"Jokes" without punchlines are racist

The Racialicious blog reports on a joke a female doctor told on a new FX comedy:

Heard on FX’s Wilfred:  “Not Asian-American…Real Asian!”

By Latoya PetersonYou had a rough morning? Try prying twin boys out of a tight little Asian gal. She wasn’t Asian American, Ryan, she was REAL ASIAN!

Whenever I get around to writing about Archer, I’ll talk about the difference between writing a joke that involves race and writing a racist joke. But, in essence, this is the Kate Rigg rule:When someone tells a joke about Asian people and there’s no actual joke--the joke is the Asian people. The joke is [racist-comic voice] the funny way they talkie-talkie! “They don’t use proper diction! Only verb and noun! Verb and noun!” I just heard a comic that I respect doing that fucking joke the other night. An Asian comic. And I was like, “Dude! Write a punch line or you’re just being racist!”I apply this rule all over the place, as did Carmen back when she wrote about how to respond to a racist joke. The joke only works with the implicit acceptance of a certain stereotype. If the stereotype isn’t there to play on, the joke falls apart. (Hence Carmen’s advice to play dumb, and try to get the joke teller to explain exactly why that joke is funny.)Comment:  Naturally, this applies to Native-oriented humor too. Indeed, you can apply the rule to any joke that claims to be satirical.

For instance, the Dudesons episode on MTV. Without the stereotypes, there was no humor. No reason for the bits to exist. Without the stereotypes, the show would've been about 10 minutes of setups and transitions, not 30 minutes.

For more on the subject, see Okay to Stereotype in "Satires"? and Racist "Jokes" Are No Jokes.

Below:  It's "funny"...because that's how Natives supposedly used to dress. As half-naked savages in feathers. Look at the comical white man pretending to be a comical Indian...ha ha!

Arctic movies and autumn TV

Indian Comics Irregular #197:  Movies Hire Alaska Natives

Rob should contact Saginaw Grant?!

In Protesting Stereotypes = Cop-Out? I addressed part of Michelle Shining Elk's defense of Saginaw Grant in The Dudesons. Someone posted the following comment:Out of all that Michelle SE wrote, you picked one small true comment about parents paying attention to what their children watch on TV, and you argue with it for paragraph after paragraph as though it was a public threat to commit murder.

You didn't argue with her main point which was treating an elder disrespectfully, publicly excoriating him, posting letters, personal attacks and rebuttals without ever having even one conversation with the man.

I would have to agree with Michelle's point.

She wasn't defending the show or the content. She was decrying how poorly a respected elder was treated.

Saginaw Grant is a man who has over many years of steady, selfless, positive role modeling, hard work and personal contributions earned a tremendous amount of valid respect.

From what I have seen, he is very accessible through his Facebook page, or in person at any of the many powwows he attends and is invited to dance in. Hardly an untouchable or unreachable Hollywood type.

From what you have written about this so far, it seems as though you haven't approached Saginaw to speak to him about any of this either, and yet you are still blogging away, bashing him without ever speaking to him. Kind of embarrassing "journalism." Maybe take the word "newspaper" out of your title if this is merely personal, biased, unbalanced opinion.

Apologies to Saginaw are in order all around.My response:

Michelle's comment wasn't true, it was false or misleading. As I explained in the previous posting.

Apparently you missed the ugly intent of her comments. She implied that activists are wasting time, ignoring "real" problems, and promoting themselves at the expense of others. That's an insult to all the people who have dedicated their lives to fighting for truth and justice.

I could've spent the same amount of time ripping each of Michelle's paragraphs to shreds. But that would've taken days, and she would've ended up looking like a blithering idiot. So I resisted the impulse.

Michelle's "main point" was a side issue. She dodged everyone else's main point: that Saginaw Grant never should've participated in a show that was a gross insult to Indians. When she addresses this point in detail, I'll respond to her position in detail.

Michelle is Saginaw Grant's publicist, so we can assume she spoke for him. Grant himself spoke in a radio interview and in a posted statement. Like Michelle, he ducked the actual issues and instead attacked those who dared to criticize him.

Indeed, he suggested his critics weren't Native enough to criticize a real Indian like him. So what do you think he'd say to a non-Native like me? I don't know, but I can guess. In any case, it's not worth the trouble to find out.

Newspapers publish op-eds (duh)

FYI, newspapers publish opinion pieces as well as straight journalism, genius. So no, I'm not going to change the blog's name. When you understand how newspapers work, you'll see that the name fits perfectly.

Grant isn't the offended party in this case. Rather, he's the one who offended others. After he apologizes to everyone he's offended, I'll think about whether I should apologize to him. Not before.

If he doesn't like my opinions, he can contact me and explain himself. I'm as easy to reach as he is, if not much easier. And unlike him, I don't hide or run away from my critics.

Finally, my only "bias" is against stupid stereotypes like the ones Grant perpetuated. If he doesn't like being criticized, he should stop perpetuating stupid stereotypes. That's the only answer I plan to offer him.

P.S. You say you want more criticism of Saginaw Grant and The Dudesons? Okay, here you go:

My Dudesons interview
ICT's take on The Dudesons
Devil's advocate defends Saginaw Grant
Deadliest Warrior vs. The Dudesons
Ethical code for Native elders needed

Etc.

Worst Indian civilization ever?

A satire in the Onion implicates Amazon Indians:

Archaeologists Unearth Lousiest Civilization Ever

'What A Bunch Of Losers,' Researchers SayArchaeologists working in a remote section of the Amazon Rainforest announced Tuesday that they have discovered the ancient remnants of what they claimed may be the lousiest civilization in human history.

According to Dr. Ronald Farber, a professor from the University of Minnesota who is leading the excavation, the "half-assed" culture existed from about 450 B.C. until 220 B.C., when it abruptly disappeared—an event he said was "honestly no big loss" for our understanding of human culture.

"From what we've unearthed so far, it appears this pre-Columbian civilization was pretty much just copying what other, more superior groups nearby were doing—albeit to a much shittier degree," Farber said. "They sucked. You should see the useless mess of a calendar these dumbasses came up with."Comment:  Stephen Bridenstine also posted this piece in his Drawing on Indians blog. Here's his take on it:The article is clearly meant to be parody. It satirizes the traditional stereotype that the Amazon was full of backwards savages and cannibals incapable of creating or sustaining any hint of civilization. The article references all the great achievements of the Pre-Columbian Americans such as advanced knowledge of astronomy, massive public works, written languages, and the fine arts.And:Essentially, The Onion draws upon the advances of Native civilizations in order to point out the traditional prejudices of non-Native people against the so-called "primitive" Indians. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of continuing to think of Indians as backwards people when for thousands of years Native civilizations were just as advanced or even more advanced than those in Europe!Stephen thinks the Onion piece could be a response to the scientific findings noted in Amazon Indians Weren't Savages. That could very well be.

As Stephen puts it, the key question is whether this is whether this is an "effective satire or just not funny?" My thoughts:

On the negative side

I'd say the satire loses points for its blunt-force insults. It's too extreme to be especially funny. Onion pieces are usually more subtle, and subtle is usually more effective.

The satire also loses points for conflating subjective judgments (e.g., their art was inferior) with objective fault-finding (e.g., their calendar was mistaken). This implies the Indians actually were stupid and incompetent. It introduces some unnecessary ambiguity that weakens the effect.

On the positive side

It's obvious this piece is meant to be facetious. By Western standards, the worst Indian civilization would be one with grunting, half-naked savages killing and eating each other. Any civilization that had writing, calendars, irrigation systems, and "massive sun temples" is more advanced than many tribal cultures.

As Stephen notes, the piece doesn't use the words "Native," "Indian," or "indigenous." The only reference to the people's ethnicity is that they're descended from Mesoamerican tribes. This effectively removes race from the equation. "Those Indians were idiotic" is potentially offensive; "that civilization was idiotic" isn't.

Despite the criticism of the tribe's actual mistakes, it's clear the real targets are the Western observers. Their over-the-top invective says more about them than the culture they're slamming. Real researchers wouldn't react this way, but many Americans would. They don't realize their ancestors were just as "primitive," and they don't think history is worth pursuing.

What this tells us

This piece could've been better, but I'd say it's a decent satire. In particular, it shows how to use Native stereotypes in humor without attacking and insulting Indians. The key is to know who your targets are.

Like the Sons of Tucson episode I praised, this piece has non-Indians spewing ignorant and stereotypical comments about Indians. But the comments are so obviously bad that they indict the speakers, not the subjects.

They're examples of what we might call the Archie Bunker syndrome. When a moron says something moronic and people react accordingly, he's the one who looks stupid. Archie was exposing his own prejudice against minorities and the context made that clear.

Contrast this with the infamous Dudesons episode. Although the overall tone is comedic, the Dudesons never let on that they know anything about Indians. That they're trying to satirize America's ignorance about Indians. Clearly they're the ignorant ones, not the audiences they're trying to reach.

Worse, they have a real Indian, Saginaw Grant, to praise and encourage their efforts. If Grant had played the Michael Stivic ("Meathead") role, pointing out the Dudesons' stupidity, the episode might've come across differently. Instead he lent legitimacy to the affair.

Imagine if Lionel or George Jefferson or Sammy Davis Jr. had agreed with Archie Bunker about blacks being different and inferior. Then Archie's message would've seemed sincere and believable. It would've seemed to be the show's message--the point Norman Lear wanted to get across.

Instead, everyone on the show undercut Archie. This told audiences that his beliefs were socially and morally unacceptable. The takeaway was that Archie was wrong, not that he was right.

Moral of the story: If you're writing humor about Indians, make sure you know what the target is. Portraying people whooping and dancing in clownish costumes isn't a satire of Native stereotypes. It's a satire of Natives.

For more on humor about Indians, see:

Racism in Bloody, Bloody Andrew Jackson
DJs learn not to satirize Natives
Quileute Chihuahuas okay in spoof?
"Sick" cartoonist Callahan dies

Below:  "Researchers examine some 'totally retarded' ancient pottery."

My Dudesons interview

While writing ICT's Take on The Dudesons, Vincent Schilling asked me what I thought about the controversy. We exchanged the following questions and answers:

How do you feel about the episode?

I thought the episode was a travesty--one of the worst cases of stereotyping I've seen in years. And I don't cut the show any slack because it supposedly was a comedy or satire. The Dudesons "spoofed" Indians the same way minstrel shows "spoofed" African Americans.

A lot of people seem to have criticized Saginaw for his appearance. Comments have ranged from "MTV is notorious for not revealing the script and surprising people" to the other spectrum. What is your stance Rob?

I usually don't blame actors for taking jobs and furthering their careers. The majority of the blame rightly belongs to the producers and creators. But in this case, the offense was large and (I believe) Grant's pay was small. I would've expected him to say or do something. Even if he signed a contract and the Dudesons surprised him, he could've balked or protested. At some point, your principles have to kick in.

AIM succeeded in having MTV pull the episode--some folks fear MTV may now see a "red flag" in hiring Native people from this point forward in any aspect? Did this hurt or help Indian Country?

The argument that acting too "uppity" will hurt Indians seems ridiculous to me. Is there a documented case of protests causing a hiring backlash against the people protesting? Did the Civil Rights movement cause a backlash against blacks? Or did it force companies to begin changing their policies and hiring the people they'd excluded? The latter, I think.

I think the protest helped Indian country by showing Hollywood that Indians aren't going to take this kind of insulting, offensive treatment anymore. If studios want to avoid future protests, boycotts, and lawsuits, they'd be wise to play ball. This isn't only the right thing to do, it's smart business. Movies such as My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Slumdog Millionaire have proved that audiences will flock to see good "ethnic" stories.

How do you feel about MTV and the network pulling the episode?

I think MTV's pulling the episode was a great symbolic victory. I'm impressed by the time and energy AIM and other activists put into this battle. But I'd remind people not to miss the forest for the trees. Stereotyping of this magnitude occurs every day. In addition to the usual Indian mascots and wannabes, we have Mayor Bloomberg issuing cowboy threats against the Seneca Nation. We have young hipsters imitating respected Indian chiefs. We have non-Natives playing Natives in movies such as Twilight and The Last Airbender. All these problems deserve our attention.

For more on the subject, see MTV Pulls Dudesons Episode and AIM Threatens to Sue MTV.

ICT's take on The Dudesons

Four months after the fact, Indian Country Today publishes a review of the Cowboys and Findians episode of The Dudesons:

A Native perspective on ‘Cowboys and Findians’

‘The Dudesons’ controversial episode on MTV

By Vincent SchillingBecause of Grant’s appearance on “The Dudesons,” the actor has received criticism online and in the news.

“I had no reason to believe that this role and the episode would cause for such controversy,” he said. “When I met with the producers, we discussed several issues and concerns. Many situations were written out or re-worded. However, as many actors and those in the industry know, including those who have spoken out against me, we can make suggestions and ask for changes as much as we want, however, the creative control is often out of our hands. We often have to hope for the best.”

Though Grant admits he had little control over the script, the flood of comments online equated to a “smear campaign” according to Michelle Shining Elk, Grant’s publicist and owner of Shining Elk Entertainment.

“It irritates me that the people who started the smear campaign had one objective: To assassinate one man’s character. Saginaw is an elder with a long history of living his life as a traditional Indian man. He has lived far longer than literally 90 percent of us and as such has endured so much more in his life, good and bad, that most of us will never experience. Not one of us has walked in his shoes, not one of us has seen the life he has seen. Who are we to judge?”Comment:  I see Saginaw Grant and Michelle Shining Elk are still playing the victim card. Poor Saginaw couldn't do a thing about the episode, and anyone who doesn't understand this is a big meanie. In other words, crybaby alert!

Grant claims the episode was worse before he offered his advice. That suggests one solution: Don't take the job if it's one of the most racist depictions of Indians ever, genius. Your paltry salary isn't worth the harm you'll cause your own people.

Not only could Grant have skipped the production, he could've quit it or halted it halfway through. He also could've protested the final show if it somehow surprised him. He didn't do any of these things. In fact, he defended it as if he was unaware of its obvious offenses.

Later in the article, Grant is quoted saying, "I did not even know about the script." But he also said, "We discussed several issues and concerns. Many situations were written out or re-worded." How do you reword or rewrite the script when you don't know anything about it? Sounds like Grant is dissembling to me.

As for Michelle Shining Elk, she still seems clueless about the difference between criticizing the Dudesons and criticizing Grant. I've done the latter as well as the former, but most activists have stuck to blaming MTV and the Finns. But Grant is now one of Shining Elk's PR clients, so that may explain why she's still shilling for him. You can't bite the hand that feeds you, right?

For more on the subject, see MTV Pulls Dudesons Episode and AIM Threatens to Sue MTV.

P.S. This article is also notable for quoting me. But you'll have to read it to see what I said.

Below:  "Follow the script that I helped rewrite but didn't know anything about."

MTV pulls Dudesons episode

'Dudesons' 'Cowboys And Findians' Episode Pulled By MTV

By Lindsay GellmanMTV has removed an episode of "The Dudesons" from its website in response to complaints from the American Indian Movement of Santa Barbara, reports the NY Post.

The network has scrubbed the show's website of photos and video from the episode.Comment:   This article is three weeks old and refers to the NY Post article, which I thought was about MTV Canada only. But the video and photos seem to be gone from MTV's main Dudesons site.

Assuming the Dudesons episode is gone for good, what have we learned? Well, despite Michael Cooke's whiny defense of racism, we see once again that protests work. Activists got rid of one set of stereotypes at a major network. More important, they showed Hollywood there's a price to pay for stereotyping Indians. Anyone who knows about this incident will think twice before doing something similar.

For more on the subject, see Dudesons Controversy in NY Post and AIM Threatens to Sue MTV.

Comic-Con protest vs. Dudesons protest

Another debate with Michael Cooke on protests--this time in response to Thoughts on the Comic-Con Protest. I started the debate by posting the following on Facebook:

Comic-Con's anti-hate rally = AIM's anti-Dudesons rally.

Cooke's response:One was absurdist and funny and one was not.Both protests challenged bigoted stereotypes: gays = beasts and Indians = savages. Both sent a message through the media: These beliefs and stereotypes are unacceptable.

How the protesters chose to protest is a detail. Once you concede that a public protest is an effective way to bring attention to your cause, my side has won the debate.

According to your "logic," the Comic-Con people should've just let the Fred Phelps protesters go unchallenged. After all, the idea that homosexuals are immoral is part of our "cultural commons." And protesters could be fighting AIDS or poverty among gays rather than challenging the Phelps claims. The two situations are conceptually quite similar.

Fortunately, the Comic-Con people understand how to influence public opinion, unlike you. You don't do it by ignoring the opposite side and hoping it will go away. You challenge it publicly to demonstrate what regular people consider unacceptable in our society. To persuade those who are undecided or openminded that the bigots are wrong.

Racism okay if it isn't hateful?

Cooke tries again:The Fred Phelps protest at the Comic Con was anti-American rather than anti-gay (they weren't then expressing homophobia!) and very small--the reaction/counter demonstration was far larger and more meant to make fun of or parody the Phelps gang rather than to attack them directly.

The Dudesons TV show is meant to be humorous and may have been insensitive in the attempt, but is not comparable to the Phelps crew as an intentional expression of HATE. The protest against the show was very serious, angry and small (much as the Phelps crew was serious angry and small).

The comparison couldn't possibly be any worse.

The Comic-Con folks were acting spontaneously and creatively in response to a planned protest by the Phelps crew.

To use my argument against me, what would be necessary would be for the counter protesters to be proactive protestors and protest the Westboro Baptist Church directly.

And really, it's not done. Why? Because if you protest the Westboro's Christian homophobia in their church, you are a hypocrite if you refuse to challenge the homophobia in any other church. And no one is willing to go there.

Not even you, Rob."Fags Are Beasts" isn't homophobia?! Wrong.

The Phelps protesters were anti-America only to the extent that America is pro-gay. Their primary target very clearly was gays.

Some of the counter-protesters read about the Phelps protest in advance and prepared accordingly. Not that it matters, but it wasn't just a spontaneous response.

I didn't say the Dudesons were expressing hate. I said the two protests were effective in gaining publicity for gays and Indians against bigotry and stereotyping. What part of that do you disagree with, and why?

The Indians targeted MTV rather than the Finnish performers because MTV is the one perpetuating the offense after being told it's offensive. That isn't innocent fun, it's intentional harm. When you repeat bigoted words and images when you should know better, ignorance is no longer an excuse.

You don't even know what happened at AIM's protest against MTV. You have no clue whether the activists used humor, anger, or what. So spare us the sophistry that there's a right way and a wrong way to protest. You're criticizing AIM because you don't think Native stereotypes are that bad. You're okay with racism against Indians.

Size justifies protest?

Indians can't help it if they're only 1% of the population rather than 10% or whatever for gays. Of course their protests are going to be smaller and less effective. Especially in a place like Southern California where they're diffused among the general population.

So what? That's an argument for changing your demographics, not against protesting as a means of social change. Every movement starts small and gains adherents by establishing its presence. Scattered local activism evolves into sustained national activism. Duh.

You don't need to go to someone's home to protest their activities. Again, you don't seem to get the point of protests. It's not primarily to change the minds of the people you're protesting. As I said before, it's to move the needle of public opinion in general. Your ignorance of this may explain why you don't understand how and why protests work.

Finally, the fact that you consider racist stereotypes "funny" says it all. Whether you realize it or not, you're implicitly prejudiced against Indians. You don't expect people to laugh at the "fags = beasts" meme, but you do expect them to laugh at the "Indians = savages" meme. Thanks for demonstrating your bigotry, bigot.

For more on the subject, see Indians Shouldn't Act Uppity and Devil's Advocate Defends Saginaw Grant.

Below:  Cooke the bigot thinks racist stereotyping is funny. "Ha ha, look at what the dumb savages used to do!"

MTV Canada banishes Dudesons episode

The e-mails to MTV protesting the Cowboys & Findians episode of The Dudesons continue. AIM Santa Barbara reports this positive outcome:

MTV CANADA not airing any more Dudeson episodes?Subject: RE: MTV/The Dudesons
To: aimsb@ymail.com
Date: Friday, July 16, 2010, 3:45 PM

Hi Michael-

Let me begin by assuring you that if we thought a program contained derogatory material about any group of people based on their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability, we would not allow it to go to air.

In response to concerns raised by viewers and out of sensitivity to the Aboriginal community, we will not be repeating the episode of “The Dudesons” in question.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

Sincerely,

jenna king
Manager|PublicRelations|
Much MTV GroupAIM SB's reaction to this:AIM SB did call this morning and THANK Ms.King whole heartedly for her wise decision in programing.

Thank you MTV CANADA for really taking your job beyond a job, and understanding the role you have in society and communities.

AIM SBComment:  Again, protests work. For more on the subject, see AIM Threatens to Sue MTV and Ethnic Humor Suggestions for MTV.

Magical bracelets in Sons of Tucson

In Sunday's episode of Sons of Tucson, titled Kisses & Beads (airdate: 7/11/10), Ron needs money to bet on a dog race. As he leaves work, he sees co-worker Mike (Michael Horse) get on an expensive motorcycle:RON:  How the hell did you afford that?

MIKE:  Beads, man, beads.

RON:  Beads.

MIKE:  I get my little cousins down in the basement on weekends, making bracelets and dreamcatchers and crap like that. Guilt-ridden tourists will buy anything from us poor Indians.

RON:  I bet.

MIKE:  I guess what I'm really selling...is forgiveness.

[Mike starts to leave.]

RON:  Wait, wait, hold on a second. Hey, if you front me some beads, you think I can make 500 bucks by Sunday?

MIKE:  Yeah, sure, it's possible. But you need a crew. With little hands.

RON:  Little hands....Ron arranges a party at his house so he can enlist the neighborhood boys to make Indian trinkets. He turns off their video game and declares they're going to do arts and crafts:RON:  All right, everybody grab a thimble. Which you get to keep, by the way. Stretch out those sticky little fingers of yours and get ready for turbo beads!

RON:  Yeah! We are going to make some ornamental bracelets to honor the Native peoples of Arizona. It is a real privilege. Originally, only Native American warriors got to craft this mystical jewelry in order to harness the power...of lightning!Ron elaborates to motivate the kids further:RON:  Listen up, gang. I didn't tell you guys the best part yet, did I? Local legend has it if you manage to complete 100 of these magical bracelets in one night, you too will inherit the awesome powers of a thousand Cherokee chiefs.

BOY [scoffing]:  You said lightning.

RON [thinking fast]:  The chiefs control the lightning. Ahhh, so what do you say? How's that sound?A bit later Ron checks on the kids and finds they've stopped working at the "fun bench":RON:  So what, what, none of you want to become a magical Native American warrior anymore? Well, that's a shame, because that is the chance of a lifetime right here.Finally Mike shows up at the house:MIKE:  Hey, Ron, it's 8:00. You got my bracelets?

RON:  Uh, Mike. Uh, listen, I'm gonna need just a little more time. I ran into a baby snag with my crew. I promised them candy that doesn't exist.

MIKE:  Wow, a white man making promises he can't keep.

RON:  I appreciate your stoic irony. But seriously, do, do you know how to make magic candy?

MIKE:  Oh, sure I do.

RON:  Really?

MIKE:  Idiot. Look, I need those bracelets now. I got a tip on a broken-down busload full of Deadheads and--I gotta move fast.

RON:  Got it.Alas, the kids turn on Ron and cover him in beads. Mike never gets his bracelets.

This is a great Native bit. Mike talks about some of the usual things--beads, dreamcatchers, guilt-ridden whites, forgiveness--but it's all insincere. All he cares about is his moneymaking scheme.

Ron also talks about some of the usual things--warriors, jewelry, chiefs, magical powers--but it's clear he's making them up. Ron is a buffoon and everyone knows it, so no one takes him seriously.

Sons of Tucson vs. The Dudesons

How is this show's approach different from that of the Dudesons? Let's see.

In the Dudesons episode, the Dudesons played everything with a straight face. They didn't once indicate that they were making things up. Moreover, Saginaw Grant confirmed everything with his on-screen comments and presence.

In the Sons of Tucson episode, Ron is clearly inventing things on the spot. His claim that homemade "jewelry" will give the kids lightning is patently absurd. Someone might believe that Indians have to endure pain to pass an initiation rite (a la the Dudesons), but no one will believe that kiddie bracelets can grant magical powers.

Moreover, Ron's comments are internally inconsistent. He says the bracelets will bestow lightning, then switches to the power of a thousand chiefs. He's says they're honoring Arizona Natives, then refers to the Cherokee.

Ron is so lacking in authority that a bunch of eight-year-olds turn on him and punish him for his effrontery. He endures the arts and crafts equivalent of tarring and feathering. And the person who know best, Mike the Indian, calls him an "idiot."

Given how Sons of Tucson presents Ron's preposterous claims, there's no chance anyone will believe them. The show has done what it takes to demolish the stereotypes it dreamed up. As always, the joke is on Ron, who pays the price for telling tall tales about Indians.

If Saginaw Grant had scoffed at the Dudesons and called them idiots, Natives might not have criticized the show. Instead, he gave the Dudesons feathers at the end--an Indian seal of approval. This confirmed the stereotypes instead of denying them, as Sons of Tucson has done.

What audiences take away

The real issue isn't how inaccurate each show's stereotypes are. It's the emotional weight each show gives the stereotypes. This weight suggests how viewers are supposed to react.

On The Dudesons, the phony costumes and rituals tell viewers to laugh at Indians. On Sons of Tucson, the phony legends tell viewers to laugh at people like Ron who laugh at Indians. It's a different vibe--the opposite of the Dudesons' vibe.

The key isn't the comedic context, since both shows are ostensibly funny. The key is whether the show contradicts the stereotypes in obvious ways. Sons of Tucson does; The Dudesons doesn't.

In short, Sons of Tucson is one of the rare shows that demonstrates how to use Native stereotypes properly. I.e., to parody people's ignorance. In contrast, The Dudesons demonstrates how to use stereotypes improperly. I.e., to reinforce people's ignorance.

For more on stereotypes in comedies, see Dudesons Too "Stoopid" to Matter? and Okay to Stereotype in "Satires"? For more on Sons of Tucson, see Domesticating Wolves in Sons of Tucson and Michael Horse in Sons of Tucson.

Dudesons controversy in NY Post

Native Americans rage over MTV's 'The Dudesons' "There's no other racial group that has to put up with this harassment. People may think it's funny to do the fingers in front of the mouth and yell, 'Whoo! Whoo! Whoo! Whoo!' but that's deliberate discrimination," said AIM director Michael Fairbanks.

The group wrote to MTV in May asking it to scrub the episode from the network and online. Then AIM called for a boycott of MTV and "Dudesons" sponsors, including Frito-Lay, Burger King and Pepsi. The petition site has already gotten 1,000 signatures. Fairbanks is also threatening to file a federal suit alleging the show violates Native Americans' civil rights.Comment:  If you've been following the controversy on Facebook, as I have, there's no new information here. But it appears the New York Post printed this story on its infamous Page Six. If so, a million or so New Yorkers are now aware of a controversy they hadn't heard of before.

How did this happen? It happened because of AIM's persistent protests: the letter-writing, the street demonstration, the petition, the call for a boycott, and the threatened lawsuit. These efforts combined to draw the attention of the mainstream media. The story is out there now.

Proving the point, the Celebrity Mound blog and a USA Today business blog have picked up the story. Who knows where it'll appear next?

The protest's goal(s)

AIM's primary goal may be to get the episode off the air. My primary goal is to educate people about the ongoing problem of stereotyping. With this controversy, we're doing it.

As with Alcatraz, Wounded Knee II, and other protests in recent years, Americans are learning that Indians are still here. That they're not going to take racism and injustice lying down. That they're going to fight back when people ignore, insult, or attack them.

For more on the subject, see Indians Shouldn't Act Uppity? and Devil's Advocate Defends Saginaw Grant.

Indians shouldn't act uppity?

Continuing the argument begun in Devil's Advocate Defends Saginaw Grant, here's more of Michael Cooke's defense of the Dudesons' racism:How do you relate a stereotype to economics? I understand it would make you feel better to believe that, but protesting Dudesons, if successful in pulling the show--will lose a Native American his acting job and make MTV wary of using minorities in programming because they hadn't any problems with the all white 'jackass'.Saginaw Grant was paid for a one-time appearance on one Dudesons episode. I don't think the Dudesons plan to use him again. So there's no job for him to lose at the moment. Try again.

"Make MTV wary of using minorities in programming" is the kind of rationalization for which you have zero evidence, I'm pretty sure. But surprise me and prove me wrong. Let's hear your best examples of how Hollywood stopped using minorities because they protested their treatment. Give us hard facts, not idle speculation.

This is the same argument Michelle Shining Elk offered in her defense of Saginaw Grant. Protesting will only make Indians look like angry malcontents or helpless victims, she claimed. Or perhaps it was helpless malcontents or angry victims. Since she made up these scenarios out of thin air, who knows?

In any case, the claim is that Indians should accept racism because the alternative is worse. How so? In the Michelle and Michael fantasy world, apparently MTV is poised to make a whole series of racist TV shows. Only the silence of Indian activists is limiting the damage to one show.

Yeah, right. Can you say "complete fabrication with no basis in reality"? I know you can.

We even have a phrase for uppity Indians, or anyone who causes trouble. We say they've "gone off the reservation." Good little Indians stay where they're supposed to be and don't raise a fuss. Even when they're getting food with mold and blankets with holes from the government. "Bad" Indians go "off the rez" and protest these conditions.

Mike keeps excusing racism

Back to Michael Cooke:

I love how you're working your way through the top 10 excuses for the Dudesons' racism, Mike. Clearly you don't believe any of them sincerely. You're throwing them up and hoping one will stick. Good luck with that.

Your longwinded defense of a show you haven't seen demonstrates your cognitive dissonance over your "stereotypes fade organically" fallacy. You want to believe activists are wasting their time so you can justify your lack of effort. If we simply go on without lifting a finger, you hope, Native and gay stereotypes will disappear and all will be well.

Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way. Stereotypes of blacks and women as inferior human beings persisted for centuries. They persisted until social activists criticized and protested them in the '50s and '60s. Without the protests, these beliefs might've persisted indefinitely.

Again, there's zero evidence that they would've disappeared "organically." And zero reason that minorities should've waited for these mythical events to happen. Activists made the stereotypes disappear by challenging them: with books and articles, letter-writing campaigns, and marches and demonstrations.

I've listed many protests that have curtailed racism or stereotyping. I could list many more. Therefore, your opinion that this is about what I "feel" is flatly wrong.

I'm telling you about proven techniques for challenging stereotypical beliefs. You're countering with fact-free speculation about these beliefs disappearing without intervention. The only one dealing in feelings here is you.

Assessing Mike's psyche

Looks like you're desperately seeking reasons for letting racism and stereotyping continue. I'm not sure why, but I'm guessing it has to do with envy. Activists are working to change the world and you aren't, so you want to bring them down. They're making you look bad with their efforts.

This is why I've accused you of defending racism: because that's what you're doing. Don't protest MTV's racist programming because the protest might offend someone? In other words, don't be uppity troublemakers? Just lie back and enjoy it? You're telling Indians they should accept racism, which puts you on the side of the racists.

For more debates with Michael Cooke, see Irish Band Is Just Harmless Fun?, Is Racism Really Classism?, and Whites Fighting Racism Is Racist?!

Below:  "No, ma'am. I wouldn't think of protesting America's racism. I'm as happy as a clam with my second-class citizenship."

Devil's advocate defends Saginaw Grant

Wrapping up (?) a debate on the Dudesons I never completed, here's Michael Cooke's defense of Saginaw Grant:Well in my case it comes down to agreeing to disagree as Rob is unable to persuade me and I'm unable to persuade Rob.

In the case of the Dudesons, I've only seen part of one episode online and not the offending one. But I've seen enough to know it's 'jackass' style antics, which is white frat boy kind of idiocy in my opinion, with minority players, mostly Hispanic.

Rob's upset at the indulgence of racial stereotypes of native Americans in the Dudesons is complicated by the fact that the idiocy of the characters does little to suggest legitimacy or credibility to any stereotypes they exploit, and is further complicated by the fact that the show does use an authentic Native American actor represented by Native American management.

The stereotype is certainly not good, but the damage caused is up for debate. And that the show is hiring authentic Native American talent with native American representation, that's a very positive thing.

So investing all of your energy into attacking not just the stereotype, but the show, the actor and the actor's management--of course there's going to be conflict, anger and personal attacks.

On Comedy Central, Flavor Flav the former Public Enemy rapper, participated in a 'celebrity roast' that was so mover the top racist, one of the African American comedians really felt shitty about it. That comedian talked about this on his comedy special, and he explained that when he asked Flavor Flav how he felt about it, Flav answered "Hey, I got PAID!"

There's all kinds of ways to look at things. But the bottom line might be surviving and getting paid. Of course if there's alternative offers paying as much, that Native American may never associate himself with Dudesons. But it was the best job he could get. In this economy I can't damn him for doing his job as well as he can.I can damn him. There's zero evidence that he tried to ameliorate the stereotypes during filming. It's one thing to take the job because you need it--a situation that no one has confirmed, by the way. It's another thing to take the job happily and dismiss the results as harmless.

If you sincerely understand what the issues are, what many Natives are complaining about, then apologize. Don't defend and justify your actions and then expect a free pass from criticism. "I was just doing my job" went out with the Nuremberg Trials, in case you hadn't heard. It's no longer a valid excuse if it ever was.

"Agree to disagree" = Indians win

By "agree to disagree," you mean I've posted a dozen arguments against Dudesons-style minstrel shows that no one has touched. You "disagree" with these arguments without contradicting them or offering an equivalent set of counterarguments. So noted.

You can label that a stalemate, but I label it a win for our side. You know, the side that includes all the Natives whom the Dudesons offended? It's a win for them first and for me a distant and inconsequential second.While with Dudesons the stereotypes cannot be justified as a good thing, it's that the harm of the stereotype in that instance is debatable if not dubious and certainly not quantifiable.

The problem you have is when your condemnation of the program extends to the actors and their management. There are not enough job opportunities for Native American actors, and the opportunities that do exist may be inferior or involve stereotypes. The actors and their management are damned if they do and damned if they don't.Repeat: I generally don't blame the actor or his agent when they take a questionable job. But when the pay and opportunity are small and the offense is huge, the equation shifts. No way do we literally excuse everything because "it's just a job."

At this point a woman named Gina who knows Grant personally chimed in:‎@ Micheal Cooke....If you had listened to Brenda Golden's interview w/ Saginaw you will hear Saginaw state in his own words that he has a great pension and is doing just fine! So pu-lease don't tell me that this was done for economic reasons. He makes no apologies for this role whatsoever. Like you say he is laughing all the way to the bank to cash that small check! And listen carefully to that interview...if you're not enrolled or Indian enough...according to his own words you don't seem to matter....Right. Your "he needed the job" argument works in the abstract, Mike, but not in this situation. Try again.

Indians can poke fun at Indians?

Mike continues:I just play devil's advocate till the end. lol.

I am clearly working with a disadvantage. I have no interest in watching the offending show to begin with.

But explain this: A comedian of color always has license to poke fun at his own people in such a way that would be intolerably racist coming from a White comedian.

Why does the Indian actor in Dudesons, playing a theatrically ridiculous and idiotic role, have less license than the comedian?

What is clear, is that the Indian actor didn't believe there's anything wrong with his performance, perhaps he's clear that he's a comedian?

And the role on Dudesons is television exposure, it may well pay off handsomely in future television contracts, especially as it's know now he doesn't take himself too seriously and is open to slapstick.Another commenter put Mike in his place:lol, I can imagine your jaw flapping Michael....You haven't even SEEN the show and you have so much to say about it, please don't tell me you know what it is to be a Native American next or I will bust my gut laughing at you....More answers for Mike:

Saginaw Grant wasn't doing any of the poking fun himself. He was standing by to lend legitimacy to the white Dudesons and their antics. The proper term for his actions is Uncle Tom-ming:

Uncle TomUncle Tom is a term for a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white.Comedy justifies stereotypes?

I've refuted the "comedy justifies stereotypes" argument half a dozen times already. Read and debate these arguments if you wish, but don't pretend you've come up with an explanation we somehow missed. We're way ahead of you on that score.

As a rationale, "paying off handsomely in future television contracts" is even further from the "he needed the job" excuse. Which I notice you failed to defend. When Gina cut off one explanation, you smoothly shifted to another, eh? Nice trick if you can get away with it.

If Grant is a selfish bastard who cares only about his career...then great, he should say so. But don't give us any crap about how the harm and offense don't matter. "I don't care about your feelings" is one thing and "you're wrong to feel insulted" is another.

As Gina said, you don't go on the radio and question the "Indianness" of your critics. You might as well say, "You're right, but I'm questioning your legitimacy because I've got no other defense." You're big on avoiding personal attacks, so why are you excusing this obnoxious behavior?

Grant didn't need the job and he doesn't have an intellectual argument for taking it. Neither do you, but you're too invested in your "stereotypes disappear organically" fallacy to realize it. Thus you end up offering a scattershot of unrelated excuses, including a defense of his personal attacks.

When someone writes Grant's legacy, it won't be "he was open to slapstick." It'll be "his long career was marred a controversy over a TV show deemed racist by critics." If he's okay with that, so are we.

For the final word, here's a statement on Facebook from Native actor Aldred Montoya:I am amazed by how many "Native Sell-Outs" there are. Since my letter to MTV, I have seen how many "warriors" there ARE NOT. Many of you on FB know them. It is sad that I can only call them "Fat Takers." "YOU FTs," know what I mean.

"You Hollywood Injuns" should be ashamed that you are so easily afraid of "Money," or the lack thereof. "YOU" need to become a newborn native soul. That is all I have to say.

-AldredFor more on the subject, see AIM Threatens to Sue MTV, Ethnic Humor Suggestions for MTV, and Whites Fighting Racism Is Racist?!

Below:  "You do whatever you want, son. No one will criticize you with a real Indian on the show."

AIM threatens to sue MTV

AIM Santa Barbara has sent a letter via certified mail to Philippe P. Dauman, President & CEO of Viacom, the parent company of MTV. The subject, of course, was The Dudesons in America--specifically episode #2, Cowboys & Findians. Here's the heart of the letter:

Well, MTV--we guess, we might just see you in Federal Court....We have asked you repeatedly to cease these actions, and to remove the aforementioned episode of The Dudesons in America from the airwaves. We have asked you to remove this episode from public view, in all forms of media, whether (a) by television broadcast, (b) Internet, or (c) any other means by which it can be viewed by the public. We have also asked that MTV, Viacom, and the producers of The Dudesons in America offer an apology to Native Americans for the offensive, discriminatory, and oppressive nature of this episode; you have failed and refused to do so.

Your refusal to honor our requests leaves us with no alternative but to seek any and all available legal remedies in Federal Court.

Your actions are clearly an act of conspiracy intended to violate the Civil Rights of American citizens purely based on their race. This constitutes a criminal violation of 18 USC 241, in addition to other civil violations.

We are once again demanding the following:

1. That you permanently remove the aforementioned episode of The Dudesons in America, in the manner more fully set forth above; and

2. That you tender a public apology to Native Americans.

If we have not secured your written agreement to the foregoing demands within ten (10) days from the receipt of this letter, please be advised that we will begin legal action in Federal Court.A commenter on Facebook adds another rationale for the lawsuit:The "Cowboys and Findians" episode of the Dudesons is in Direct violation for the First Article of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, The Bad Man Act! On June 30, 1980, The US Supreme Court declared this Treaty as valid as the US Constitution, in compliance with the 6th Amendment. Our ceremonies (rites of passages, in this case) are Our Way of Life and not a religion, as white men see it. It is Native American property protected by U.S. law and United Nation declaration.Comment:  I have mixed feelings about this action. On the one hand, I wish AIM well and hope MTV accedes to their demands. On the other hand, lawsuits of this type almost never work.

I doubt AIM can make a case unless they point to the specific harm this episode caused. Not "stereotyping hurts us in general," for example, but "citing the Dudesons, Mrs. White forced little Johnny Wolf to sit in the corner and wear a headdress." Otherwise, a court will be reluctant to curb MTV's right to free speech.

I admire AIM's tenacity. But as bad as the Dudesons episode was, I don't think it should dominate our time and energy. There are many things worth protesting: Chief Wahoo and other mascots, the Last Airbender movie, the Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson play, the Irish showband called The Indians, the Custer re-enactor at the veterans powwow, the savage Maori in The Wives of Henry Oades, the lack of minority characters in DC Comics, and on and on. You can argue about the relative importance of these, but there's no way the Dudesons episode is more important than every other stereotype problem combined.

For more on the subject, see Anti-Dudesons Protest at MTV Awards and MTV vs. AIM on The Dudesons.

Ethnic humor suggestions for MTV

A letter about the Cowboys & Findians episode of The Dudesons in America posted on Facebook:

Go to it MTV!  Don't let moral outrage get in your way!From: Geordie Thunder

To: AJ.Sarcione@mtvstaff.com; Janet.Borelli@mtvstaff.com; Jeannie.Kedas@mtvstaff.com

Dear Ms Kedas, Ms Borelli and Mr Sarcione,

First of all may I congratulate you all on your superb programme Cowboys & Findians.

I wasn't even aware Indians were still living in America. I thought John Wayne had them all shot.

It was hilarious to see them trying to be just like those crazy natives...dressed in feathers and fishing with their teeth…that must have taken some practice!! You must have spent hours researching their cultural habits.

It is such a refreshing change to see this calibre of humour on our screens in this absurd climate of political correctness and racial equality.

With this in mind, might I suggest some more programme ideas in the same mould. Perhaps Homeboys & Finiggers...the guys have to assimilate into a black neighbourhood. They have to get cracked up to the eyeballs, do a drive-by shooting while singing Al Jolson's 'Ma Blushin' Rosie' with a mouthful of watermelon. The final round sees them being invited to stay overnight in a benevolent white family's home. Can they resist the temptation to eat the occupants?

Jewboys & Fingefiltefish....This time they have to crash a Holocaust Remembrance service at the Mount of Olives. Their tasks will be to conceal themselves in the crowd wearing tea towels and fake rubber noses; circumcise each other with rusty saw blades and avoid mentioning pork in conversation with the rabbi. Points are awarded for ad lib Shylock impressions and attempting to get 2 for the price of 1 at the BBQ.

Chicoboys & Finspicks....Climbing fences and negotiating razorwire is the name of the game here. These crazy guys have to avoid guard towers and minefields dressed in ponchos, sombreros and try not to be shot at. Once in the clear, they are to acquire gardening jobs and suchlike and generally be of service to the well-to-do. Points are awarded for persistent whinging, undermining the entire economic infrastructure of the United States and smelling of burritos.

Guiniboys & Finwops....Once initiated into the 'Family' the guys now have to set up their own fake murdering business as a front for moving illegal shipments of hair oil onto the market. Watch out though, someone's a rat!! Before they know it they're hiding in a Brooklyn Speakeasy dressed as Mussolini, singing O sole mio and giving everyone herpes.

Chinkboys & Finslopes....Starting at opposite ends of the United States, this involves laying a miniature railtrack as quick as possible (chop chop!!) in memory of those crazy Chinamen all those years ago. Lots of bowing and funny walks are the call of the day, as are homemade goofy teeth and googleyed glasses. Don't be caught slacking while on the job or the big company owners will shoot you dead. The winners get to go to an authentic Oriental restaurant were they will be treated to the national dish--freshly boiled poodle noodles.

I hope this gives you some inspiration for further programming. I wish you the very best of luck and hope to see more harmless family entertainment at others expense. Me and my educationally subnormal half-sister's cousinwife haven't laughed this much since My Lai.

Go to it! Don't let moral outrage get in your way.

Well done MTV and its subsidiaries for taking freedom of speech to hitherto unimagined depths and broadcasting what the civilised world would simply elect not to.

Yours in ignorance,

Geordie ThunderComment:  Boy, these old stereotypes sure are funny. Ha ha!

What do you think would happen if MTV put on any of these shows? National outrage, that's what.

I'd love to hear someone explain why all these episodes would be okay. Or why Cowboys & Findians is okay but these episodes would be wrong. Help me out here, somebody.

For more on the subject, see Deadliest Warrior vs. The Dudesons and Ethical Code for Native Elders Needed.

Below:  A possible star for the Chinkboys & Finslopes episode.

Whites fighting racism is racist?!

Apropos of several recent arguments, I posted the following sarcastic comments on Facebook:Whites shouldn't write about Indians. Men shouldn't write about women. Democrats shouldn't write about Republicans. Law-abiding citizens shouldn't write about criminals. Living people shouldn't write about dead people. Humans shouldn't write about animals. Etc.

Really, how could someone today possibly understand Lincoln, Shakespeare, or Jesus? Indeed, it's inconceivable that foreigners could write about America or Jews could write about Christianity. No amount of research can make up for firsthand experience.Michael, my newest carping critic, attacked this position:Notice no White people are heralded as great Black leaders. White leaders of Black causes are in fact, dis-empowering to Black people.Jennifer Yuhas Gall countered with:Like all the whites who helped with the underground railroad...or all those who marched on Washington with Martin Luther King?Right, Jennifer. Not to mention a century or two of the white-led abolition movement. Or such white politicians such as Earl Warren, Dwight Eisenhower, or Lyndon Johnson.

King and other blacks clearly led the civil rights movement, and whites clearly supported it and helped where they could. Why? Because they passionately thought racism was wrong and wanted America to live up to its ideals. Just as I do.

The debate is on

This led to the following exchange between Mike and Jennifer:Jennifer:  I can't imagine that any non-Native writer, blogger, or activist is seeking to be perceived as a "leader." Non-native allies are only that--allies to an existing cause. That's a problem somehow?

Michael:  It just seems weird to me that Rob personally attacks perceived slights to Native Americans, when there ought to be Native Americans who can better express the reason the stereotype is hurtful and wrong--whose writing Rob could be promoting instead of himself.

Jennifer:  Rob isn't writing about "perceived slights" to NDNs--he's writing about actual offenses--issues and events that the Native community has already expressed outrage about. Now, I've read his work--he isn't claiming to speak for anyone--he's merely adding his voice and contributing to an existing cause--as all activists do.

Burying your head in the sand and saying "it's not my problem/it's not about me/let someone else deal with it" is the creed of a myopic coward. (BTW, I'm not calling you a coward, Michael...it's that type of mindset I'm ranting against.)

Michael:  Yeah. but Rob is attacking people for their stereotypes, which means he's jumping head first into a shade of grey.

Stereotypes exist because of ignorance, not hatred. They are best addressed with education, not personal attacks.

And to attack a stereotype is to suggest you understand the damage it is doing, which no one that is not of the stereotyped ethnicity has any way of really knowing. Respect for other people means to understand they know their experience, they are the authority, not anyone else.

Jennifer:  LOL...it's called empathy, Michael. That, combined with a concerted effort to become knowledgeable about and understanding of the culture(s) that are being stereotyped and misrepresented--it's really not altogether difficult to recognize and separate truth and fact from stereotype and lies.Mike dives off deep endMichael:  Look, I have empathy. What pisses me off is that Native Americans are fucking impoverished and not thriving personally and economically, I could give a rats ass if Ke$ha is wearing an Indian style headdress--that's not actually hurting anyone in any real way, it's a fashion faux pas, not a bigoted statement.

And frankly the fact that Rob is devoting so much attention to the stereotypes of pop stars, what it accomplishes is the message: this is the worst Native American have to complain about! It's FUCKING RACIST to draw attention away from broken treaties and poverty.

Now shut the fuck up about empathy, empathy makes me ANGRY and INTOLERANT! Complain about pop stars once every Native American peace treaty is respected, Once every native American is economically well off. Not one minute before--because that's a disservice to the genuine serious issues of these people.

And it's true, there are Natives that back Rob up and my point of view is just my own. That fact doesn't alter my point of view. And the problem is empathy, not a lack thereof.

Okay I get emotional over this. I really believe you address media and pop stars on the DL, with letter writing. Because the publicity should stay focused on the most important issues, issues that are black and white that the most agreement can be arrived upon. Broken treaties.

Simply put, I feel Rob is fucking over Native Americans and I don't like it. The Dudesons isn't impoverishing Native Americans, it's actually employing one.Rob's reply

More destructive criticism from Michael Cooke...sigh.

Must be a crushing blow to your ego to see a white heterosexual male do more to help people than you've done, Mike. You've proved you're only trying to take me down no matter how many Natives like and support my work. Thanks for the confirmation, buddy.

Your personal attacks on my personal attacks ignores the fact that the vast majority of my critiques aren't personal attacks. If you disagree, read my blog and calculate the percentage of such attacks. Put up or shut up, hypocrite.

Several Natives tell you stereotyping is an important issue and you dismiss them. Alas, your ignorance of the harm of stereotyping remains profound. It's pointless to even talk to about this subject until you stop braying like an ass and start studying it.

I don't have to feel prejudice against blacks, Indians, or gays to know it's wrong. My specialty is analyzing why the stereotypes are wrong, not telling people how they should react to them. When it comes to feelings, I can and do report how Natives say they feel. Which is as it should be.

Don't tell us I'm ignoring Native writing on racism and stereotyping and promoting my opinions instead. Given how many Natives I cite and quote, that's a flat-out lie. If you think you have a valid argument, cite and quote the Native writing I should've posted instead of my own. Again, put up or shut up, liar.

Needless to say, you're ignorant of all the times I've discussed broken treaties and poverty. Sometimes I connect them to the pervasive racism and stereotyping in our society--and rightly so--and sometimes I don't. But the claim that I ignore these issues is simply a lie on your part.

A Google search of my site reveals 279 hits for "poverty" and 236 hits for "treaties." If I included variants such as "poor" or "impoverished" and "treaty" or "promise," the totals would be much higher. That doesn't count all the articles I've posted about these issues on PECHANGA.net and elsewhere. And all the times I've discussed these issues in person.

Adding them up, I've easily addressed these issues thousands of times. How many times have you addressed them, you lying sack of hypocrisy? As you've already admitted, zero.

The Dudesons once again

The Dudesons employed one Native actor...that's your argument?! Yeah, and old movies employed one black actor as an Uncle Tom or Aunt Jemima. The success of those old movies encouraged more old movies that employed blacks as Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas.

Wow, what a great success story for blacks. Yep, that was the golden age of African American cinema. "Yeah, you sho' nuff gave us a job, massa. We is eternally grateful for yo' kindness!"

When the situation in 2010 is no more progressive, you think we should be glad about that? Wrong. The alternative to early Uncle Toms wasn't no movies employing blacks. It was movies that blacks wrote, produced, directed, and starred in themselves. You know, the kind of movies that began appearing in the 1960s and 1970s? That burgeoning black cinema could've happened decades earlier if Americans weren't so content with their Uncle Toms.

The Dudesons episode isn't opening doors for Native actors, bright boy. It's opening doors for more offensive minstrel shows that mock Native culture and may employ a token Indian or two. That isn't a step forward, it's about 10 steps backward.

Incredibly, you're advocating the Uncle Tom era of entertainment as a model Indians should emulate. Thanks for taking us back to the 1920s and 1930s, Mike. Do you have any other amazingly stupid ideas you want to share with us?

As for Kesha, the same people who protested the Dudesons in person also e-mailed MTV about the Dudesons and American Idol about Kesha. They're writing letters as well as marching in the streets because the two approaches are complimentary. So activists are doing what you advocate, you twit. The question is why you're stupidly attacking them for it.

Finally, when you claim I attribute every problem to bigotry and not ignorance, that's more evidence of your ignorance. If "ignorance" isn't the most common noun in this blog, it must be high on the list. As I've said before, I consider myself an educator of sorts. Fighting ignorance such as yours is exactly what I do most of the time.

Mike likes racism, dislikes education

Summing it up, you've demonstrated your anti-education bias with your attacks on my efforts. You've yet to shown an iota of understanding of the educator's role. Here, read it again, dumbass. Educate yourself about education so you don't sound so damn stupid:

Educational value of blogging
Rob should fight poverty?!

You gotta love Mike's monstrous ego. I'm employed in the Native media and have been for a decade. Mike is unemployed and knows nothing about Natives. Whatever you think of my efforts, I've devoted tens of thousands of hours to them. Mike's devoted a big fat zero.

Yet the person who's done nothing is lecturing me on how to help Natives?! It's not enough that I've devoted countless hours to the cause. I should've devoted countless more hours and eradicated poverty singlehandedly. Anything short of that and Mike judges me a failure.

Nice trick if you can get away with it, white boy. Too bad you can't. I'm calling you on your do-nothing attitude. You and everyone else who tolerates racism are the problem here, not me.

Mike's complaint is a variation of the complaint we've heard several times recently. Mentioning racism causes racism. Protesting racism causes racism. And now whites who fight racism are racists.

What these complaints have in common is ignorance and apathy about racism. You know, the racism that led to Indians suffering broken treaties and genocide? The racism that leads to hate crimes and hateful attacks today? Yes, that same racism.

These crybabies are defending the racist status quo. They want their white power and privilege to continue, so they denigrate attacks on their position. Mike may not support white supremacists, but I think they'd be happy to support him. "Mike says it's okay to portray blacks as tar-babies and Indians as savages, so he's on our side."

Jennifer won't call Mike a myopic coward, but I will. You're a myopic coward for excusing the racism and stereotyping of minorities, Mike. For doing nothing about the offenses and hoping they'll just fade away. If the label fits, wear it, coward.

For more on the subject, see Rand Paul's Pro-Racist Libertarianism and Teabaggers = Hatemongers.

Below:  White-boy coward Michael Cooke.

Indian headdresses at the World Cup

Someone named Lindsey Ricard noted the following at a World Cup match involving Mexico:



She wrote about it on Facebook:

Racism Regulations at World Cup...brokenFIFA has instituted new regulations on racist behavior at the World Cup, seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwpO-nnFY9g&feature=related

This is obviously a very huge deal, considering the President of FIFA himself has spoken out about this.

But, it seems that the security at the World Cup isn't holding up FIFA's end of the deal. How, you ask?

By allowing these fans into the arena.I wouldn't have necessarily devoted much time to this. These are random fans acting as individuals. They're ignorant and don't know any better.

The same is undoubtedly true of the stadium attendants. To expect them to act, we'd have to assume: 1) FIFA headquarters communicated its anti-racism policy to every soccer venue and employee in the world. 2) These employees were trained enough in US history to recognize stereotypical Indian headdresses. 3) The employees had sufficient resources to deal with possibly unruly fans.

That's asking a lot. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but I wouldn't expect it to happen automatically. Implementing a policy like this could take years.

Of course, these soccer images are being broadcast to something like a billion people worldwide. That's a billion people having the most common Native stereotype reinforced in their minds. It's not something Natives should have to suffer for long.

For more on the subject, see Indian Headdresses at Lightning in a Bottle and Q'orianka Kilcher in a Headdress.

World Cup vs. Dudesons

How does this incident compare to the Dudesons controversy? In this case, the provocateurs were ignorant fans, stadium guards, and camera operators. They were acting in uncoordinated ways, in the heat of the moment. There was no prearranged plan to send a message about Natives to the world.

In contrast, the Dudesons episode was very much prearranged. The Dudesons conceived, planned, and executed a series of stunts. They arranged to have a Western set, horses, costumes, and a cigar-store Indian. Presumably people at MTV vetted and approved the script and created and distributed promotional materials. It was all quite calculated.

With this much planning and oversight, you'd better do things right. If you don't, you'd better expect some criticism. There's no excuse to have this much clout and then say, "Oh, this offended you? We're so surprised and shocked. We never would've guessed that a modern-day minstrel show would bother anyone."

For more on the subject, see Deadliest Warrior vs. The Dudesons and Ethical Code for Native Elders Needed.

Deadliest Warrior vs. The Dudesons

Actor Mo Brings Plenty is playing the Comanche in Comanche vs. Mongol, the latest episode of Deadliest Warrior to feature Natives. Michelle Shining Elk represents Brings Plenty. She also represents actor Saginaw Grant, who appeared in the much-maligned Cowboys & Findians episode of The Dudesons in America.

Because of the first two facts and despite the third, I posted the following link to Shining Elk's Facebook page:

Stuntmen wait for the camera operator on "Deadliest Warrior"--Deadliest Warrior--Hollywood Backlot

This led to the following debate with someone named Lisa:ok....this IS funny. Two made-up stereotypes battling it out for a silly TV show. Are the signs being painted yet for the protest by the Mongols? Didn't think so. And strangely enough, this time it is not even meant to be comedy.....FAIL....lol.I think the warriors are supposed to be historically accurate, so they have that going for them.

If centuries of stereotypes had harmed Mongol Americans, I imagine they'd be out protesting.So why aren't you raising a stink and protesting on behalf of Native Americans over this silliness? The "warrior" is certainly a stereotype when put into this cockamamie fabricated setting. Mongol v/s Indian? Really? "Supposed to be historically accurate" trumps satire? I would underline the words, "supposed to be," but FB won't let me.

My apologies, but having sat back and watched the anti-Dudeson's nonsense that went back and forth here, that apologist "argument" sounds a bit on the lame side.

And to be clear, I am in no way bashing the actors that participated in this dopey show.Been there, done that

Since Michelle represents Mo Brings Plenty, you can ask her how real or phony his outfit was.

I've posted items on two previous episodes of Deadliest Warrior featuring Natives:

Review of Apache vs. Gladiator
Aztec vs. Zande

As for this episode: 1) I think it's only in the filming stage. 2) I'm not going to belabor the points in my first review. Indians as savage warriors...check. No mention of cultural accomplishments...check.

I'll probably mention this episode when it comes out. So if you're looking for inconsistencies in my behavior, you'll have to try harder.

If I were trying to speak for Natives, make a name for myself, etc., I might slam this episode like the first episode. Since that's not what I'm doing, I probably won't. My review of the first episode covered the points I wanted to make. Case closed until I have something new to say.

Incidentally, Michelle and I have agreed about Tinsel Korey and Tiger Woods's "Indian" mistress, among other things. Would those be examples of "silly" protests that make Indians look "angry," or what?It ain't the outfit. Mo could be wearing 100% historically accurate, picture perfect regalia. As I said, it is not in any way about Mo or the other actor, or the costumes. Don't make me repeat that in CAPS. Lame or not, these men are actors playing roles. This is what they do. Act. Its their job. I am more than happy there is work for them, even if it's this silly thing.

I do contend however, that the seriously embarrassing situation, pitting "Mongol" against "Indian" does seem to re-enforce stereotypes. Does it not? The vicious, foreign Mongol against the Noble Indian Brave....I mean come on. How does one defend that totally invented, odd-ass scenario with a straight face?

"Deadliest Warrior" is not a comedy show (but maybe it should be), satirizing a stereotype so absurd as to make it clearly a smack down against stereotyping, as in the recent "The Dudesons" episode.

The exact target of "The Dudesons": Finns mocking themselves, used the clearly more intelligent Indian character they wrote into the episode to make the Finnish protagonists look even stupider than they usually do.

In that case, the way over-the top role of the Indian was used as a manifestly superior device to quite unmistakeably make the Finns (comically) look like the complete self-immolating morons they are. Somehow, against all obvious odds, many failed to reach that somewhat blatant conclusion.

Because "Deadliest Warrior" "purports" to be a "serious" look at "warriors" does not excuse that it is clearly an true offense in stereotyping. In fact, the whole concept of the entire show "Deadliest Warrior" seems to be made up only of diverse racial stereotypes.

Makes you almost miss the late 40's to early 50's, when all of the bad guys somehow had thick German accents. Or the 60's and 70's when those Germans turned into "evil" Russians. Now those were real stereotypes!Grant just doing his job?

I'm not defending Deadliest Warrior. I told you I criticized the first show, which seemed representative of the whole. If the Comanche vs. Mongol episode presents something new to criticize, I'll criticize it.

Again, why don't you ask Michelle how someone defends Deadliest Warrior? She's promoting Mo Brings Plenty, not me. I imagine she'll promote Comanche vs. Mongol when it comes out, too. Ask her what she thinks about the savage stereotype she's helping to perpetuate.

If you're trying to compare Deadliest Warrior to The Dudesons, historical accuracy is always better than historical inaccuracy. With Deadliest Warrior you have to know something about Indian history. You have to figure out that Apaches, Aztecs, and Comanches weren't as bad as the stereotypes.

In contrast, The Dudesons hits you in the face with stereotypes. You know, like an Indian catching a fish in his mouth. Not only do they portray Indians as savages, but as stupid savages. I'd rather be considered a smart savage than a stupid savage any day.

Thanks for your opinion on the Dudesons episode. Alas, that's all it is, of course: an opinion. You have no way of knowing what the Finnish fools were thinking or what they intended.

You think Saginaw Grant came off as superior? By agreeing that he was "King of All Indians" and telling us that Indians really do catch fish in their mouths? You must have a different definition of "superior" than I do.

If Grant's job is to help stereotype his people, he should find another job. I don't excuse employees for bad behavior unless they're desperate for money and have no other choice. "I was just doing my job" went out with the Nuremberg Trials, in case you haven't heard.

Tinsel Korey is just doing her job too. A job that involves taking roles from Native actresses, unfortunately. Michelle and I both protested that, but you have nothing to say about it. Why not?

Again, are our protests "silly" or not? Do they make Indians look "angry" or not? These aren't rhetorical questions, so try answering them this time.

Uncle Tomahawk not harmful?

Critics like me have ripped the claim that the Dudesons meant their episode to be a spoof of Indians. Besides, the Dudesons' intent doesn't matter since stereotypes in minstrel shows are just as harmful as stereotypes in dramas--if not more so. For more on the subject, see:

Grant wouldn't show Dudesons to grandchildren
Idiot's guide for Dudesons defenders
Children and Dudesons believe stereotypes
The Dudesons, Polish jokes, and minstrel shows
Dudesons fans don't get it
Dudesons too "stoopid" to matter?
Okay to stereotype in "satires"?

When you can address these arguments, go ahead and do so. For instance, I'd love hear your defense of minstrel shows, Polish jokes, and other forms of racial and ethnic prejudice. If you label it a joke, it can't harm anyone, right? Well, I'm just joking when I label that a stupid and ignorant opinion, okay?

I asked a bunch of non-rhetorical questions in Ethical Code for Native Elders Needed. Feel free to answer them. Tell us exactly how much a Native can mock and insult his own people before you apologists and ass-kissers will criticize him.

For more on the subject, see Saginaw Grant's Dudesons Statement and Valenti:  Movies Are Merely Movies.

Below:  "I'ze just jokin' with ya, massa! Dis here stereotypin' don't hurt nobody!"