become so important to sustaining the film industry. What’s so infuriating about this is that, over and over again, movies about people of color or women that do get released make piles of money for the studios. It’s institutional barriers, not box office clout, that are holding back more of these films.

Even when movies aren’t expected to make a ton of money, the same rules still apply. Take another look at the 2016 nominations, many of which were given to smaller films. It’s not like the chosen white actors were plucked out of diverse movies. With a couple of exceptions, all of the movies they starred in contain almost completely white casts from start to finish. (They’re overwhelmingly male-centered, too: the most prominent female character in “The Revenant,” which won the Best Picture award at the Golden Globes, is a bear.)Another Oscar Year, Another All-White Ballot

By Cara BuckleyFingers immediately pointed to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which gives out the Oscars and which, despite efforts to diversify its ranks in recent years, still skews older, male and white, according to a 2012 investigation by The Los Angeles Times. Academy members themselves were taken aback, saying in private conversations, “Don’t look at me,” but also, “This really doesn’t look good.”

But the truth probably springs from a murkier confluence of factors both sweeping and granular, from missteps and misjudgments in awards campaigns in support of individual movies to the systemic lack of diversity in Hollywood.

The studios behind two films that focus on black characters, “Creed” and “Straight Outta Compton,” seemed to come late to the realization that their productions were awards contenders or proved unable to win enough votes. The Academy’s preferential voting system also works against films and actors not selected as voters’ top picks. And, perhaps the biggest factor of all, the industry’s overall offerings: Many of the 305 films eligible for Oscars did not, demographically speaking, reflect the lives and complexions of movie audiences.

“Every time I say the same thing: Until we get a position of power, with a green-light vote, it’s not going to change,” Spike Lee said in an interview a few hours after the nominations came out. “We may win an Oscar now and then, but an Oscar is not going to fundamentally change how Hollywood does business. I’m not talking about Hollywood stars. I’m talking about executives. We’re not in the room.”The Oscars’ death spiral: The academy and Hollywood are locked in a crisis of their own making

Another super-white list of Oscar nominees, but the problem is less the academy than Hollywood's dominant ideology

By Andrew O'HehirFrom the point of view of the academy’s leadership, this pretty much presents an insoluble dilemma. Seriously, what are they supposed to do, beyond putting up with all the outraged blog posts and #OscarsSoWhite tweets and pushing onward for another year? Can they kick out all the stereotypical retired bit-part actors and movie executives in Beverly Hills, with their stereotypical sky-blue cardigans and white patent-leather shoes? Or send them all anthrax in the mail with their holiday-season screeners? They cannot. Can they rig the nomination process, or set up some informal quota system to ensure that at least one or two people of color show up in the acting and directing categories? Well, I suppose they could, and I wouldn’t be surprised if such things have been brainstormed in private. But consider all the ways that could go wrong—if Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh heard about it, for instance.

Barring such drastic measures, the academy is pretty much stuck with the membership it has, which is gradually growing younger and more diverse, but remains predominantly just the way you would think. Far more important, it’s also stuck with the production process of the Hollywood studios and “prestige” indie producers like Harvey Weinstein and Scott Rudin, which privileges certain kinds of movies, certain kinds of stories and certain kinds of characters over others. That’s where the heart of the problem lies, which is why I think it’s slightly misguided to point fingers and shriek at Mr. Sky-Blue Cardigan. Yes, to the extent Mr. SBC exists, he doesn’t get off the hook. (He didn’t nominate Ava DuVernay last year for “Selma,” the most Oscar-y movie imaginable.) But it should not come as an enormous surprise to learn that Oscar voters have safe and conservative tastes in many ways, or that they favor period pieces, inspirational fables and do-gooder tales, all wrapped in that indefinable quality best described as movie-ness.The Oscars Will Remain So White If These 5 Things Don't Change

The first step to fixing the problem is admitting that it exists.

By Carolina MorenoHollywood's Diversity Problem Starts at the Top

Major Talent Agencies Represent Few Actors of Color

Studios and Talent Agencies Won't Take Responsibility

Films Just Aren't Casting Actors of Color

Yes, Academy Voters Are Seriously Lacking DiversityComment:  For more on the subject, see Hollywood Still White in 2015 and Another White Year at Oscars.

Parents magazine shows "wild Indian"

Manning: When Media Promotes Offensive Indian Stereotypes

By Sarah Sunshine ManningThe cover of a popular magazine is catching the attention of Native American parents, writers, educators, and proponents of cultural awareness.

The January 2016 edition of Parents Magazine features a white mother, shaking her finger at a rambunctious child who jumps on furniture, wearing a faux Native American headdress and mouth open wide suggestive of a wild yell.

Native Americans quickly took to social media to call out the magazine for lack of cultural awareness, and for reinforcing harmful stereotypes. On Twitter, Native American educator, Dr. Debbie Reese (Nambe Pueblo), directed tweets at Parents Magazine, and also asked for support to share the message:Dear Editors at Parents Magazine,

Depicting a bored child, in a toy headdress, clearly screaming, suggests "wild Indian." You apparently do not realize that depiction is racist. I'm tweeting the cover on social media and tagging you (at your twitter ID: @parentsmagazine) and sharing this Facebook post widely. I'm encouraging others to do so, too.

Sincerely,

Dr. Debbie Reese
American Indians in Children's LiteratureThe magazine cover highlights the phenomena commonly known as “playing Indian,” which signifies a centuries-old American cultural practice of reducing minorities to demeaning and marginalizing, one-dimensional stereotypes. In this particular mockery, the child is seen portraying one of the most widely established stereotypes of Native Americans–the “wild savage,” or “wild Indian.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see IndianHeaddress.com and Los Angeles Magazine's "Going Native."

Bundy: Paiutes lost their claim

‘We Don’t Want Bloodshed’: Armed White Militants in Oregon v. Paiute Tribe

By Jacqueline KeelerThe tribe enjoys a strong working relationship with the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and participated extensively in creating a Comprehensive Conservation Plan in 2013.

“We utilize the refuge almost constantly,” Roderique explains, “We’ve had excursions where our elders sit down and practice traditional crafts and tell stories about how we once existed. There are petroglyphs down there—it’s a real valuable site for us. The youth program takes kids down and they make tule boats and swamp. Being Native people we think it is necessary to continue the practice of oral history. When you are down there these stories come naturally. When you take children out today and show them how we survived here so long it is an important tool to bringing the elders and the youth together so the youth are able to identify themselves as Paiute people.”

However, tribal council members expressed concerns about feeling unsafe with the arrival of more men with guns in their community. Tribal council secretary Wanda Johnson told ICTMN, “These people who have been intimidating our Indian men but they are unchallenged and they walk about town and our concern is if they could escalate things…we don’t want to see bloodshed or see anyone thrown in jail. We feel frustrated that these people can come and go in town and resupply. People are taking things out there and feeding them. Like they are out there in on an outing. It’s so frustrating.”

Some animosity towards Native people can be seen in the Harney County Committee of Safety, a local group Bundy started which refers to Natives as “savages" in their statement of purpose.Ryan Bundy: Native Americans have lost their claim to the Land.

By xxdr zombiexx This is the kicker though, buried all the way at the end of the piece.

"We also recognize that the Native Americans had the claim to the land, but they lost that claim," Bundy said. "There are things to learn from cultures of the past, but the current culture is the most important."

This is no different than the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas, or ISIS trying to find antiquities to destroy. No different whatsoever.

While these faux-militia assholes are technically entitled to their opinions, however fucking stupid those opinions are, they are using these “opinions” (delusions) to make real-world decisions that affect all sorts of people who have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to these public spaces. And they are set to damage irreplaceable artifacts because they are so delusional about their white supremacy.Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Paiutes Tell Bundys to Leave and Bundy Bunch vs. Dann Sisters.

#OscarsSoWhite 2016

Oscars 2016: Here's why the nominees are so white--again

By Rebecca Keegan and Steven ZeitchikIt's another embarrassing Hollywood sequel: For the second year in a row, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has nominated an all-white group of acting nominees.

This year's list of Oscar nominees passes over popular, well-reviewed performances in the movies “Creed” and “Straight Outta Compton” and excludes prominent actors of color in 2015 films including Idris Elba, Samuel L. Jackson and Will Smith.

The news again provoked an outcry and raised fresh questions over a familiar issue: whether an industry that prides itself on its progressiveness remains stubbornly stuck in the past.

“For the two black movies that made over $100 million at the box office, touched a nerve and are artistically fresh, only white people were nominated. How does that work?” asked producer and academy member Stephanie Allain, referring to “Creed” and “Compton.”Academy Nominates All White Actors for Second Year in Row

By Tim GraySome may conclude that the nominations reflect institutional bias against minorities and women within the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, but the problem is with Hollywood’s major studios and agencies. There were 305 films eligible this year. If hiring reflected the U.S. population, Oscar voters would have weighed 150-plus films directed by women, 45 directed by blacks, 50 by Hispanics, and dozens of movies by directors who are Asian-American, LGBT individuals, people with disabilities and members of other minorities. Of course, the actual tallies were a fraction of those numbers.

Surprising omissions from the actor race this year included Idris Elba for “Beasts of No Nation,” Will Smith for “Concussion,” Michael B. Jordan from “Creed” and the many young actors in “Compton.”

Last year, #OscarSoWhite lit up the Twitter-sphere, generally focused on the acting and directing categories, mostly due to omission of actor David Oyelowo and director Ava DuVernay from “Selma.” But in fact, the imbalance carries into the majority of categories due to lack of opportunity.

In the Jan. 14 announcement, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences listed 23 total producers for the eight movies picked in the best-pic race; seven were women. For the two screenplay races, 17 individuals are nominated, with four women and no racial minorities. The sole nom for “Straight Outta Compton” went to a self-described “white Jewish gay guy from Connecticut” and his white writing partners, Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff.)Oscars 2016: It’s a Nearly All-White Nominees’ List—Again

Comment:  For more on the subject, see Hollywood Still White in 2015 and Another White Year at Oscars.

Is The Revenant a game-changer?

The Revenant is a Game-Changer

By Leo KillsbackIn The Revenant we see sides to American culture and history that are typically romanticized—lawlessness and greed. History reveals that, in fact, the hordes of traders and trappers brought lawlessness to Indian country, which was not lawless and inhabited by sophisticated Native nations. The introduction of the alcohol, gun, and sex trades destabilized numerous Native nations. As presented in the movie, the Indians did not want much from the whites aside from muskets (which were inferior to the efficiency and accuracy of bow and arrows) and horses (which they could have acquired through trade with other Indians in the first place). The white traders however, wanted everything from the Indians—their land, animals, their women, and even their children.

The white men in The Revenant had one loyalty above all others, money. In the film most of the trappers were motivated by money, and they were reluctant to help one another without compensation. In fact, without the promise of pay the trappers had no other reason to be in the wilderness, and I believe this to be historically accurate. Whether deliberate or not, the writers revealed a fundamental difference between Indigenous and colonial cultures—one was motivated by greed, while the other by family ties and tribal loyalties.A press release written by me for Red Nation Films:

'The Revenant' showcases Native Americans in Hollywood“Leonardo DiCaprio is today’s Brando,” says actor/director Joanelle Romero, founder of Red Nations Films and its annual film festivals. “Not since Sacheen Littlefeather took the stage at the 1973 Oscars has anyone spoken this much truth to Hollywood. Like Marlon Brando and a few others, Leo gets it.”

The Revenant is further proof that indigenous-based movies can not only win awards, but succeed at the box office. In its opening weekend, it earned $39.8 million, narrowly losing to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. With the Oscar buzz it’s getting, it’s likely to join Avatar and the Twilight series in the pantheon of Native-themed hits.Comment:  For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see DiCaprio's Speech Isn't Enough and Mixed Reactions to DiCaprio's Speech.

Comedians mock Whitesboro seal

Stephen Colbert brutally mocks Whitesboro's 'racist' village seal (video)

By Geoff HerbertThe village of Whitesboro's controversial seal has drawn national attention -- and now jokes on late-night television.

"The Late Show" host Stephen Colbert brutally mocked the Upstate New York community on Wednesday night's show, calling its recent discussion on whether or not to keep the seal "the most important vote of 2016 in my opinion." He then showed viewers a partial picture of the seal, which some say depicts a white settler choking a Native American man.

"All right, let's not overreact. Maybe... it's not like he symbolically stands for all white guys. What's the name of the guy being depicted on the seal?" Colbert asks.

Then a screenshot from a syracuse.com article shows his name is Hugh White.

'The Daily Show' gave Whitesboro logos for village vote on 'racist' seal

By Elizabeth DoranComedy Central's "The Daily Show" provided serious and "mock" designs of possible village logos to Whitesboro for the village's poll on replacing its current seal that many have criticized as being "racist" and "offensive."

Both the serious and the comical logos were on display during Monday's night vote on whether to replace the controversial village seal, and people could vote for both. The mock designs were on filing cabinets separate from the main logo display to emphasize they weren't actually in the running, Whitesboro Mayor Patrick O'Connor said Wednesday.

The Daily Show had a film crew there capturing residents reactions to the seals on display. All the logos but one were provided by the show; one was done by a local artist.

One 'Daily Show' design shows former NHL goalie Robert Esche, who lives in the Whitesboro area. Others show a white man and a Native American dancing, a white settler and an Indian beating up a British soldier, ar closeup of two cartoon hands shaking, and a white settler dressed as a luchador wrestling with the Native American.Whitesboro mayor speaks out on why village used 'The Daily Show' logo designs

By Elizabeth DoranMayor Patrick O'Connor's statement

The village of Whitesboro seal has been called into question for decades, over the years, minor adjustments have been made, but the theme remains that of a "friendly wrestling match" between Whitesboro's Founder, Hugh White and a Native American.

This friendly wrestling match, which was a normal occurrence during that time period, is what helped foster good relations between the settlers and Native Americans. It is documented that the two shook hands after the wrestling match took place. While there were various depictions of the seal over the years, the original seal dates back to the late 1800s.And:We are in the process of forming a committee to look at options for modifying the current seal to create a more modern, professional, and culturally acceptable option that will reflect the historic relationship between our founder Hugh White and the Oneida American Indian he befriended. We expect this to be a lengthy process, but ultimately it may include an updated depiction of the friendly wrestling match, that appears less offensive, while still representing the original encounters of our settler with Native Americans.Rob's reply

If the handshake is documented, show the freakin' handshake rather than the "wrestling" takedown. Even on your own ludicrous terms, Mayor O'Connor, you're failing. You're not showing "good relations," you're showing the white dominance (in wrestling) that led to good relations. And your investment in this white dominance is precisely the problem.

Of course, there's no need to focus on the "good relations," which are now ancient history. If you insist on it, you could show a lone Indian giving a blessing. Or an Indian and a white man building something together. There's absolutely no need to regurgitate the Indian's loss in the alleged wrestling match.

For more on government seals, see Whitesboro Votes to Keep Seal and Massachusetts Sued Over State Seal.

DiCaprio's speech isn't enough

Leonardo DiCaprio Ended His Golden Globes Speech With a Cynical Remark About Indigenous Peoples

By Aisha HarrisWhat makes this moment so awkward and cynical is the fact that it’s so at odds with the movie DiCaprio and director Alejandro González Iñárritu produced. The Revenant is only the latest in a long history of major Hollywood studio films featuring indigenous characters that is told from the white male perspective. Their history is only “recognized” here in marginal juxtaposition to that of a white fur trader who is mauled by a bear, left to die, and then seeks revenge for the murder of his half-indigenous son (who barely says more than a few lines in the entire movie). The Pawnee tribesman (played by Arthur RedCloud) who later assists him in his journey home? He's much more a mysterious, kind person of color than any real, flesh-and-bone character. And while the film employed Native American performers from a dozen reserves in Alberta, those performers have, needless to say, not been the focus of the film's publicity or awards campaign, though DiCaprio has credited RedCloud with helping to psych him up to eat that bison liver.

Does DiCaprio believe in this cause? I'm sure he does. Does his movie have anything, truly, to do with this cause? Nope. But it's awards season, so sincerity doesn't matter. Cynically hitching your movie to a cause everyone can get behind—that matters.Indigenous People’s Stories Need More Than Just Leonardo DiCaprio’s Speech

By Ryan McMahonEvery representation matters in 2016 because we've never controlled what we, as Indigenous peoples, look/sound like to the mainstream. In 2016, it's time the world to step back from the historical "white gaze of Hollywood" and allow Indigenous peoples to tell them who they are. There are brilliant Indigenous writers and filmmakers chomping at the bit to work with budgets, studios and resources to tell the stories in our own words.

Leo, if you're serious about Indigenous representations and it being time to hear Indigenous stories, I can introduce you to some people.Leonardo Dicaprio Recognizes 1st Nations in Golden Globe Speech

By Chase Iron EyesThat is good but that is not our narrative. Those are not our awards. We are objects in that arena; the camera is directed at us not by us. We are consistently dressed out of time and out of place for their marketability, indeed our marketability as well. Our place in their media is as our ancestors pre-1900: feathers, leathers, plains-people the whole bit. That’s where we fit as Reel Injuns. We’ll keep taking those roles, that’s part of our survival and evolution. Much could be said about the portrayal of Natives in The Revenant or the very act of celebrating other people in idolatrous fashion when Natives show more allegiance to NFL teams than their own Tribal Nations but that’s none of my business.

We clamor to any recognition given where previously we have been ignored, or objectified. Look at all the Natives clawing at DiCaprio to leech of any social capital even mentioning his name will bring much less asking DiCaprio to recognize them. Reminds me of those hordes of Natives clamoring for a picture of President Obama because he hosted Tribal Nation conferences. These are huge steps no doubt but steps whose true character must be appreciated, must be kept in perspective when our great-grandfathers refused to even meet the President of the United States.Comment:  For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see Mixed Reactions to DiCaprio's Speech and DiCaprio's Golden Globes Speech.

The Revenant exemplifies white privilege

In response to this:

Leonardo DiCaprio Does Not Deserve An Oscar for The Revenant. Come On.

I wrote:

Someone could do a good analysis of how this Oscar talk exemplifies and perpetuates white privilege. DiCaprio used his clout to make a movie about him--I mean his character. He chose a historical period where white men were the predominant "heroes"--unless you try to do a risky slave or suffragette narrative. And he's "due" for an Oscar because of all his previous roles--Titanic, The Aviator, Wolf of Wall Street, etc.--featuring a white male protagonist.

The odds are stacked in his favor. Good luck, Will Smith and Denzel Washington, in finding, pitching, and making a similar movie featuring a nonwhite protagonist. As for you, Viola Davis and Taraji P. Henson, forget about it.

For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see Mixed Reactions to DiCaprio's Speech and DiCaprio's Golden Globes Speech.

Paiutes tell Bundys to leave

Burns Paiute Tribe tells armed group to leave ancestral territoryLeaders of the Burns Paiute Tribe told an armed group to leave their ancestral territory as they educated the public about the true history of land ownership in Oregon.

The tribe was promised the land in and around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by treaty that was negotiated in 1868. But the Senate never ratified the agreement and the federal government ended up taking all 1.78 million acres.

"We as a tribe view that this is still our land no matter who's living on it," Chairwoman Charlotte Rodrique said at a press conference on Wednesday, The Oregonian reported.

Tribal leaders are worried that the armed group is damaging sacred, cultural and other sites at the refuge. About 20 people have been occupying the land since Saturday.Don’t Change the Status Quo—Unless It’s to Return Land to Tribal Control

By Charlotte RodriqueThere’s no real reason to change the status quo of land ownership out West. But if anyone should assume a greater caretaking role for the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which a group of armed protesters are occupying, it's not the state, or private owners, but the Burns Paiute Tribe.

We were forcefully removed from this land (and much more) over the course of numerous bloody disputes. Negotiated ownership terms that came later—first agreed upon, but not ratified, in a peace treaty with the government in 1868—were mostly ignored and unenforced, as ranchers and mining operators pushed further into Paiute territory over the following decades.

Our access to traditional lands has steadily eroded ever since, but the Malheur sanctuary, which is about 30 miles from our reservation, is of great cultural value to us still. Today, the Burns Paiute has a good relationship with the federal employees who work there: They have been a protector of our artifacts and history, which include petroglyphs and many natural resources that are culturally relevant to our needs. We can’t hunt on the parkland, of course, but tribal people still have a right to go in and gather certain plants, such as willow and tule.And:I am not sympathetic when I hear that a group of armed individuals want territory we have lived on for thousands of years to be “returned” to the “people of Oregon.” I’ve certainly had the urge to yell and demand for respect of our ancestral land, but these individuals certainly aren't speaking for us, let alone the ranchers, who have rejected their support.Paiute tribal chair: 'Don’t tell me any of these ranchers came across the Bering Strait'



Again, who owns the land?

Q&A: For Native Community, Irony and Shaky Claims in Oregon Standoff

By Anna ChalletWhat do you make of the Bundy militia’s demand that the federal government return the land to the people of Harney County?

It shows a lot of ignorance that most Americans have about the shaky nature, legally speaking, of the authority that the U.S. government has over the land it purports to own. It goes back to the Doctrine of Discovery, which was formulated by the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court … when a discovering Christian nation sets foot on land in the Americas, the title to that land immediately reverts to that discovering nation, and for the Native people, the indigenous people, their title disappears.

The indigenous people in the Americas are the only people in the world who do not possess fee simple title to their land. The Supreme Court has cited the Discovery doctrine as recently as 2005 as still being the law of the land, in a case between the city of Sherrill, New York and the Oneida Nation.Oregon's Land Dispute: Who Are the Original Owners?

By Jacqueline KeelerWhen Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who led an armed standoff against the US Bureau of Land Management in 2014, charged into the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, he said he was going to return the land from an overreaching federal government to its "original owners" he was not thinking of the Burns Paiute Tribe.

And he has since admitted he knows very little about them.

When he charged into town proclaiming he was "getting ranchers back to ranching, getting the loggers back to logging, getting the miners back to mining" the "original owners" he was thinking about? Without a doubt they were European Americans like himself.

But in fact, it is the Burns Paiute Tribe and other Northern Paiute tribes who are the "original owners" and possess the strongest legal claim to the land, particularly to the wildlife refuge which was once part of their former Malheur Indian Reservation. A 1.78 million acre reservation that was later opened to white settlement after the Paiute and another tribe, the Bannock, facing starvation rose up against settler depredations.Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Bundy Bunch vs. Dann Sisters and Bundy Bunch Occupies Paiute Land.

Whitesboro votes to keep seal

Whitesboro residents vote to keep controversial 'racist' village seal

By Elizabeth DoranWhitesboro residents voted Monday night to keep the village's controversial seal, rather than replace it with a new image.

Of 212 votes cast, 157 of them were in favor of retaining the current seal.

It was an informal vote, and village officials say they will discuss the results Tuesday night.

Whitesboro Mayor Patrick O'Connor said he wasn't entirely surprised by the vote results as numerous residents had been calling the village offices asking why the village was holding a vote in the first place.

The controversial village seal, which dates back to 1883, shows a white settler with his hands apparently choking a Native American man. Although village officials said the seal depicts a friendly wrestling match between Hugh White, the town's founder, and a member of the local Oneida tribe; it's caused controversy for years. Many called it racist and offensive.Why Natives object

Manning: Open Letter to the Village of Whitesboro, New York

By Sarah Sunshine ManningTo be clear, as an educator of the social sciences and history, I do acknowledge the possible validity of not only the historical accounts that this image does in fact highlight a friendly wrestling match that may have occurred, but also, I do acknowledge the cultural practice among the Oneida who did traditionally engage in friendly wrestling matches. I get it. There is a historical context. But that’s beside the point. There is also a history of slavery in America, but glorifying that on a town seal would never be deemed appropriate, no matter how historically accurate.

Yet all context aside, and without a thorough explanation, that seal, well, it looks racist. At first glance, this is what Whitesboro, New York, looks like: a white supremacist town. For one, your name is, Whitesboro, after all. And secondly, a white man is subduing an Indian, the original occupant of this land that was ultimately, near annihilated.

I know, I know. White is the last name of founder. But the combination of all of the different elements on the seal, together, evoke a soup of emotions among outsiders looking in, conjuring up discomfort, defensiveness, and even pain. Images matter, and your image is harmful.

Considering that Native Americans went from being 100-percent of the population pre-contact, to roughly 1-percent of the U.S. population today, your historical seal of a white man subduing an Indian highlights the reality of indigenous genocide, while twisting the knife of domination and colonization into the fresh wounds of the indigenous population still living today.Whitesboro Residents Vote to Keep Racist Seal: Here's What People Are Saying About the Decision

Comment:  For more on government seals, see Massachusetts Sued Over State Seal and "Ralph Cherokee" on Roanoke County Seal.

Mixed reactions to DiCaprio's speech

Reactions to Leonardo DiCaprio's Golden Globes speech poured in quickly. Some of them were off-the-charts ecstatic:

Leonardo DiCaprio's Golden Globes Acceptance Speech Is One of the Most Important He's Ever Made

Leonardo DiCaprio's Golden Globes Speech Made B.C. 'The Revenant' Actor All 'Choked up'

Others were more nuanced:

Leonardo DiCaprio's shout out to First Nations cause for introspection

Some quick to praise, but others skeptical of The Revenant star's Golden Globe speech

Native American Groups Officially Respond To Leonardo DiCaprio’s Call To Action

Representatives of the groups depicted in The Revenant spoke with BuzzFeed News about the actor’s Golden Globes speech calling on listeners to “protect … indigenous lands.”

By Ariane LangeThis week, Mark N. Fox, chair of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, wrote to BuzzFeed News: “Mr. DiCaprio’s words and support for our rights and the rights of all Indigenous nations are amazing and courageous. Like a man with true character, he is willing to challenge American Society where many others of influence fear to tread. His efforts both on and off the screen have brought honor to our Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan people. We look forward to allying with him in the struggle to promote truth and protect our rights as sovereign and Indigenous people!”But:Assiniboine activist Lauren Chief Elk-Young Bear tweeted Sunday night, “I think that shoutout was him making Native people his mascot,” noting that he did not thank any groups or individuals specifically and instead relied on vague language that rendered all Native peoples a monolith. In a separate series of tweets the next day, she criticized his wording as part and parcel of “white saviorism.”

“The reason the Leo shout out was so remarkable to folks is that Native peoples are invisible,” Keene tweeted. “It shouldn’t be revolutionary to call upon the peoples whose land you occupy, but it is.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Indians at Previous Oscar Ceremonies and All About Sacheen Littlefeather.