Film festivals want Drunktown's Finest

Some tidbits about Drunktown's Finest by writer/director Sydney Freeland:

The Native Film Every Festival Wants

By Alex JacobsWhen last we checked in on Drunktown's Finest, a film about Gallup, New Mexico, starring such young Native talent as Jeremiah Bitsui, Carmen Moore, Morningstar Angeline and Kiowa Gordon, the movie was at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

Things are going well for Drunktown's Finest. Things are also going well for director Sydney Freeland, who's seeing the payoff from a project that took her six years to make. Post-Sundance, she spoke with ICTMN Santa Fe arts expert Alex Jacobs.

A Navajo director and lead actors, with so many Native actors and actresses, a large Native crew, on location in Gallup and the Navajo Rez, where so many Hollywood films were shot. You have to love this project just from the sound of it. Please tell us your version of this story of how the movie project started?

Growing up, I never felt that I saw any of the people or places I knew represented on film. On a really basic level, I wanted tell a story about that.

However, I also wanted to show how diverse the reservation is. That led to the creation of three main characters. They all represent different communities on the rez and we get to see how they all interact and intersect with each other.

As Native people, we all have heard these stories about Gallup, the Navajo Rez, the 4 Corners as boonies and wasteland, the border-town mentality of Indians and non-Indians. So we can imagine our own script playing out, but we would probably fight stereotypes with other stereotypes. What does it take to properly tell a story about all that history, all these generational issues, to an outside world that really doesn’t care … mostly because they think they already know?

One of the most valuable things I got out of the Sundance Labs was the idea that story is paramount. Because of this, I really tried to put my focus on telling a good story and making relatable characters. My thinking is, if I can get people to relate to these characters and their respective struggles then all that other stuff will work itself out.

That was the overall goal, but there were smaller ideas that I tried to play with. For example, it’s always struck me that a lot of films tend to portray Natives as just sitting around doing nothing, almost waiting for Western or Non-native people to show up. One thing I tried to do with this film was to drop the audience into a world that was already “in progress,” and force them to catch up (instead of vice versa). Hopefully, this adds a little bit of dimension to the community and its characters.

The film's original title was Dry Lake--did your decision to change it to Drunktown's Finest cause any controversy?

The title has a lot of personal meaning to me. I was in elementary school when 20/20 did the “Drunktown, USA” expose. But I remember wondering “why is this big film crew coming into town and they’re just filming the drunks? Why don’t they film my dad, or my friends, or my auntie and uncle? They’re all doing good stuff and they’re not drunks.”

What’s next for you as a director?

I have a sci-fi, time-travel film I’m working on. It’s pretty much a 180 from Drunktown and I’m looking forward to jumping back into the writing process. I also have a TV pilot I’m developing with a writing partner, Steven Paul Judd.

Conservative Christians in panic mode

The dying right: Why Christian fundamentalists are in panic mode

The religious right knows that time is running out—and that makes them even more dangerous

By CJ WerlemanLike a cornered animal, which turns instinctively to confront pursuing predators, the Christian Right, knowing it represents the views of an ever shrinking number of Americans, is engaged in an existential fight to the death. Veto or no veto, Arizona’s anti-gay bill is just another of its many efforts to transform America’s secular democracy into a tyrannical theocracy.

The Christian Right’s dirty little secret is they are acutely aware that changing demographics are running against them. While they may believe the earth is a mere few thousand years old, they’re not complete idiots. They can read polls, and the data tells them this: millennials are abandoning religious belief. According to a recent Pew survey, one in four Americans born after 1981 hold no religious belief, which is nearly double the national rate of atheism. Other studies confirm this trend, including a recent study by the Public Religion Research Institute showing more than half of non-religious Millennials have abandoned their childhood faith.

With this in mind, the nation’s radical religious fundamentalists see an ever-shrinking window to impose their Bronze Age worldview on the gay, atheist, liberal, immigrant, heathen, and science book-reading masses. The American Taliban is as deeply troubled by the thoughts of a gay man “sneaking a peak” of a heterosexual man in an NFL locker room as much as they’re freaked out over seeing Cam and Mitchell, the gay couple on “Modern Family,” adopt an Asian child. For the intellectual infants of the American species, progressive culture is nothing more than a 24/7 infomercial for gay sex and abortion. That frightens our unfriendly theocrats because biblical fundamentalists are more concerned with the goings on in the bedrooms of others than they are within the guilt-ridden, sexless confines of their own.

Brian Beutler writes that measures like Arizona’s SB1062 bill have emerged in a number of states out of “a wellspring of conservative panic about the country’s abrupt legal and cultural evolution into a society that’s broadly tolerant of gay people.” He adds, “Rather than deny the shift, or stop at trying to reverse it in legislatures, the courts and at ballot boxes, conservatives are instead attempting to erect a legal architecture that will wall them off from the growing portion of American society that supports equal rights for gay people.”Some examples of the conservative Chrisitan freakout:

The religious right’s 5 most demented persecution fantasies

Anti-Christian oppression takes many forms, apparently: Hipsters. Paperwork. Johnny Weir's wardrobe.

By Amanda MarcotteYou could call it chutzpah, except they’d probably claim that word oppresses them: Conservative Christian film production companies are making not one, but two movies this year called Persecuted, to promote the myth that conservative Christians have reason to fear they are being oppressed by an evil, secularist government. At least one of them is set in the Soviet Union (clearly analogized to the modern United States), but the other is a stretch that puts even the goofiest science fiction to shame, featuring an imaginary American government that requires religious broadcasters to “present all religious points of view when presenting their own point of view.” ( There are over 4,000 religions, easily, in the world, to give you an idea of how little thought went into this script.)

It’s easy to laugh at how ridiculous these fantasies of persecution are, but what other choice do they have? Attempts to create real-life examples of anti-Christian or anti-conservative oppression are, if anything, even more laughable than the lurid attempts to come up with hypotheticals. Indeed, looking over conservative complaints about persecution, either against Christians or just against conservatives, one gets the distinct impression that what oppresses them the most is other people having basic human rights or just doing their own thing without asking conservative permission.For those who still aren't clear on the religious freedom issue, here's an explanation:

A Quick Explanation of “Religious Freedom” for These Conservatives Who Seem Unable to Understand What it Means

By Allen CliftonFreedom of religion, as per our First Amendment, gives a private citizen the right to practice whatever religion they like during their personal time. If someone wants to attend church 7 days a week, read the Bible every single day, pray at every meal and send their kids to a religious school–they’re absolutely free to do so!

However, a business is not allowed the freedom of religion. While an individual might have a friend come over and pay them $5 per hour to do some work around their house, a business is required to adhere to certain labor laws which mandate that they pay workers a minimum of $7.25 per hour.

See, when you decide to open a business, your business doesn’t operate under the same Constitutional protections that an individual has.

As an individual, you can hang a Nazi flag inside your home and never once associate with someone who’s of a different race than you are. But as a business, to discriminate against a customer based on race is illegal.Comment:  For more on conservative Christians, see Conservative Christian Persecution Fantasies and Satanic Statue Shows Christian Hypocrisy.

Keres spoken in Coke commercial

Coca-Cola's controversial Super Bowl ad made good use of a Native language:

Coca-Cola’s ‘America the Beautiful’ Super Bowl Ad Causes StirMoving on to more historic points of fact: English is of course a foreign language to this country. When the first European explorers arrived here there was not just one Native American language—another common misconception—but hundreds spoken.

Many of those languages have survived and one was represented in the Coca-Cola ad. As Darrell Dodi Robertson pointed out when Deadspin posted its story, titled “Dumb People Mad at Multi-Lingual ‘America the Beautiful’ Coca-Cola Ad,” to Facebook, “My wife speaks Navajo. And they weren't even included in the commercial.”

Languages featured in the Coca-Cola ad were English, Spanish, Tagalog, Hebrew, Hindi, Keres, and Senegalese-French.

Keres is a language spoken by the Pueblo people and is also known as Keresan. The language is spoken by nearly 11,000 people in the American Southwest today.Santo Domingo teen appears in debate-stirring Super Bowl ad

By Uriel J. GarciaOn Twitter, the hashtag #SpeakAmerican started trending through Sunday and Monday.

But others defended the commercial, saying it represents the country’s various cultures and diverse languages.

“Unless you’re speaking Sioux, Cherokee, Navajo, or any other Native American language there is no such thing as #SpeakAmerican,” a user with the Twitter handle @MsTriniSpyce wrote.

Bird agreed with supporters of the commercial saying that the U.S. is diverse, and the company was only trying to portray a positive image of the country.

“I was overwhelmed by everyone talking negative so quickly,” she said. “I was disappointed and hurt because America isn’t just English-speaking. There’s a lot of cultures out there.”

Bird, who wants to be an actor, said a former teacher at the Santa Fe Indian School emailed her about Coca-Cola’s casting call in Santa Fe for a Super Bowl ad. After going through two rounds of auditions, she was called late last year to appear in the commercial, which is her first, she said.Coca-Cola--It's Beautiful in KeresMeet Christy and hear her sing "America the Beautiful" in Keres, one of the many languages in Coca-Cola's 2014 Big Game ad. #AmericaIsBeautiful

"Speak American"

It's pretty easy to rip the colonizers' insistence that we "speak American." For instance:

My view on the Coca Cola commercial

By Dana Lone HillSure only one of our over 500 languages made it on the Coca Cola commercial. But this land had hundreds of nations and languages before 1492. In all of the Americas, there were thousands. The landing on immigrants here was the beginning of the American holocaust. Native people of this land were killed for land, for gold, etc. This attempted genocide continued for over half a century and never ended. In the late 1800s, Native children were taken from their homes and put in military like residential schools from the age of 4 to 18. Often taken away from parents in handcuffs and not allowed to communicate with parents. Many times children died while at these schools, they were abused physically, sexually, and mentally. They were beaten until they spoke only English.

See, there were many beautiful languages on this land before English was ever even spoken here. These children who were beaten for speaking their own language were our grandparents and great grandparents. Today, there are many language revitalization programs on reservations, starting with immersion daycare. It is a beautiful thing to see a 4-year-old more fluent than her parents. With hope, hard work, and determination our languages will come back after they tried to beat it out of our ancestors for so many years.

Many times people who think so narrow minded, that English should be the only language here, often forget this is not “Their America,” instead it is the land that we belong to. So when I see so many people angry over the fact that there are other languages in this country, I smile. When I see people rant over the fact that their city has 5 versions of one phone book, I know how they feel. See, these people forgot that they are not original to this land, we are. And I know how they feel, because the same anger they have for there being so many languages in America is the same anger I have for our languages almost dying off. And I am tempted to tell them the three words every Native American hates to hear:

“Get over it.”When you move to a new land, you learn the language, said the settlers who obliterated every culture and language they came in contact with. Thanks for the tip, hypocrites.




Yep, it's pretty damn stupid to insist on speaking "American" when there's no such language. When the only languages that can claim to be authentically American are Navajo, Lakota, Cherokee, and other Native tongues.

America the gay

Finally, it's ironic that conservative racists focused on the languages. The video featured what looked like two gay men with their children. They got more airtime than anyone else. If anything in the ad was a statement, that was.

It's especially ironic considering who wrote America the Beautiful:



Smart woman! Ninety years ago, she anticipated the GOP's decline and fall. She guessed the party would fail because of its bigotry and intolerance, and that's what's happening now.

Conservatives want to legalize discrimination

The GOP’s Birth-Control Trojan Horse

The right wants to use religion as an excuse to legally discriminate against gays and unmarried women—and, ultimately, anyone who doesn’t share their Christian faith.

By Amanda MarcotteWhile stoking right-wing resentment over other people’s sex lives is a great way to sell the attacks on Obamacare to the masses, the real question is about whether employers have a right to discriminate if they claim to have religious reasons for doing so. Should employers be able to take away earned benefits from employees because they disapprove of the employee’s private decisions? Or does an employee’s right to religious liberty mean a boss can’t use compensation packages to try to force compliance with religious dictates?

The answer to the question is about way more than contraception. Indeed, there’s strong reason to believe that the battle over the contraception mandate is just part of a nascent conservative legal strategy to give business owners broad rights to discriminate against people—both customers and employees—on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender. The right’s hope is to create a legal structure where business owners can cite religious objections to weasel out of a variety of legal obligations, from the obligation to pay employees what the law says they’re due to the obligation to treat all customers fairly. The attempt to sidestep a federal law stipulating that female employees get basic insurance benefits, including contraception, in exchange for the work they do is just part of this larger movement.

In fact, attacks on the right of gay customers to be served without being subject to abuse or discrimination is just as big a fight as the one against the contraception mandate. In many states, the battle over gay marriage is morphing into a battle over what conservatives say is a “right” to discriminate based on sexual orientation, so long as you claim Jesus is your reason for doing so. Across the country, right-wing Christian business owners are testing anti-discrimination laws by claiming that they have religious objections to doing things like baking wedding cakes or performing wedding photography for gay couples getting married.

So far, the pro-discrimination forces have been losing out as judges find that laws barring businesses from discrimination are not suspended just because of religious reasons. However, if the Supreme Court eventually finds that businesses such as Hobby Lobby can discriminate against their employees by refusing to offer federally-mandated health benefits because they disapprove of non-procreative sex, that could dramatically change the legal landscape. After all, it’s going to be hard to say that a business can’t refuse customers on the basis of disapproval of their sexual choices when the same business is allowed to deprive an employee of part of her earned compensation package because they disapprove of her private sexual choices.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Excerpts from Dog Whistle Politics and Satanic Statue Shows Conservative Hypocrisy.

Robertson says what conservatives believe

Now He Wants 15-Year-Old Child Brides? How Phil Robertson Embodies What's Wrong with the Christian Right

We already knew he was racist and homophobic. Now it emerges that he thinks girls should marry at 15 or 16.

By Ana Marie CoxRoberts' initial interview resonated so deeply with conservatives because it fit with the narrative they mutter to themselves daily: "Things used to be better, and once we're all dead you'll see we were right all along." Gay sinners in the closet, darkies picking and grinning on the porch, America the way God (their very particular and peculiar God) meant it to be.

For the Right to reject Robertson now would mean acknowledging that his advocacy of cradle-robbing is of a piece with his comments about the blissful black workers of his youth and his anus-centered eschatology. The thing about marrying off women before they got old enough to know better? It used to be that way, as well. And it was justified with the same paternalistic logic and ruthless rejection of anything that dared to threaten the position of those in power.

For the professional Right–candidates, pundits and the like–this Duck Dynasty flap is a reminder of a different disturbing truth: the gap between what you want voters to believe you stand for and what it's OK to say out loud. There's a reason they call it a dog whistle and not a duck call.GOP’s “Duck Dynasty” problem: Why Phil Robertson was a hugely important political story

Phil Robertson explains more about our country's political culture than almost anything else that happened in 2013

By Brian BeutlerRobertson’s comments don’t fly in most of America. If Robertson were, say, running for Senate in Missouri as a Republican, the GOP would have disowned him immediately. But Robertson isn’t a politician. He’s not a mouthpiece for a political party that needs to maintain a national brand identity. Rather, his remarks reflect the views of an American cultural subset the GOP depends on for its survival. His suspension made him a tribune of modern conservatism. Thus, conservative Republicans (not just opportunists like Sarah Palin, but party standard-bearers) felt impelled to rally to his side without actually echoing anything Robertson said.

“If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. “Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job. In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him—but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.”

“The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with,” said Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La. “I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views.”

Republicans are getting extremely good at defending the right’s cultural revanchism on fictitious Constitutional grounds rather than on the merits. In addition to Robertson, they also support private companies fighting a government requirement that employee healthcare compensation include contraceptive coverage—not because they have a problem with birth control mind you but because something something religious freedom.

But of course by focusing so narrowly on birth control, these Republicans prove too much. If certain religious objectors should be exempt from the contraception mandate then other religious objectors should be allowed to ignore other laws that supposedly conflict with their beliefs. And that obviously would invite chaos.

The fact is a ton of conservatives—and a lot of Republican politicians—don’t like birth control, and certainly don’t want to subsidize other people’s contraception. But saying so and explaining why are not good public communications strategies—as Rush Limbaugh learned in 2012. So they disguise their real views beneath flimsy Constitutional arguments.

Phil Robertson’s Republican defenders are doing the same thing, on much weaker logical ground, to champion wildly more impolitic views: that homosexuality is an evil sin, and that things in the South were great for black people before social welfare programs came along. You won’t hear a lot of Republicans saying these things so plainly. But a lot of Republicans believe them. Republicans want to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage across the country. And of all the social spending programs in the country they’re itching to cut or dismantle, the ones that disproportionately benefit poor minorities top the list. It’s no coincidence that Republicans are much more timid and cagey when it comes to slashing programs like Medicare and Social Security that benefit people who look like Phil Robertson but didn’t happen to strike it rich.

The GOP’s key dilemma right now is that it has to be a party for people like Robertson without letting people like Robertson speak for them. Which is why the party retrogressed to its old agenda so quickly after the 2012 election, and why it can’t eliminate its Todd Akin problem simply by putting Republicans through finishing school.How the right profits from the culture wars

Homophobia like Phil Robertson's spurs donations and sells t-shirts--but ultimately, we all lose

By Nico LangThroughout the scandal, conservatives have insisted that the real issue here is free speech. We should be supporting Robertson’s right to be a homophobe in the name of patriotism, but this only seems to work so long as he’s saying things that support a far-right agenda. When Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines spoke out against Bush in 2003, that rallying cry was nonexistent. If I’d visited the same rest stop a decade earlier, I would have found shirts that read: “I’m Ashamed the Dixie Chicks Are From America.” A popular seller, the shirts were used as a galvanizing force against the band, while their music was pulled from the airwaves.

Of course, it’s never been about free speech. It’s about the culture war, stupid. Scandals like America’s “Duck Dynasty” moment are about nothing more than our ability to exploit current events to further a culture of division and partisanship, igniting our old hatreds for short-term gain. Phil Robertson’s comments might seem like a liability for “Duck Dynasty” as the wave of opposition mounts, but the conservative voices of support have been just as influential as the critics. For Fox News or Republican figureheads like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal—both Team Duck Dynasty—men like Robertson are the core audience, down-home guys who grew up on religion, beer, guns and Reagan. Palin needs to appeal to the “Duck Dynasty” voter for her ongoing career in media pageantry, and Jindal is likely looking at a presidential run in 2016. He needs supporters—and donations.

The problem is that Phil Robertson is the product of a system that teaches us we are different in order to exploit us. Growing up, I spent my summers in Petersburg, Ky., where my father lived with his second wife, and I knew a thousand guys like Robertson. These were the kind of guys who were raised on Reagan, PBR and Remington assault rifles, who learned to be afraid of people like me in church. I grew up as a Southern Baptist, where gays weren’t just sinners—they were a donation strategy. The week newly elected San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom illegally allowed the city’s same-sex couples to be married, our pastor spewed a long sermon on the hellfire that was raining down on California. He ended the tirade with a reminder that this was why we needed to give to the church, asking for extra tips to the collection basket. Like an evangelical Don Corleone, our pastor was offering protection from the outside world—all for a low, low price.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Dixie Chicks Show Conservative Hypocrisy and Phil Robertson "Wrong with Honor"?!

Native aspects of Duck Dynasty controversy

There are a couple of reasons for addressing the Duck Dynasty controversy in a Native-oriented blog. Educator Debbie Reese points to one in her American Indians in Children's Literature blog:

Phil Robertson: "The Almighty gave us this." Debbie Reese: "No. He didn't."In the many excellent critiques of Phil Robertson's comments about gays and African Americans, I haven't seen anything that pushes back on his "The Almighty gave us this [northern Louisiana backwoods]."

I read that line in the GQ article and, of course, thought "No. He didn't."

That land belonged to Native people.

Does Robertson (like those early Europeans who believed their god had a hand in disease that devastated Native peoples, rendering them and their homelands vulnerable to Europeans who wanted that land) think his Almighty rid the land of the Indigenous peoples of Louisiana so Robertson and his family could have it?Also, there's a more general reason to discuss the issue:



I'd say these issues are fundamentally related. Dehumanizing Muslims = dehumanizing Indians = dehumanizing gays. It's all about maintaining white, male, Christian power.

Challenging one act of oppression--I mean Robertson's hate speech, not the response to it--means challenging all acts of oppression. The conservative white power structure is equally discomfited when gays marry, Indians oppose fracking and pipelines, and liberals oppose defense boondoggles (aka wars against Muslims).

As with most of the cultural issues I flog, I'm not saying Robertson's opinion matters. I'm saying it's an example of a deep-seated cultural mindset that pervades this country. That mindset matters, even if specific instances of it don't.

In other words, Duck Dynasty has given us another chance to debate the shape and direction of the country. Will it remain white/male/Christian/heterosexual, or can we share the power with others? And that debate affects pretty much everything: from violence against women to poverty on the rez.

For more on the subject, see Phil Robertson "Wrong with Honor"?! and Duck Dynasty Star is a Bigot.

Dixie Chicks show conservative hypocrisy

Another Facebook exchange with "Tom" on the free-speech aspects of the Duck Dynasty controversy:

So the GOP wants to get into "free speech" in defense of a ZZ Top lookalike? They will climb down into the muck in defense of a homophobic bigot's right to his religious point of view and his right to shout it from the rooftops. Never mind that Martin Bashir was not allowed his "freedom of speech." Never mind that freedom of speech is only supported if they LIKE what is being said. Just ask the Dixie Chicks about "freedom of speech." Hypocrites. Absolutist hypocrites. I have never gotten over what happened to the Dixie Chicks because I absolutely love their music and I despise what was done to them.Do you agree, Thomas? Are the Dixie Chicks and Dynasty Duck cases exactly equivalent? Because both groups lost business opportunities because of what they said? And so conservatives are freakin' hypocrites for denouncing free speech in the first case and "defending" it in the second?

Again, on a scale 1-10, how goddamned hypocritical are your fellow conservatives? As with the Raul Castro handshake, a perfect 10?And which network or recording company fired the Dixie Chicks?I said loss of business opportunities. Canceled or curtailed tours, less radio air play, and the loss of at least one sponsor is the same as having your TV show taken off the air. Companies are "censoring" your free speech, according to the asinine conservative position that's completely false and hypocritical.

You're not seriously defending Robertson's right to be free of criticism for uttering his racist and homophobic remarks, are you? Even you aren't that dumb. (See Phil Robertson "Wrong with Honor"?! for more on that subject?)

Conservatives are hypocrites



Here are the economic sanctions you stupidly forgot or ignored, Tom:

“Free speech” hypocrites: Dixie Chicks, “Duck Dynasty” and America’s pointless shell arguments

Just admit it: Your view on items like free speech or the filibuster depends on whatever policy position's at stake

By Matthew BruenigWhen media reports about the concert got back to the United States, all hell broke loose. Their record sales plummeted, they fell down the Billboard charts and a full scale boycott swept through their largely right-wing country music fan base. Country radio stations across the U.S. pulled them from circulation, with radio network giant Cumulus banning the Dixie Chicks from its more than 250 local stations. Former fans gathered to burn previously-purchased CDs and even, in one media spectacle, crush them with a giant farm tractor.

Unsurprisingly, conservatives welcomed this effort to economically discipline political speech. President Bush himself said of the debacle: “The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say … they shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out. … Freedom is a two-way street. ” For Bush and other conservative cheerleaders of the war, you can speak your mind all you want, but you should be subject to private economic disciplining if you say something unpopular. That’s just the dialectic of freedom working itself out.

This is all well and good except conservatives don’t actually believe this. Their support for economically coercing the speech of popular entertainers is curiously contingent upon the content of the speech in question.

Take the firestorm surrounding the comments “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson made to GQ this week. Among other things, Robertson explained that blacks in the Jim Crow south were contented with American apartheid and that homosexuality is both sinful and utterly disgusting. The cable network that runs his hit television show responded to these comments by putting him on hiatus. So we have here a perfect analogue to the Dixie Chicks spectacle: a popular entertainer said something offensive and outrageous to many, and an economic actor punished him for doing so.

Strangely enough, conservatives found the economic disciplining of Phil Robertson to be a kind of unjust censorship that is antithetical to the spirit of free speech. Bobby Jindal said the TV network’s disciplining ran counter to the free speech protections of the first amendment to the constitution. Sarah Palin also expressed dismay at the threat this poses to free speech, and called opponents of Phil Robertson intolerant haters. Herman Cain described the suspension as “crap” that is “out of control.” And on and on it goes.

It is not mysterious why conservatives think the Phil Robertson disciplining is rights-infringing but think the Dixie Chicks disciplining was not. They support what Phil Robertson had to say, but oppose what the Dixie Chicks had to say. Despite their pretensions to the contrary, conservatives, and most people in general for that matter, do not care about content-neutral procedural fairness. They care about winning their stuff and beating the other’s side stuff.
Another comparison is how people responded to Martin Bashir's outburst against Sarah Palin vs. Phil Robertson's outburst against gays. Again, the conservative response was hypocritical.



In short, Tom, you lose. If there was any doubt, this controversy proves that conservatives are hypocrites.

For more on the subject, see Phil Robertson "Wrong with Honor"?! and Duck Dynasty Star is a Bigot.

Phil Robertson "wrong with honor"?!

This article:

Mike Huckabee: Phil Robertson holds same position on same-sex marriage as Obama

sparked a debate with "Tom" on Facebook. It begin with my take on Huckabee's claim:

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, Huckster. Obama didn't imply gays were sinners, unnatural, violating God's will, etc.

I wouldn't swear to it, but I doubt anyone has been fired for saying, "I support full and equal rights for gays, but I'm not comfortable with same-sex marriage." Which is about what Obama said and not close to what Robertson said.

Liberals = panderers?Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 to maximize his vote among younger evangelicals. It was a position of pure convenience.Maybe, but 1) Obama wasn't against gays, and 2) liberals criticized him for his wishy-washy stance. There's no point of comparison between 2008 Obama and Robertson except the most basic one: against gay marriage.

I've criticized Obama hundreds of times for pandering to conservatives. Do you have a point here? I mean, other than "Rob isn't a hypocrite but conservatives are"?Conservatives who oppose gay marriage do so on principle. Liberals who oppose it do so for votes.If the "principle" is homophobia, okay.

That's not a joke or an exaggeration, it's a fact. The Prop. 8 case proved it.

Opponents of gay marriage literally had no persuasive argument against legalization. All their arguments amounted to "We don't like gays because of the Bible," or homophobia.

Your statement may have been somewhat true in 2008. Now it's 2013 and liberals, including Obama, are mostly for gay marriage. Because the liberal principle of equality under the law easily outweighs the conservative "principle" of homophobia.

And as I said, we liberals pointed out Obama's failure to understand which principle was the greatest. Unfortunately for you, dumbass conservatives like Robertson still haven't learned the lesson. And partisan shills like you aren't willing to call him on it.

Hating gays = bravery?I have supported making same-sex marriages legally enforceable for going on 20 years now. I respectfully disagree with other rightists who do not. I am a divorce lawyer. The LGBT community has nothing on my profession when it comes to destroying traditional marriage. Phil Robertson and, for that matter, Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathey probably think I am the devil. So what? Neither man had anything to gain by coming out against same sex marriage but they did so anyhow. They're wrong but they're wrong with honor."Respectfully" means not calling liars "liars" and hypocrites "hypocrites." In other words, giving them a free pass. In other words, providing cover for their bigotry by "disagreeing" in the meekest and mildest terms. Which you do only when *I* post something about gay marriage.

Robertson had plenty to gain in his own mind. Like other bubble-dwellers who listen to Fox News, he thought he was reaching out to the great silent majority of "real Americans." He thought he'd get a parade down Main Street for speaking truth to (liberal) power.

Instead, he learned he's in a dwindling minority of intolerant ignoramuses. So I don't give him credit for being delusional about reality. He thought he'd be a hero and instead he's a goat.

And "wrong with honor" is a pathetic joke. Robertson called homosexuals "evil" and "God-haters." He advocated statutory rape (i.e., marriage for 15-year-old girls). Where's the "honor" in hateful claims, not to mention immoral behavior? Why aren't you denouncing him as wrong, period?

"Honor" in debate means using only arguments based on solid facts and evidence. Such as the fact that there's no reason sex or relationships have to be limited to opposite-sex pairs. If you don't understand this, you're not honorable, you're a stupid idiot who has no business opening his mouth.

Pretending heterosexuality is "logical" when it isn't isn't "honorable," it's a blatant lie. Uttering lies is execrable. And calling a liar "honorable" is basically defending him. Which is what you've done throughout this debate.

Straights love "gay sex"

Let's note that you and Robertson are confusing the issues. Robertson rejected gays and "gay sex" more than gay marriage. Obama did more or less the opposite. He (initially) rejected gay marriage while not condemning gays or "gay sex."

Let's also note that there's no necessary connection between gays, "gay sex," and gay marriage. You can be gay without having "gay sex." You can have a gay marriage without "gay sex." You can have "gay sex" (aka anal sex) without being gay. You can have it without being in a gay marriage.

Would any homophobes allow gay marriage if the partners declined to have sex? Would they ban anal sex among married or unmarried heterosexuals? No? Then conservatives are the rankest kind of hypocrites.

So to claim that Obama and Robertson said the same thing is completely false. Not only that, it demonstrates a remarkable level of stupidity confusion about the differences between gays, "gay sex," and gay marriage. They're three related but different subjects, morons.

For more on LGBT issues, see Duck Dynasty Star Is a Bigot and Two-Spirits Celebrate DOMA Ruling.

Duck Dynasty star is a bigot

I tried to avoid the Duck Dynasty as long as possible. But Phil Robertson made it impossible with his asinine utterances.

‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Suspended Over Remarks About Gay People “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson has been suspended from filming the A&E reality series following his remarks about gay people where he called homosexuality illogical in a recent interview with GQ magazine.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina–as a man–would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me,” Robertson stated. “I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”Homosexuality is illogical? Almost every aspect of nature (natural disasters, mass extinctions, etc.) is illogical. So what's your point...that everything God created is horribly flawed?

Humans do tons of things that aren't "logical." Getting tattoos...smoking...skydiving...gambling...praying...hating people because of their skin color...etc. And these are choices, unlike homosexuality. So you're saying you oppose homosexuality, but not an infinity of other human activities, because it's illogical? And you think that position is logical?!

The excrement really hit the fan when people began noting Robertson's racism:



Well, thanks for clearing that up. Out in the fields, with no businesses, schools, or voting booths around, Robertson didn't see any mistreatment. The crows and the flies treated everyone equally.

In related news, Megyn Kelly insisted that members of Duck Dynasty have been and always will be white.

Analyses

Many people ripped Robertson for his homophobic and racist views. Here are a couple of them:

What The ‘Duck Dynasty’ Scandal Tells Us About Race, Homophobia, And The Media

By Alyssa Rosenberg“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” he said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans—and Americans—who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”Evangelical church’s ugly truth: “Duck Dynasty” and Christian racists

Many people of faith have rushed to denounce Phil Robertson's homophobia—but his racism is a different story

By Brittney CooperLiberal-minded folk, some Christians included, have been outraged at his homophobia, while conservative Christians of all races jumped to defend his right to free speech. Many of these Christians feel particularly threatened by what they call “censorship” of Robertson, because the belief that homosexuality is a sin, and the right to declare that belief freely without recourse, has become for many of these people a defining marker of their identity as Christians.

A reluctant evangelical, I reject conservative theological teachings on homosexuality; the violence that the Church does to gay people in the name of God is indeed one of the primary reasons for my reluctance. But I am also ambivalent about the Church because of its continued subjugation of women and its failure to be forthright about its continuing racism problem.

Conservatives love racists and homophobes

Did conservatives speak out against Robertson's repugnant views? If you've lived in America since the Reagan years, you know they did not.

Conservatives rally around suspended ‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson“Phil Robertson is a new American hero,” said broadcaster Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association, in a series of Twitter posts. “He said exactly what the great majority of Americans believe. Phil Robertson is right. It’s a simple matter of plumbing. Easy to figure out what is supposed to go where. And where not.”

Sarah Palin, a reality show star herself, also weighed in.

“Free speech is endangered species; those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ & taking on Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing personal opinion take on us all,” Palin tweeted.Yeah, he's the greatest hero since Paula Deen and George Zimmerman. Or so many conservatives would claim.

With Phil Robertson, Paula Deen, Ted Nugent, Joe the Plumber, and George Zimmerman, Republicans don't need governors or senators. They've got a whole lineup of potential presidential candidates.

You want someone from outside the Beltway? These clowns are barely members of society.

Like mother, like daughter:

Bristol Palin explains how you should feel about freedom of speech about having not-vagina sex

By TBoggTo sum up: freedom can sometimes be uncomfortable (see, The Book of Kelly: ““Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change.”) but, when someone says things that make you feel uncomfortable, you should shut the hell up and not criticize their words with your own words because that is what freedom of speech is all about….

Finally, this piece of garbage:

Camille Paglia: Duck Dynasty suspension 'utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist'On Thursday, we said that A&E's actions against Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson shows that liberalism is an ideology of intolerance and tyrannical oppression. Those sentiments were echoed Thursday by dissident feminist Camille Paglia, who told radio talk show host Laura Ingraham the move is "utterly fascist" and "utterly Stalinist," the Daily Caller reported.Facebook friend Brad responded:What a joke. First of all, examiner.com is just people's blogs--no journalistic training or even writing skill required. Just sign up and get paid by the click. Second, Stalin was a fascist? Someone needs to retake high school world history! And third, there couldn't be anything MORE capitalist about this guy's suspension. It's a major corporation firing someone to protect their brand image and profits. What's not for conservatives to love about that?Right. If a corporation fired someone for any other "free speech" activity--organizing a union, revealing a scandal, claiming sexual harassment, etc.--conservatives absolutely would say "It's the corporation's right" and "That's how capitalism works."

Same for A&E, morons. So conservatives are stupid and obvious hypocrites.

First time a conservative defends any of the speech examples I gave, please lemme know. It hasn't happened yet.

As for Paglia, I don't think it matters that Examiner.com published this. What matters is that Paglia is a "dissident feminist" turned right-wing loon. I'm not sure she has any credibility anymore, and who cares what one person thinks?

When she says:I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenilityshe apparently means the tolerance of racist or homophobic rants. Damn straight we aren't going to tolerate them anymore. We also aren't going to tolerate the defenders of racism and bigotry and their asinine misreading of the US Constitution.

If you don't like how America works, dumbasses, you can get the hell out of the country. Move to Saudi Arabia, Duck Dynasty and other friends of bigotry, where you can stone gays, women, and other "sinners" to your heart's content.



The right to be bigoted?

2013: The year in whiteness

From Phil Robertson to Megyn Kelly, peddling white grievance became a bigger, crazier, more lucrative racket

By Joan WalshThe next week, “Duck Dynasty’s” Phil Robertson also became a martyr for the white right, after A&E briefly suspended him for holding forth on the nastiness of gay sex while insisting African Americans were happy in the Jim Crow South.

The new hysteria and hypocrisy was crystallized by one surreal fact: While paranoid white righties were fighting for their allegedly endangered right to celebrate Christmas (with their white Santa), they could watch a “Duck Dynasty” Christmas marathon on A&E, underscoring that there’s neither a war on Christmas nor on bigoted pseudo-Christians like Robertson. But there’s a lot of cash to be made, and fear to be stoked, by claiming both.

Kelly and Robertson and kindred spirits like Sarah Palin charted a bold new civil rights frontier in 2013: fighting for the right of white people to say false, stupid and bigoted things without facing criticism, let alone paying any real penalty. Palin has long made herself out to be a victim of mean liberals, but this year her anger-mongering took on a more explicitly racial tinge. She bashed Jeb Bush for casting aspersions on the fertility of white people—Bush did make an admittedly stupid remark about immigrants being “more fertile,” but if you thought that would get him in trouble with immigrant groups, not whites, you thought wrong—and later in the year declared her inviolable right to equate the federal deficit she wrongly blames on our first black president with “slavery.” She closed the year announcing she stands with Phil Robertson, even though she had to confess to Fox’s Greta Van Susteren that she hadn’t read the GQ interview that got him in minor temporary trouble.Conservatives are trying to paint the criticism as an attack on traditional Christian values. They're cloaking it in such weasel words as Paglia's "full spectrum of human beliefs."

Not a single person would have protested if Robertson had talked about God, angels, Satan, hell, Genesis (creationism), the Flood, the Ten Commandments, the Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, the Rapture, or any other Christian doctrine. We're objecting to his bigotry, not to the Bible.

Proving the point, we would've protested exactly the same way if he had based his homophobia on science--which he actually tried to do. If he hadn't mentioned the Bible at all.

Again, his bigotry is the issue, not the religion or the science from whence he got his bigoted beliefs. We've denounced many homophobes who did not invoke the Bible and we'll continue to do so.

More conservative bigotry

Robertson quickly proved that his racist and homophobic were not misquoted or taken out of context. In fact, the context is clear. He's a typical fundamentalist fanatic who thinks gays are evil and women are property.

Phil Robertson demonized LGBT people in 2010 sermon: ‘They invent ways of doing evil’[T]he recently publicized sermon, which was delivered almost two years before “Duck Dynasty” first aired, adds even more context to Robertson’s comments and his beliefs about same-sex relationships.

“Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions,” Robertson said. “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. That’s what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country.”He keeps getting misunderstood! In his heart, he loves the gays and the blacks!

Duck Dynasty star: Girls should carry a Bible, cook and marry ‘when they are 15′At a Sportsmen’s Ministry talk in 2009, Robertson had some advice for a young man.

“Make sure that she can cook a meal, you need to eat some meals that she cooks, check that out,” he said. “Make sure she carries her Bible. That’ll save you a lot of trouble down the road. And if she picks your ducks, now, that’s a woman.”

“They got to where they’re getting hard to find,” Robertson remarked. “Mainly because these boys are waiting until they get to be about 20 years old before they marry ‘em. Look, you wait until they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that’s going to take place is your pocket.”

The Duck Commander company founder added: “You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16, they’ll pick your ducks. You need to check with mom and dad about that of course.”Oddly, Biblical literalists like Robertson have nothing to say about the real Sodomites:



I wonder why not?

For more on LGBT issues, see Rick Perry Bashes Gays and All Bigotries Are Similar.

Stereotypical "Indian" in rodeo skit

Unbelievable Public Act of Racism in Rapid City, SD in 2013

By Chase Iron EyesThis can’t be real. Well--we are talking about a rodeo, in the Northern Plains where social evolution is seemingly 30 years behind. On Thursday, August 22nd, 2013, at the Central State’s Fair Rodeo, White people dressed as rodeo clowns, cops and an Indian performed a skit in front of a largely White audience in an attempt at slapstick spoof comedy. I am not unaccustomed to the jackassery of a rodeo clown performance, but this one showcased the level of intelligence (or lack thereof) and ignorance of those who authorized the performance.

To give you an idea of the skit: a rodeo clown enters the arena in an old car making off-hand funny remarks about the rodeo event, soon a cop appears and it is made known that they are in “hot pursuit” of a “lost prisoner” and “the prisoner is now disguised as an Indian” and that they haven’t seen anyone “dressed as an Indian” [around the 2 minute mark]; the clown and the cop mimicking searching gestures, accidentally ignite the car in an explosion at which point a caricatured Indian explodes out of the trunk of the car and the hunt for the Indian is on [at 6:20 of video]. Then the announcer exclaims “LOOK! IT’S THE INDIAN; GET HIM!; GET HIM!” and it doesn’t end there, as everyone breaks into a pop performance of Village People’s YMCA.Comment:  The so-called Indian is wearing a brown costume, presumably imitating buckskins, and what looks like a toy chief's headdress.

The announcer makes jokes about Brokeback Mountain and Obama, so the performers are aware of racial and sexual orientation issues. In that context, the "Indian" is far from an innocent or thoughtless choice. With a faux Indian as a prisoner, a savage, and a gay performer, they're clearly not taking Indians seriously. Thought the humor is mild if not nonexistent, it's still at the expense of Indians.

Rodeo clowns have been in the news recently because one performed in an Obama mask. Unless that clown ate fried chicken or a watermelon, I wouldn't call his performance racist. I support the right of all Americans to mock their president.

But I would call this skit racist. We're supposed to laugh when a non-Indian dresses as a caricature of an Indian from two centuries ago. How is that anything but a racist stereotype?

For more on the Village People, see Debating Despicable Me 2 and What's Wrong with the Village People? For more on Native stereotypes, see Native Religion = "Spiritual Darkness"? and Aide Calls Indians "Arrow Throwers."

Two-spirits celebrate DOMA ruling

Two-Spirit Community Applauds DOMA Strikedown and Dismissal of Prop 8The National Confederacy of Two-Spirit Organizations applauds and celebrates the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by a vote of 5-4 and the court’s dismissal the Proposition 8, making it possible for same-sex marriages again in California.

"It's a good day to celebrate the decision to overturn DOMA and the dismissal of Prop 8," said Sharon Day of Minneapolis’ Indigenous People’s Task Force. "Perhaps now more of our tribal governments will pass marriage equality laws, after all respect was a value shared by all tribes/Nations observed along with equality between all people including our Two-Spirit people."

"The Supreme Court's decision," said Harlan Pruden, a leader of the NorthEast Two-Spirit Society, "is an equalizer for today’s Two-Spirit married same-sex couples as it was before the colonizers came to this land. It has now come full circle, and once again our relationships are celebrated and supported as they should have been all along."

Reactions to the ruling

Some of the best and worst reactions to this ruling, from me and others:

DOMA, DOMA, DOMA! So we all have to marry gays now?!

Gays marrying gays! Cats marrying dogs! Where will it end?!

Scalia Rages Against Supreme Court’s Gay Rights Ruling

Also, "Overturning laws is okay when I do it, but not when you do it." And, "Gay sex is icky."

Scalia is hypocritical on judicial activism but consistent on "original intent": Only whites should vote and only straights should marry.

Rush is unhappy with the Supreme Court

Limbaugh is mad because he favors traditional marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce, marriage, and divorce.

Antonin Scalia’s self-pitying, angry nostalgia

Scalia's rant is the gay-marriage version of the “calling something racist is worse than racism” argument currently so popular among aggrieved white conservatives.



Get a room, Liberty and Justice!









For more on gay marriage, see Odawa Gay Couple Invited to White House and Wes Studi Supports Gay Marriage

Odawa gay couple invited to White House

Michigan's first gay couple, married by Odawa tribe, invited to White House

By Brandon HubbardIt was a sprint down the aisle for Boyne City's Gene Barfield and Tim LaCroix to become the first same-sex couple to wed when the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians amended their definition of marriage.

Now, it will be a dash Thursday to the White House.

An invitation from the president of the United States arrived last week asking the newlyweds to attend a Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month reception at the White House.And:"The invitation states that the reception is to mark 'LGBT Pride Month,'" Barfield said. "It's from the president of the United States. This is the same United States that spent a small fortune trying to do its best to throw me out of the Navy in 1981 because I'm gay. The same United States in which I stopped counting after the 400th person I knew died from AIDS while nearly everyone but the gay community and our friends stood by and did nothing, or worse. The same United States where George W. Bush bragged about how much of our money he was spending to fight AIDS--in Africa--while cutting funding for AIDS programs here at home. The same United States where too many people still believe that Tim and I getting married is a bad joke."

Both men rushed to the altar in March to be married after more than 30 years together wanting to marry. Because Michigan voters amended the state constitution in 2008 to define marriage as between one man and one woman, it would not have happened until the Odawa Tribal Council and tribal chairman passed an amendment to redefine marriage, following more than a year debating the revision, which made it the first tribe in Michigan to allow such unions and only the third in the nation.Comment:  Again, the Odawa were only the third tribe to legalize gay marriage, not the first. Rest assured that I'm not going to post about every gay marriage among Indians. But this story is significant because of the White House invitation. It shows how mainstream gay marriage is becoming.

For more on gay marriage, see Wes Studi Supports Gay Marriage and Fictional Characters Make Acceptance Easier.

Below:  "Tim LaCroix, left, and Gene Barfield marry in a traditional Odawa wedding ceremony March 15 at the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Tribal Government Center in Little Traverse Township." (Brandon Hubbard/News-Review)

First gay Native Evangelical Lutheran bishop

Evangelical Lutherans Elect First Openly Gay, Native American Bishop

By Bridgette P. LaVictoireReverend Doctor R. Guy Erwin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church might want to call up Anglican Bishop Gene Robinson as the two have some stuff they can talk about. Both are openly gay, and both the first openly gay bishops for their respective religions. Though, Erwin does trump Robinson on one front when it comes to firsts--he is also the first Native American ELCA bishop.

Bishop Erwin was elected this Friday as the bishop for the Southwest California Synod. He will serve a six-year term in the position that he will take up officially on 21 September. He has been serving the ELCA for twenty years at various churches but only became an ordained pastor two years ago after the ELCA adopted an inclusive policy towards the ordination of ministers in committed same-sex relationships.

He is currently the interim pastor at Faith Lutheran Church in Canoga Park and professor of religion and history at California Lutheran University. He was born in Oklahoma as part of the Osage Tribe.

Amalia Vagts, the executive director of Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries, stated “This is a great day for the Southwest California Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.” She also said that Erwin is “a wonderful leader from the LGBTQ and Native American communities.”Comment:  For more on Native bishops, see Potawatomi Archbishop in Philadelphia.

Wes Studi supports gay marriage

3 Questions With: Wes Studi

By Enrique LimonThis Saturday, Santa Fe Performing Arts presents the American Foundation for Equal Rights and Broadway Impact’s 8, a new stage play by Academy Award-winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black. Chronicling the federal trial for California’s proposition 8, the reading features the talent of Joyce DeWitt, Ali MacGraw and Wes Studi of Dances with Wolves and Avatar fame.

Why is this play important to you?
I think it’s time that we reassess the institution of marriage and also consider the idea of equality here in the good ol’ USA and extend equal rights to all those who are in pursuit of them.

Does its theme strike a personal chord?
I really do believe that equality is something that we as citizens of the US strive for—should strive for—and I also think it’s something that’s at the heart of what makes up our Constitution. It’s about time that some of us think of a marital union as something other than just the procreation of children.Comment:  Three tribes have now legalized gay marriage. More are sure to follow.

For more on gay marriage, see Fictional Characters Make Acceptance Easier and Suquamish Tribe Legalizes Gay Marriage.

DeLaune: Politicians ignore Native concerns

After criticizing Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for her alleged grandstanding, a columnist notes her indifference to Native issues:

Elizabeth Warren, Heidi Heitkamp, Markwayne Mullin and Us

By Cole R. DeLauneNow, even more disturbing anecdotes have emerged regarding the antagonism Warren and her staff continues to display toward Natives. According to Lisa Begay, an Arizona activist and member of the grassroots organization Reservation Rats, “Last week, six Narragansetts who helped her during the election went back and forth between Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and DC trying to meet the Senator. She did not even give them the time of day. Her staff didn't bother to reply to their emails either.”

Sadly, such disregard is symptomatic of the prevalent attitude among DC's elite when it comes to indigenous peoples. Heidi Heitkamp declared her desire to be a "voice" for "Indian Country" when she needed every vote she could muster in a hotly contested race against Rick Berg. And although her margin of victory in that election is conventionally attributed to the backing she amassed among the nations of North Dakota, the freshman Senator has largely ignored their objections to the construction of the Keystone pipeline. In recent weeks, she joined 16 other Democrats in a symbolic filibuster-proof affirmation of the TransCanada project authored by John Hoeven.

Perhaps most irresponsibly, Congressman Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma's 2nd District prioritized his antipathy toward gays, lesbians, and other sexual minorities above his support for VAWA. As a member of the CNO, the Westville rancher co-authored a resolution with Chickasaw citizen Tom Cole to strengthen language in the legislation pertaining to questions of tribal jurisdiction, but was ultimately willing to jettison what progress was accomplished for indigenous women because of "details" concerning LGBT concessions in other articles of the bill. Talk about tunnel vision.Comment:  Like Elizabeth Warren, Heidi Heitkamp is a Democrat. Markwayne Mullin is a Republican.

For more on Elizabeth Warren, see "Not an Indian" Sign for Brown and Brown Is "Bay State Birther".

University of Alberta's two-spirit conference

U of A conference looks into the world of two-spirited people

By Elise StolteFor Dr. James Makokis, being native and gay means coming from a long line of valued healers.

Aboriginal people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered call themselves two spirited. “There have always been a place for two-spirited people in our communities,” says Makokis, a local doctor and a keynote speaker for at a conference this weekend on two-spirited people.

The University of Alberta is hosting the conference, which it believes is a first for a major research university in Canada. The conference is also connected to a one-man play, Agokwe, which runs until Nov. 11 at the Catalyst Theatre. In Agokwe, actor Waawaate Fobister remembers his own first love interest and heartbreak on a northern Ontario reserve.Comment:  For more on LGBT issues, see Transgendered Natives Face More Discrimination and Fictional Characters Make Acceptance Easier.

Below:  "James Makokis grew up on the Saddle Lake Cree Nation and now lives in Edmonton. He works three days a week as a family physician in the southern Alberta Siksika reserve." (Ed Kaiser/Edmonton Journal)

"In your face" approach doesn't work?

After reviewing the Urban Outfitters and Paul Frank controversies, an article suggests how to battle the ongoing prejudice:

Navajo Hipster Panties Gone Awry

By Arielle ZiontsScoggins suggests the best way to counter disrespectful appropriation of Native American fashion and culture is to educate people about Native American history and explain to non-Natives why this trend is disrespectful.

“Some people don’t know that that’s offensive…you are desensitized to it,” said Scoggins.

McGowan agrees that education on the topic should be promoted, but warns that people should not be approached forcefully about the issue.

“You just don’t go up to them and say ‘hey, don’t do this’ because then you aren’t a good ambassador…because [by doing so] you are putting on an aggressive face yourself,” said McGowan.

Anthes hopes that the movement towards the acceptance of the LGBT community can be used as a model to approach this trend.

“Twenty years ago… it was acceptable societally to make homophobic jokes, to just assume that these people were not going to hear you say these hateful things… that population has become a lot more visible so we understand and have empathy,” said Anthes. “Most people [can] go through their life without ever having to look an Indian person in the eye and say… ‘it’s fine if I’m joking about it.’”

Arguably, the best way to combat the problem of cultural misunderstanding is through fostering intercultural connections. Native Americans are a minority of the American population, and can easily be marginalized. Efforts such as Adrienne K’s Native Appropriations blog and social media campaigns are where indigenous Americans can have their voices heard.Comment:  I'm not up on my LGBT history, but it seems to me they were "in your face" as much as anyone. With gay pride parades, anti-AIDS activism, and more. Professor Anthes doesn't address how the movement worked, but I doubt it was through education only.

McGowan, who's "a senior at Claremont High School and a member of the Iowa tribe of Kansas and Nebraska," doesn't like the "in your face" approach. But we have only his opinion that it doesn't work. There's nothing resembling a fact to support his claim.

In any case, Adrienne Keene's blog often takes an "in your face" approach. As does my blog, of course. Many of the Native activists I know also take this approach.

And we have proof that this approach works: the Civil Rights movement of the '60s. Nothing was going to change until the National Guard integrated the schools, blacks occupied buses and lunch counters, and people marched in the streets. Same with Indians: Alcatraz, the Trail of Broken Treaties, and Wounded Knee II.

As someone said recently, smiles, prayers, and dances for unity aren't enough. If you want to change something, you often have to get angry and make yourself heard. America started acknowledging minority rights only when minorities thrust themselves in America's face.

For some recent protests, see McNairy Apologizes for "Manifest Destiny" T-Shirt and Winning the War on Columbus? For a discussion of protests in general, see Stereotypes Disappear "Organically"? and Do Protests Work?

Transgendered Natives face more discrimination

Report: Startling levels of discrimination against American Indian and Alaskan Native transgender peopleAmerican Indian and Alaskan Native transgender and gender non-conforming people face some of the highest levels of discrimination of all transgender people, according to a new analysis released today.

Injustice at Every Turn: A Look at American Indian and Alaskan Native Respondents in the National Transgender Discrimination Survey was released on Columbus Day, an intentional effort to highlight the specific circumstances that American Indian and Alaskan Native people experience due to a history of colonialism and genocide that continues today with a federal holiday celebrating the "discovery" of America.

This report by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Transgender Equality is an in-depth look coming out of the groundbreaking national study, Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, which was
published in 2011 and revealed widespread discrimination experienced by transgender and gender non-conforming people across all areas of life and demographics.

A key finding of the original report was that, even given the high levels of discrimination against all transgender people in the U.S., transgender people of color including American Indians and Alaskan Natives consistently reported even greater discrimination and experienced worse outcomes than the sample overall.

"This report shows the devastating impact that racism and anti-transgender bias play in the lives of American Indian and Alaskan Native transgender people," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "The findings are as heartbreaking as they are unconscionable. They serve as a call to action to the LGBT movement and others to prioritize racial and economic justice and the needs of indigenous nations."Comment:  For more on LGBT issues, see Fictional Characters Make Acceptance Easier and Transgendered Native as Civil Rights Champion.

Fictional characters make acceptance easier

Gays may have the fastest of all civil rights movements

Public attitudes have shifted sharply in the last 10 years. Chalk it up to familiarity–among family, friends, co-workers and prime-time TV characters.

By Mark Z. BarabakIn a convergence of causes, the NAACP board voted Saturday to endorse same-sex marriage, saying "marriage equality" was "consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Several reasons account for the success. The gay community tends to be more affluent, and the ability to give generously to candidates has translated into significant political clout, from the local level to the White House. Its leaders are well-versed in the machinations of government and the means of power, knowledge hard-won through years spent dragging politicians into the fight against the AIDS epidemic.

But experts and advocates agree on one explanation above all others: Familiarity.

"People came to understand we existed," Jones said. "They worked with us. They knew us. They had [gay] family members. That demystified it and made it harder for them to hate us in an abstract way."

That was an avenue obviously unavailable to African Americans. "It isn't as if white people suddenly come to discover they have African American children or relatives," said Kenneth Sherrill, a professor at Hunter College in New York and a longtime gay activist.

Gays and lesbians "are born into straight families and live in straight neighborhoods and go to straight schools and work in straight businesses," Sherrill said. "There's a kind of familiarity that's exceedingly difficult to achieve in the case of race."

Popular culture and its shaper, the mass media, have also played a crucial role in changing attitudes, much as news accounts helped advance the cause of the black civil rights movement. Only this time it wasn't images of fire hoses and police dogs turned on innocents but the sympathetic portrayal of gay and lesbian characters in prime time, in what has become a TV staple.

"Will & Grace," the NBC comedy that ran from 1998 to 2006, "probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody's ever done so far," Vice President Joe Biden said in a "Meet the Press" interview that helped prod Obama off the fence into supporting same-sex marriage.

That may be hyperbolic, but many said the vice president hit on something important: that welcoming fictionalized gay characters into the home made it that much easier to welcome gays and lesbians as family, friends, neighbors and co-workers in real life.

"It is certainly the case that gays and lesbians have been widely accepted in popular culture in a way that you could argue blacks in particular and Latinos too have never really been accepted," said Frank Gilliam, an expert on politics and race at UCLA.Comment:  This article suggests why it's important to see real Indians in movies and TV shows. Not historical Indians and not fake "spirit warriors" like Johnny Depp's Tonto, but modern-day Indians who are doctors, lawyers, and teachers.

For more on the subject, see Why Tonto Matters, Truth vs. Twilight, and "Such-and-Such Is Fiction."

Below:  Another entry in the "Indians as Fantasy Figures" sweepstakes.

Transgendered Native as civil rights champion

Transgender contestant loses beauty pageant, wins civil rights test

By Cassandra SzklarskiTransgender trailblazer Jenna Talackova lost her bid to become Miss Universe Canada over the weekend, but said Sunday that her history-making appearance has awarded her a much more meaningful role as a civil rights champion.

“I never thought I would be wearing [the] crown of an advocate and it feels really good, I feel very honoured,” Ms. Talackova said one day after losing the Miss Universe Canada title to fellow Vancouverite Sahar Biniaz.

“I was training for eight months, I was very dedicated and all of a sudden I was disqualified and for something that was so unjust. And now I’m a heroine in a lot of people’s eyes and it’s just made me so humbled and I wake up pinching myself.”

Ms. Talackova fell just outside the winner’s circle Saturday night, when she was cut after making the Top 12.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Osage Transgender Runs for Office and Transgendered Native in Miss Universe Pageant.