Saginaw Grant plans Eagle Lake

Film brings Native philosophy to mainstream

By Christina RoseActor Saginaw Grant, Meskwaki, is in the rare position of sharing the limelight with Johnny Depp in The Lone Ranger and beginning work on another Hollywood film, “Eagle Lake,” which will explore the wisdom of a respected Native elder.

Making films has given Grant an outlet to share the wisdom he received from his own grandparents and his personal experiences. “When I was growing up, I never imagined myself to be doing what I am doing now, but it happened in a way that gives me a way to talk to people. And some people listen to you, and some retain what is said.”

“Eagle Lake” is now in the earliest stages of pre-production after eight years of planning.

“The new film project has universal themes; its basis is bringing people, both children and adults, back to the basics of listening to our elders and remembering traditions,” casting director Lani Melisa said. “When they asked me to be the casting director, the script brought my attention to the story, that family it is so important. It’s about trying to bring people together and coming from Native philosophy of an elder.”Comment:  For more on Saginaw Grant, see Hollywood Indians in Idle No More PSA and Blogger Attacked for Criticizing Depp.

Hollywood Indians in Idle No More PSA

Saginaw Grant and Other Natives in Hollywood Come Together for Idle No More PSAThis is a public service announcement made by JT Pro Imaging and overseen by actor Saginaw Grant for IdleNoMore.ca and starring Native celebrities of all ages. Those appearing in addition to Grant include Shannon Baker and Shauna Baker (the Baker Twins), Sam Bearpaw, Shayna Jackson, Crystle Lightning, Zahn McClarnon, Rick Mora, Rocky Navajo, Marisa Quinn, MC Red Cloud, DeLanna Studi, Alan Tafoya, and Shaun Taylor-Corbett.

A collection of studio portraits from the project can be seen at the JT Pro Imaging blog.Comment:  For more on Idle No More, see Canada Faces "Catastrophic Confrontation" and Canada Owes Billions for Unfulfilled Treaties.

Blogger attacked for criticizing Depp

Adrienne Keene reports on some incredible blowback she received after writing about Johnny Depp as Tonto in her Native Appropriations blog:

Real Indians Don't Care About Tonto[L]et's notice that all of my posts focus on either 1) the choice of Johnny Depp to play Tonto 2) the costume and character choices Johnny made for his role, based on Johnny's own words, and 3) What "Tonto" means on a larger level in terms of representations, stereotypes, and our future as Native peoples. I said nothing about the Native actors in the films, nothing about the Native involvement in the film, I just talked about Johnny Depp. A public figure, who, as such, is open to criticism and questioning.

This is where things get interesting. In the comments on the post, I received a comment from actor Saginaw Grant, wishing to speak to the "author of this blog." I emailed him at the address he provided, and set up a time to talk with him, his publicist, and his personal assistant via phone. In hindsight, I'm not sure why I said yes, but I was also curious to hear Saginaw's thoughts, since he has a role in the film.

Fast forward to the phone conversation. I spent 2.5 hours on the phone being berated for my coverage of Tonto. Saginaw told me over and over again that the "Indian way" was "not to criticize" and that if I did so, I had "no right to call [myself] an Indian." I was told that "everything you know, you learned in books" and that all my degrees were just "pieces of paper." I was told I was being disrespectful to all of the Indian actors on the film, as well as the broader Indian community, and that if I continued to write, no producer would hire Indian actors ever again because they would want to avoid the "controversy," so I was hurting all Indian actors chances of working in Hollywood. They went on, and on, and on with all of the ways I had apparently messed up.

His team had written down tweets and quotes from my blog, read them back to me, and forced me to defend myself. I was in a horrible position, because if I defended myself and stood by my words, I would have been perceived as being "disrespectful" towards a "respected elder," so instead I avoided directly addressing their questions, to which I was called "evasive" and therefore, "disrespectful." I was so polite and tried to show the utmost respect, though I was shown none in return. I sat there, for over two hours, and listened as my identity was questioned and my writing torn apart. I listened carefully, because I know I'm wrong all the time--and if I was wrong about this, I wanted to know. But instead, the only message I heard was that I was not Indian if I dared question this film. At one point, after about the twelfth time I was told I had "no right to call [my]self an Indian"--I broke down and said (in Cherokee), "I'm Cherokee, not a white person." I didn't know how else to defend myself.The attacks on Adrienne continued when she mentioned Depp again in passing:The "bird on their head" linked back to one of my Depp posts. To which I received the comment from Saginaw's assistant, Andrea:I guess your privilege of hearing Saginaw Grant's words of wisdom were not taken as advice, just words. I am witness to the conversation because the conversation was a conference three way, your words were that you were going to refrain from the movie in it's entirety. You speak with fork tongue and you wonder why you receive negative and/or hate mail from many of the people. As I said, you are inciting animosity amongst people who don't know better. You told Saginaw that you had much respect for him, well, that was untruth on your part and we are disappointed and furthermore, you do not speak a few words you have learned in Cherokee to a person who is Sac/Fox. Only his publicist new what you were talking about. Shame on you.Readers respond

Fortunately, disapproval of these attacks was swift and sure. Some of the many comments on Adrienne's blog:shantique

Where is the respect for the younger generation? To say that you are a "young one" is to try to discredit you and your opinions with ageism. I understand respecting our elders, but my elders have always shown me respect too. A good elder knows that us young ones will one day be elders our selves. They should be leading by example and showing the way. Raising us up, so that we may stand on their shoulders. Not tearing down those who speak out.

I'm deeply disappointed that Saginaw and co. can't seem to take any sort of criticism (even indirectly) regarding a project that they are working on. Criticism does not diminish their work nor Saginaw's role in this film or any other film but it raises the public's awareness so that they may ask questions such as "Is this respectful? Why? Why not?"

bunnika

"Why does Johnny get a free pass?"

Honestly, I'd say it's an issue of privilege. Not only is Depp famous, but he's a man (and a rich, and powerful-thanks-to-that-wealth-and-fame one at that). There's undoubtedly sexism involved in telling a woman that her voice is inherently less meaningful than that of men, especially a man with so obviously less knowledge and experience on the subject than the woman. I'm not interested in playing culture wars with anyone, mapping out genealogy and cultural heritage, but Depp's [own] words showed that--at the very least, until taking this role--he is/was largely ignorant to Native culture. Dismissing your knowledge on the subject just seems...ridiculous.

whatsername

I was thinking along similar lines, both with regards to Depp and Saginaw. Their actions reek of privilege and entitlement.

In Depp's case, his choices reek of white privilege, in first of all feeling comfortable claiming Native ancestry (certainly possible in any USian born person) as justifying and legitimating his taking on this role and forming it around his imagination; that he (apparently) did not feel that in depth research into either his heritage (so he knows what nation that heritage even comes from!) or cultural accuracy in his portrayal of Tonto or into the politics of representing an iconic (for all the wrong reasons) Native character on screen was at all necessary.... Who but a white person could feel so entitled?

In Saginaw's case... Well... His actions speak of someone who is used to power and is comfortable exercising it over others. Even the best of men sometimes fall prey to this behavior, in my experience and observation, and the class-privileged (of all genders) are often just as bad. The point is, how fucking entitled is it to think it's ok to call someone up and berate them for speaking out in a way that he doesn't like? To question their identity and talk down to them in this way, BECAUSE OF A DISAGREEMENT? I mean really... And then to keep an eye on them the way he and his assistants have done? To harass Adrienne when she steps a toe out of line (in their view)? Who but a man could feel so entitled?

I can only shake my head at this, and I want to encourage you, Adrienne to stay true to who you are and what you're doing.

Cluisanna

What's with all the "you are too young and inexpierenced" and "not a real Indian(tm)" BS? Classic dismissal of argument and only one step above outright ad hominem. These people may have had a point, but engaging in hurtful, dismissive and downright abusive behaviour (stalking your blog, questioning your identity, trying to frighten/shame you into silence) makes it hard to take anything they say seriously--what point could they have if they don't even grasp basic human dignity and respect?

Adsweezey

There's a big difference between and ELDER and an OLD PERSON. I too was taught from a very young age to never question or say no to an elder. All in the name of respect.

I recently learned this valuable lesson in the past year of how to recognize this difference and now know that I don't have to give my respect to anyone that has not earned it. Elder is a title that is earned. It is not an automatic membership you get when you reach a certain age.

Most importantly, elders do not shame youth!

rightojibwe

Keep blogging. By the way, it is a crime that people will use the "respect" argument to shut people up. We are our own worst colonial bullies. We tear down each other for the colour of skin. Where we live. What our education is. We don't take the time to lift each other up. To see our value. Instead we dig into a position and dig and dig with no way of looking at anything else but the dirt. I have been blogging for about 3 years and cover some of the identity topics as well. It is your thoughts and your attempt to get people to actually Look, that upsets people. The Native actor, Saginaw, is in the movie. He does not want to feel like he took part in something that is not good for Indians. Therefore, if someone says something bad about the movie he took part in, they are saying something bad about him (in his mind). No one wants to be part of something bad. So Saginaw is interested in taking care of his investment. He invested himself in the movie. Which is a good thing. But he is now closed to any discussion on the Tonto role.

Beth Z

Frankly, this sounds to me like Hollywood recognizing that they have a big PR problem and simply trying to bully you into silence to keep the problem from getting out of hand and attracting further attention. The people in charge of this film may or may not be familiar with the whole casting debacle that surrounded "The Last Airbender." If they are, though, they'll know how much focus that movie gained as example of what's wrong with Hollywood's treatment of race. I'm sure to them this debate looks like it has the potential to become even more widespread, especially as the movie features Johnny Depp and thus will inevitably make money even if the movie is completely awful. They're trying to shut you down so the film can make buckets of money without anyone learning anything.

Sloane Cornelius

If I were Saginaw, I would be ashamed. This is something extremely, and unfortunately, pervasive in Indian Country -- the idea that you should, never could, never will, and never shall question an "Elder." Even if the "Elder" is someone who is taking advantage of their communities and using their culture as a shield. And whenever you bring it up then people just BLOW a gasket and say that YOU'RE the one being offensive because how dare you call into question a human being's ideas. They don't mean a human's ideas, they mean their ideas. How dare you diminish their ideas, and in front of people too. It's a distraction tactic that they're unconsciously deploying of what I can only assume is guilt at being a part of something that they know is both not right and not good for their people. The idea that you should never question an Elder is so offensive and stops Native communities from making a lot of progress that we should. How can we change and grow as a people without questioning each other in a proactive, constructive way? Elders that have earned that title understand that, one would hope. From the handful of Elders that I know, they are so humble and understanding that I can't ever imagine having a problem questioning their ideas or bringing up my concerns.

Oh, and, "You speak with a forked tongue?" I don't know any Native (young or old) that speaks like that. Stupid.

T. S.

Wow, so sorry to hear that Saginaw Grant and his staff have taken to cyberbullying you over your thoughts on your blog. I enjoy your work and think a lot of it is spot on. A truly "respected" elder wouldn't attempt to bully someone into silence. I have lost respect for him based on his actions here. Keep speaking out and speaking the truth. Stay strong.Comment:  Good thing Saginaw's people didn't try to call and harangue me because of my criticism. I would've kicked their butts all over the map if they had.

I added my two cents' worth to this chain of comments. Everyone knows what I think about Johnny Depp as Tonto, so you can imagine what I said.

I've received similar comments from Saginaw's people when I posted about Tonto on Facebook. And when I criticized Saginaw's "Uncle Tomahawk" role in the Cowboys & Findians episode of The Dudesons. So if Andrea and company claim they didn't say these things, don't believe them.

For more on the subject, see Comanche Filmmaker Criticizes Depp and Depp's Intent Doesn't Excuse Stereotypes.

NBC's Heritage Month promos

Here in Los Angeles, NBC-TV produced five 15-second commercials to promote Native American Heritage Month. Here they are:







Comment:  Alas, you can't say much in 15 seconds. Each person utters only 3-4 sentences, and they don't say anything profound.

The value of these promos, I guess, is showing that Natives still exist. And that they operate in the modern world. These points are obvious to the point of banality to us, but to many Americans, they may come as a revelation.

It's also good that the videos show a range of Indians--different ages, genders, tribes, and settings. Again, you can't say or do much in 15 seconds. But at least the videos didn't show five Lakota Indians at a powwow, in a tipi, or overlooking Monument Valley. The diversity itself is a message.

I saw the Alan Tafoya video in the middle of an evening TV show, so the promos did air in primetime. It's a small accomplishment, to be sure, but one worth noting.

For more on the subject, see Heritage Month and Tribal Summit.

Powwow participants compared to homeless

Indianz.com summarizes a rant that's been circulating around Indian country the last couple of days:

University student newspaper ridicules powwow, participantsThe Union Weekly, a student newspaper at California State University, Long Beach, published an article in its latest issue that ridicules a powwow and its participants.

The American Indian Studies Program and the American Indian Student Council organized the powwow. Union Weekly editor Noah Kelly described the event as an "underwhelming affair" that resembled a "flea market" and said its participants acted worse than homeless people.

"The gathering of tent-vendors and fry-bread ironically circled their wagons around the Native American performers, dressed in traditional garb and dancing around a large tree on the Upper Campus lawn," Kelly wrote.

Kelly was particularly disturbed by a dance in which donations were taken for the powwow. "The entire scene felt disingenuous and cheap," he wrote.

"Donations are great, and necessary; tossing them unceremoniously on the ground is crass and borderline obscene," Kelly said. "Even the homeless have hats and cups."Comment:  You can read the text of the article below or here.

The photo is of actor and powwow dancer Saginaw Grant, of course.

I'm not up on powwow traditions, but I suspect it's customary to toss donations on the ground. I'm confident people aren't doing it because they're lazy or thoughtless, as writer Noah Kelly implies.

Kelly also makes fun of Indian tacos--blaming the Indians because he's too ignorant to Google the subject--and frybread, which is basically the same thing. News flash: Indians and non-Indians both eat fried food and they're both overweight. Stop the presses!

This screed is an example of the "good for nothing" stereotype--i.e., Indians as shiftless or mercenary bums. It's a variation on the savage and uncivilized stereotypes. As usual, the goal is to put Indians down because they're not white Christian Americans like "real people."

For more on these stereotypes, see Fischer:  Natives Had No Morals and 19th-Century Cartoons About Indians.

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."

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."

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!"

Ethical code for Native elders needed

A respected Native elder who participates in a Jackass-style "spoof" for money...isn't that a complete contradiction in terms? Let's think about this a minute.

What else can "respected Native elders" do without reproach? Reveal sacred religious secrets to reporters? Embezzle tribal funds for personal use? Fondle little boys and girls?

It would help if someone developed an ethical code for respected Native elders. What do Indians think these people should and shouldn't do?

Really...if you're a Saginaw Grant defender and Rob critic, list all the items someone like him can do without reproach. Once Indian country agrees on this list, I'll stop criticizing Grant for his actions. We'll never have a controversy like this again.

To make sure there's no chance of misunderstanding, the list should be as detailed as possible. It should have a whole section devoted to entertainment shows like The Dudesons. It should answer questions such as these:

What if the respected Native elder does the stunts himself? Okay or not?

What if the respected Native elder refers to Indians as "prairie niggers," "redskins," and "squaws"? Just as a joke, I mean. Okay or not?

What if the respected Native elder gives his blessing to on-screen urination or defecation? Just as a funny "initiation rite," I mean. Okay or not?

What if the respected Native elder pretends to fornicate with an inflatable Pocahontas doll? Just to spoof stereotypes of Native sexuality, I mean. Okay or not?

Remember, we're talking about a comedy here. A job for a working actor such as Grant. As so many people have reminded us. Do the asinine "comedy" and "job" labels literally excuse anything? If not, exactly what do they excuse?

No, really, I'm serious

These aren't rhetorical questions, people. I want someone who thinks he or she knows how respected Native elders should act to give us a list. For starters, answer the questions directly above. I want to know if they're acceptable or unacceptable in a "comedy" and why.

Oh, and don't bother telling us how I'm telling Indians how to think, showing how superior I am to them, etc. This is the exact opposite of that. I'm asking you to tell me what's acceptable for respected Native elders. Once we have a code that everyone accepts, I'll accept it too.

Good luck with your answers, anonymous trolls...you'll need it. I've given you several issues to address explicitly. I'll be glad to delete any comments that ignore these issues and instead attack me for raising them.

And just so you know...anyone who isn't willing to give us specific answers is, yes, a coward. If the streak down your back is as yellow as your belly, I'm talking about you.

For more on the subject, see Valenti:  Movies Are Merely Movies and Grant Wouldn't Show Dudesons to Grandchildren.

Below:  Presumably our ethical code for respected Native elders will permit stunts such as this one. Native elders will be free to tell worldwide audiences that Indians do indeed catch fish in their mouths.

But only in "comedy" shows, mind you. Not in serious dramas or documentaries. Because that would be stereotypical and wrong.

Saginaw Grant's Dudesons statement

Apparently actor Saginaw Grant posted this comment on his Facebook page Wednesday:we now have to move on with our life as I have already and have forgiven and forgotten. i wish to not continue with anything negative such as all of the controversy with the show i did or what was said or done. i think everyone has voiced their opinion and had the right to. The sadness is that friendships were lost along the way. my advice is "know who you are and always think positive." many blessings. -Saginaw-His Facebook friends, all of whom like him by definition, responded like this (all mistakes in the originals):well spoken from a true gentleman!

Oh, when did you write this? it's nice. I agree. It is sad to see some friends gone especially when I look at the photos from the 'happy times'. Lives lost becuase of political conflicts, frienships lost because of differences of opinions..but hopefully these friendship can be salvage and all will be good again.

You were just doing your Job!! Sometimes we don't know what we are getting ourselves into when we say "Yes".
Great exposure though, Huh?
I still Love you Saginaw!!!

Saginaw, those who feel they must pull away from us because of something they believe we did wrong are showing us how important we have been to them. That does not change overnight. As they mature in their spirituality and realize that human beings are not Gods, then they may eventually want to learn from you again.

The Indian Community has become the "Crab in the Bucket scenario" Once one person moves up and succeeds, another will pull them down, but just like you've said - If you know who your are that all that matters... Thank you my friend! :) Comment:  Fortunately, I'm not a member of the Indian community, so the last comment doesn't apply to me. Nor do I care whether Grant has been successful. As longtime readers know, I've tackled thousands of obscure subjects that had nothing to do with anyone's success. I earned no fame or glory for tackling them; indeed, most people didn't care.

In case anyone's unsure, let's recall what Grant's statement is about. He participated in the worst example of racist stereotyping in recent memory. (I keep track of these things, so I know.) Many Natives, some his fellow performers, criticized him for it. I gather some even threatened him--perhaps to have him blacklisted--though I haven't seen any threats.

No one in the thread mentioned MTV, the Dudesons, or Grant's role in the show. No one explained or even mentioned the racist stereotypes. No one mentioned any of the critics or whether their criticisms might be valid.

So Grant's moving on--from the controversy he helped create. He's forgiven people--for daring to criticize him. He's sad about the lost friendships--of people who'd have to be incredibly offended to end a longtime relationship.

No admissions, no apologies, no regrets about the show--that's not what I'd call a great statement. Sounds to me like the non-apologies we get when someone famous screws up but doesn't want to admit it. I'd call it the chicken way out, but I wouldn't want to offend elders, fowls, or anybody.

My apologies

I still haven't listened to Grant's radio interview on the Dudesons. I figure it would only make me angry. I'm told that he questioned the "Indianness" of anyone who challenged him. Yes, indeed, that would make angry.

But like Saginaw, I too have been involved in conflicts. I have this to say about them:I'm moving on and have forgiven anyone who criticized me. I don't wish to continue with anything negative such as the controversies that came out of nowhere. I think everyone has voiced their opinions and so have I. Since I know who I am, I'll keep thinking positively about me and my ego. -Rob-Or as the typical entertainer, politician, or executive might put it:I'm sorry if anything I said or did offended anyone. I didn't intend to call Cowboys & Findians a modern-day minstrel show or racist piece of crap. Unfortunately, people misinterpreted what I meant to say. -Rob-There you go. Is everyone satisfied? I've spoken like a true gentleman too. Now let's drop the personal attacks and move on to the next subject.

For more on the subject, see Grant Wouldn't Show Dudesons to Grandchildren and Saginaw Grant in The Dudesons.

Grant wouldn't show Dudesons to grandchildren

MTV's The Dudesons Offends Many American Indians

By RP“At the end of the show, Saginaw makes them honorary Native Americans, and he gives them feathers. In the show they're made to look like eagle feathers, but they were allegedly chicken feathers. How many people around the world are going to understand that those are fake feathers? And why are they bringing in feathers, considered to be sacred medicine, into a show that's mocking our entire culture?”

She disagrees with the argument that the show is a comedy and not meant to be taken seriously. “Anybody that sees this show that is not familiar with Native culture is not going to know what is true, what is not, especially little kids that will go out of their way to harass other little kids.”

Saginaw Grant, a revered elder of the Sac-n-Fox, Iowa, and Otoe-Missouria Nations, discussed these issues on Red Town Radio on May 22 (which can be heard in its entirety here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/redtownradio).

Grant said that the show was trying to make people laugh and to “show how silly people can be.” He pointed out that Indians make fun of themselves vis-à-vis clowns, chicken dancing, and in other ways.

He also said he had no creative control over the show's content; however, he felt that the humor would have been worse had he not been there. (Also, the crazy stunts might have been even more dangerous.) He himself was treated with great respect by the makers of the show.

Grant wondered aloud why children were watching MTV and a show meant for adults that comes on at 10pm. He added that while he had no regrets about doing the show, he would not want his own grandchildren to see it.

Fairbanks, who phoned into the show, countered that Cowboys and Findians has been repeated in various time slots and that her own children wanted to see it because they saw Saginaw and got excited. (The family turned the show off well before it was over.) She and Grant agreed about the need for parents to monitor their children. "Parents are indeed responsible for monitoring what their own children are watching on television,” she stated, “but we cannot police other viewers all over the world and how they are perceiving what they are watching.”

Grant and Fairbanks seemed to be in agreement on another point as well: had The Dudesons depicted Blacks or any other racial group in that manner, the station would not have gotten away with it.

Fairbanks expressed regret that this whole issue is being perceived as a personal attack against Grant. “He and his personality are a distraction from the real issue, which is MTV and the entertainment industry looking for another excuse to use us as mascots for their own purposes, for their own jokes.”Comment:  Damn straight MTV wouldn't get away with putting on whole show featuring minstrel performers in blackface. But that's essentially what Cowboys & Findians was.

Saginaw Grant says the episode was supposed to be funny. He compares the Dudesons to Indians who make fun of themselves. Great...so we've established that the Dudesons weren't trying some clever ploy to subvert Native stereotypes. They were making fun of Indians--just as we thought.

Grant says the mockery would've been worse if he hadn't been there. He also said he had no control over the content, which is a contradiction. Which is it, Saginaw? Did you influence or change the show's content or didn't you?

It's pretty obvious that Grant was okay with the tomfoolery and didn't try much if anything to stop it. How about if he launched a sit-down strike in the middle of filming? Unless the Dudesons had a spare Indian handy, that would've gummed up the works. It might've convinced the Dudesons that what they were doing was seriously offensive.

The "Uncle Tomahawk" defense

What Grant doesn't address is that his presence gave the show legitimacy. Without him there, it might be possible to dismiss the Dudesons as racist idiots who know nothing about Indians. With him there, many viewers undoubtedly didn't know what was real and what wasn't.

Finally, we have Grant saying he has no regrets, but he wouldn't want his grandchildren to see the show. I.e., to see him help perpetuate a century-plus of racist stereotypes. That's another contradiction, but I think we can guess what Grant means. He's embarrassed by his participation but too "professional" to criticize his employers, or something like that.

I think we need a name for the "it's a satire/parody/joke" defense of the Dudesons. I.e., for excuses and apologies for Stepin Fetchit-style performances in 2010. How about the "Uncle Tomahawk" defense?

For more on the Uncle Tomahawk defense, see Children and Dudesons Believe Stereotypes, The Dudesons, Polish Jokes, and Minstrel Shows, and Dudesons Too "Stoopid" to Matter?

Below:  This racism is "okay" because it appeared in a movie and was meant to be funny. No one would think blacks were second-class citizens because of it, right?

Protesting stereotypes = cop-out?

Michelle R. Shining Elk posted a defense of Saginaw Grant's role in the Cowboys & Findians episode of The Dudesons in America. She tagged me in her essay, so she wanted me to see it. I don't know if that's because I criticized the Dudesons or because I mildly rebuked Grant.

She went on about how horrible people were to criticize a respected tribal elder. (I don't belong to his tribe or his people, and I'll dare anything to end racism and stereotyping.) And how horrible they were to post comments on the Internet without contacting him first. (Because contacting a professional actor and getting a personal response is usually so easy.) But she said one thing that deserves a fuller response:

Michelle R. Shining Elk: YOU CAN'T UNDING A BELL...THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE. THE DISRESPECT TO ELDER SAGINAW GRANT--TACTICS USED, DEPLORABLE.As for our young people seeing this on TV and using Saginaw's role in this production as a scapegoat by saying it is damaging our youth is a copout. Child supervision begins at home, with no one other than the parents or guardians...we have become all to comfortable in this society to blame others, the world, television, etc. for the state of our youth. When, it all begins at home...it's a lazy way of releasing ourselves of responsibility when we blame television, movies, media, etc.Comment:  In other words, stop picking on poor Saginaw because he gave the Dudesons credibility and cover for their racist antics? Don't you wish.

Really, it's a cop-out to protest racism and stereotyping in the media? So we shouldn't do it? We should just let it happen and trust America's parents to cover their children's eyes and ears?

A typical MTV show has 2-3 million viewers. Let's say a million of those are children. Rather than criticizing MTV (and Grant), Shining Elk believes a million parents should've set aside an hour to watch the Dudesons with their children. When the stereotyping became evident, they should've turned off the TV.

A small number of parents (perhaps 10, 20, or 50) could persuade MTV to change its programming. That's more efficient than hoping a million overworked and exhausted parents will act. Fact is, they won't act, so pretending they will is the cop-out. It's a dodge to excuse Grant, Shining Elk, and anyone else who won't fight the problem.

Parents should screen everything?

But wait...that's only a small part of the problem. Studies show children spend something like six hours a day in front of the TV or computer. They're watching movies and TV shows, playing video games, and browsing websites. Any of these activities may expose them to negative stereotypes.

Something like 40 million American families have children at home. In these households, Shining Elk must expect the parents or guardians to set aside six hours a day to monitor the kids' activities. Because you never know when a Native stereotype will pop up on the screen. After all, who would've expected Finnish stuntmen to start pretending to be Indians?

Got that, parents? You may be overworked and stressed out now, but Shining Elk wants you to find another six hours a day to protect your kids from stereotypes. It's your responsibility, so quit complaining and do it. You don't need to work eight hours and sleep eight hours a day, do you? Get a part-time job, take stimulants to stay awake, but don't let your children see stereotypes.

Or you could take away their TVs and computers...forbid them to visit friends with TVs and computers...and keep them shut in at home. That would help them avoid the thousands of logos and products featuring stereotypical Indians. I don't know what these kids would do with their time, but maybe you could coax them to read.

But then the same problem arises, darn it. You'd have to pre-read their books for them to make sure they don't contain stereotypes. If a child spent 4-6 hours reading each book, you'd have to spend 4-6 hours screening it first.

Rather than this endless screening, perhaps Shining Elk expects parents to educate their children about Native stereotypes. That way, the children can avoid stereotypes on their own, without adult supervision.

Good idea...but it took me something like 10 years of reading books, newspapers, and websites to become reasonably well-informed about Indians. Does Shining Elk think parents will undertake the equivalent of a college degree in American Indian Studies to protect their children? If so, she's dreaming.

Blaming parents is the cop-out

I wonder what else Shining Elk expects parents to do. Let's see...parents could demand that police protect their families from harm...or they could patrol the streets for criminals themselves. They could demand the Food and Drug Administration ban unsafe products...or they could produce their own food and medicine. They could demand the EPA clean up pollution...or they could buy gas masks and oxygen tanks and breathe their own air.

You see how ridiculous this do-it-yourself approach is? Of course parents should try to monitor their kids' activities and protect them from the worst matter, but it's impossible to screen everything a child sees. It's stupid and illogical--a cop-out--to offer this as a "solution" to the problem.

The real solutions are the ones I've advocated all along. Tell the racists and stereotypers that what they're doing is wrong, and why. Inform them about the realities of Native culture and history. Educate the public about the same things. Encourage people to think critically rather than swallow what they see and hear in the media.

That's what we're doing by criticizing MTV, the Dudesons, and Grant for perpetuating Native stereotypes. Shining Elk can crusade for parents to regulate their children's lives while activists crusade for MTV et al. to stop the stereotyping. I'm confident that our approach will produce better results than hers will.

For more on the subject, see Saginaw Grant in The Dudesons and Natives Protest The Dudesons. For why it's important to protest stereotypes, see The Harm of Native Stereotyping:  Facts and Evidence. For a similar debate about parents vs. the media, see Highlights of the FTC Report on Media Violence.

Below:  If you live in Cleveland, it's not the Cleveland Indians' fault for exposing you to Chief Wahoo. It's your fault for exposing yourself. Don't complain to the team about its racist logo when you can move to another city.