Pocahontas by Dingo Pictures

Pocahontas (Dingo Pictures)Dingo Pictures bring us their horrid take on Pocahontas but more importantly this is Wabuu’s origin story!

"Inexcusable" Pocahontas Division cartoon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrisy of free-speech fundamentalists

Mourning the Parisian Journalists Yet Noticing the Hypocrisy

By Rabbi Michael LernerI had to wonder about the way the massacre in Paris is being depicted and framed by the Western media as a horrendous threat to Western civilization, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I wondered about the over-heated nature of this description. It didn't take me long to understand how problematic that framing really is.

When right-wing "pro-Israel" fanatics frequently sent me death threats, physically attacked my house and painted on the gates statements about me being "a Nazi" or "a self-hating Jew," and called in bomb threats to Tikkun, the magazine I edit, there was no attention given to this by the media, no cries of "our civilization depends on freedom of the press" or demands to hunt down those involved (the FBI and police received our complaints, but never reported back to us about what they were doing to protect us or find the assailants).And:There is a deeper level in which the discourse seems so misguided. As Tikkun editor-at-large Peter Gabel has pointed out, there is no recognition in the media of the dehumanizing way that so much of the media deals with whoever is the perceived threatening "other" of the day. That media was outraged at the attempt by some North Korean allied group to scare people away from watching a movie ridiculing and then planning to assassinate the current (immoral) ruler of Korea, never wondering how we'd respond if a similar movie had been made ridiculing and planning the assassination of an American president. Similarly, the media has refused to even consider what it would mean to a French Muslim, living among Muslims who are economically marginalized and portrayed as nothing but terrorists, their religious garb banned in public, their religion demeaned, to encounter a humor magazine that ridiculed the one thing that gives them some sense of community and higher purpose, namely Mohammed and the religion he founded.In Solidarity with a Free Press: Some More Blasphemous Cartoons

By Glenn GreenwaldNor is it the case that threatening violence in response to offensive ideas is the exclusive province of extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam. Terrence McNally’s 1998 play “Corpus Christi,” depicting Jesus as gay, was repeatedly cancelled by theaters due to bomb threats. Larry Flynt was paralyzed by an evangelical white supremacist who objected to Hustler‘s pornographic depiction of inter-racial couples. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats and needed massive security after they publicly criticized George Bush for the Iraq War, which finally forced them to apologize out of fear. Violence spurred by Jewish and Christian fanaticism is legion, from abortion doctors being murdered to gay bars being bombed to a 45-year-old brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza due in part to the religious belief (common in both the U.S. and Israel) that God decreed they shall own all the land. And that’s all independent of the systematic state violence in the west sustained, at least in part, by religious sectarianism.

The New York Times’ David Brooks today claims that anti-Christian bias is so widespread in America–which has never elected a non-Christian president–that “the University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality.” He forgot to mention that the very same university just terminated its tenure contract with Professor Steven Salaita over tweets he posted during the Israeli attack on Gaza that the university judged to be excessively vituperative of Jewish leaders, and that the journalist Chris Hedges was just disinvited to speak at the University of Pennsylvania for the Thought Crime of drawing similarities between Israel and ISIS.

That is a real taboo–a repressed idea–as powerful and absolute as any in the United States, so much so that Brooks won’t even acknowledge its existence. It’s certainly more of a taboo in the U.S. than criticizing Muslims and Islam, criticism which is so frequently heard in mainstream circles–including the U.S. Congress–that one barely notices it any more.

This underscores the key point: there are all sorts of ways ideas and viewpoints are suppressed in the west. When those demanding publication of these anti-Islam cartoons start demanding the affirmative publication of those ideas as well, I’ll believe the sincerity of their very selective application of free speech principles. One can defend free speech without having to publish, let alone embrace, the offensive ideas being targeted. But if that’s not the case, let’s have equal application of this new principle.As a Muslim, I’m fed up with the hypocrisy of the free speech fundamentalists

The response to the inexcusable murder of Charlie Hebdo’s staff has proved that many liberals are guilty of double standards when it comes to giving offence.

By Mehdi HasanIn the midst of all the post-Paris grief, hypocrisy and hyperbole abounds. Yes, the attack was an act of unquantifiable evil; an inexcusable and merciless murder of innocents. But was it really a “bid to assassinate” free speech (ITV’s Mark Austin), to “desecrate” our ideas of “free thought” (Stephen Fry)? It was a crime–not an act of war–perpetrated by disaffected young men; radicalised not by drawings of the Prophet in Europe in 2006 or 2011, as it turns out, but by images of US torture in Iraq in 2004.

Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn.

Has your publication, for example, run cartoons mocking the Holocaust? No? How about caricatures of the 9/11 victims falling from the twin towers? I didn’t think so (and I am glad it hasn’t). Consider also the “thought experiment” offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the “unity rally” in Paris on 11 January “wearing a badge that said ‘Je suis Chérif’”–the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. “How would the crowd have reacted? . . . Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?” Do you disagree with Klug’s conclusion that the man “would have been lucky to get away with his life”?

Let’s be clear: I agree there is no justification whatsoever for gunning down journalists or cartoonists. I disagree with your seeming view that the right to offend comes with no corresponding responsibility; and I do not believe that a right to offend automatically translates into a duty to offend.So many Christian hypocrites

More on the hypocrisy of those who would stand with Charlie:

Vox got no threats for posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons, dozens for covering Islamophobia

By Max Fisher and Amanda TaubThough we do enjoy a readership among Muslims inside and outside of the United States, some of whom have not hesitated to express displeasure or worse at our coverage of stories such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, none has seen the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as worth sending an angry email or even an annoyed tweet, much less a threat of violence.

Our coverage of Islamophobia has brought a very different response. Articles decrying anti-Muslim bigotry and attacks on mosques have been met with dozens of threats on email and social media.

The most common states a desire that jihadist militants will murder the offending writer: a recent email hoped that Muslims will "behead you one day" so that "we will never have to read your trash again." Some directly threaten violence themselves, or imply it with statements such as "May you rot in hell."

Others express a desire to murder all Muslims—one simply read "I agree with maher Kill them all"—also often implying the emailed journalist is themselves Muslim. One pledge to attack Vox writers begins, "Fuck you and any cunt who believes in allah."Conservatives' Charlie Hebdo Hypocrisy: 5 Freak-Outs Over 'Blasphemous' Depictions of Christianity

Conservatives are crowing about free speech rights of Charlie Hebdo. What about when Christianity is the butt of the joke?

By Amanda MarcotteRoss Douthat of the New York Times wrote, “If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more.”

Of course, Douthat, realizing his great affection for blasphemy will last only as long as needed to score this political point but wanting to reserve the right to denounce it when Christians are the ones being teased, tried to come up with an elaborate rationalization for why blasphemy is admirable when aimed at Islam but deplorable when the hurt feelings belong to Christians. It all goes to show how thoroughly phony this conservative enthusiasm for robust speech protections and a rowdy public discourse really is, because it will all be abandoned the second their own gods are mocked. Lest there be any doubt about that, here are some of the greatest hits of conservatives demanding censorship of what they believe are blasphemous messages.And:The double standard—brave if you blaspheme Islam, nasty if you mock Christianity—is breathtaking.

While the whole thing taught me that I’m better off as a writer than a campaigner, the larger lesson was that Christian conservatives are humorless and censorious when faced with mockery of their own faith. It’s surreal now to see the American right pose as if they have always supported those willing to tip sacred cows. In reality, they are swift to try to silence those who would ridicule their religious beliefs, or even, as some of these examples show, simply hold their beliefs up for examination. Luckily, Christian conservatives mostly turn to nonviolent means to silence their critics.

But don’t mistake the current enthusiasm for blasphemy for anything but a politically convenient pose. Next time someone mocks the Christian faith, expect all this support for blasphemers to disappear in a puff of smoke.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Charlie Hebdo's Racist Cartoons.

Charlie Hebdo's racist cartoons

In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism

By Jacob CanfieldWhen faced with a terrorist attack against a satirical newspaper, the appropriate response seems obvious. Don’t let the victims be silenced. Spread their work as far as it can possibly go. Laugh in the face of those savage murderers who don’t understand satire.

In this case, it is the wrong response.

Here’s what’s difficult to parse in the face of tragedy: yes, Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally,’ the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic.And:Now, I understand that calling someone a ‘racist asshole’ after their murder is a callous thing to do, and I don’t do it lightly. This isn’t ambiguous, though: the editorial staff of Hebdo consistently aimed to provoke Muslims. They ascribe to the same edgy-white-guy mentality that many American cartoonists do: nothing is sacred, sacred targets are funnier, lighten up, criticism is censorship. And just like American cartoonists, they and their supporters are wrong. White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire, and needs to be called out. People getting upset does not prove that the satire was good. And, this is the hardest part, the murder of the satirists in question does not prove that their satire was good. Their satire was bad, and remains bad. Their satire was racist, and remains racist.Not Just a Joke: Reflections on Free Speech, Violence and Mislabeled Heroism

By Tim WiseIt strikes me that we should be able to roundly condemn the senseless and barbaric murders of journalists while still managing to have a rational conversation about free speech, in which empty platitudes about heroism need play no part. For instance, I believe it is possible to agree that free speech is an essential value, and that journalists should have the right to say what they want—even to offend others—without then proceeding to act as though every utterance (just because people have a right to it) is therefore worth defending as to its substance, and that free speech protects one from being critiqued for the things one says.

What I mean is this: I have a right, I suppose, to stand in the middle of Times Square and shout racial slurs or insult peoples’ religions. I could, for instance, stand on a soapbox outside the TKTS booth and say things about the Prophet Mohammed or Jesus or Mary. I could call them all kinds of vile things, and all of it would be protected by the Constitution. And I surely should be able to do that without fear of being murdered for it. This last point in particular is so obvious as to be beyond debate, I would hope. But if I do this, whether in Times Square or in print, it makes me an asshole, and one who deserves to be labeled as such. Not a hero, but an asshole. And I don’t become a hero just because some of the people I happened to insult (and was trying to insult) end up being even bigger assholes than me, and so dangerous and unstable that they decide to hurt me. In that case I am simply the unlucky victim of a bigger and more evil asshole who was unsatisfied with the pen or keyboard as a weapon and decided to use something more deadly. Nothing more and nothing less.

People seem to confuse the principle of free speech with the idea that one’s speech should be protected from pushback; and while violent pushback is always wrong—always—I am more than a little uncomfortable with the idea that we should make heroes out of those whose job appears to have been insulting people they deemed inferior (whether because of culture or because they were just “silly superstitious” believers who deserve ridicule because Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher say so). I’m especially uncomfortable with the political canonization we’re expected to endorse for these satirists, because historically, satire has always been about barbs aimed at those who are more powerful than oneself (the elite, royalty, the dominant social, economic, political or religious group), rather than being aimed down the ladder at those with less power. In the old days, when the King would bring in the jester or the royal fool to tell jokes and entertain the nobility, the court comic didn’t spend 20 minutes doing “can you believe how bad those peasants smell” jokes; rather, he told jokes at the expense of the nobility. The King and his royal prerogatives were the target of ridicule.

So whereas it would be legitimate satire for Muslims to satirize their own extremists in countries where Muslims hold power (and this is done by the way, more than most of us realize), in France, satire aimed at Muslims, who are the targets of organized attempts to restrict their rights and even their presence in the country, is not brave; it’s piling on. Likewise, for Jews to satirize Palestinians in Israel would be asshole behavior, while satirizing the nation’s Jewish religious leaders who have such outsized influence on state politics would be the very definition of legitimate satire. In the U.S., where Christians hold the bulk of political and economic power, satirizing the religious right is quite different from satirizing Muslims who are being targeted in regular hate crimes and who are facing communities trying to block them from having mosques in which to worship.Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie: A Critical View

By Sean EliasThe ridiculous display of support for ‘Charlie,’ particularly in the news media, is disconcerting and demonstrates that many people are equally as uninformed and culturally insensitive as those who promoted the anti-Islamist cartoons. Since the attack, most news outlets have ignored the racism and Islam-tarnishing of Charlie Hebdo and are in a rush to glorify the magazine and deify their racist cartoonists. Ignoring the potential of further inflaming ethno-racial tensions and promoting further anti-Muslim bigotry, a number of media giants, such as the Washington Post, have even decided to reprint the blasphemous cartoons of Muhammad in defiance of what they feel is a threat to free speech.

To state that what occurred is “an attack on free speech” is misguided and plainly ignorant. This is a destructive myth espoused by most Western media outlets in their discussion of this event. See, for example, John Avlon’s The Daily Beast article, “Why We Stand with Charlie Hebdo-And You Should Too,” which naively presents the free speech argument. What Charlie Hebdo’s anti-Islamist cartoons represent is hate images and speech, a defamation of a major world religion and culture, and an obvious attack on Muslims. To cloud this reality is intellectual dishonesty in the wake of reactionary politics.

Stoking the flames of racial hatred through dehumanizing others and their beliefs is nothing new; yet, today it is claimed that those who de-humanize certain groups are expressing their free speech or righteousness in their actions. One might ask why KKK pamphlets that demean black Americans, white nationalists’ periodicals that vilify Jews, and past campaigns of dehumanization by national groups, like the US’s racist cartoons of Japanese, are viewed as intolerable and unacceptable, yet the demonization of Muslims and Arabs is granted a pass.

Islam bashing, Islamophobia, and anti-Arab sentiments are on the rise in Europe, and particularly in France, in large part do to the de-humanizing tactics of people like those associated with Charlie Hebdo. The dehumanization and discriminatory practices of Charlie cartoons provide ammunition for the anti-Muslim intolerance endorsed by rising far right groups in Europe, like the British Freedom Party, National Front, English Defense League, Alternative for Germany, Freedom Party in Netherlands, and PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against Islamization of the West), to name a few. Problematically, with the aid of people who incite discrimination against Muslims, like the cartoonists and editorial staff at Charlie Hebdo, Islamophobia is now moving from the fringes to the mainstream of European societies.Joe Sacco: On Satire–a response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks

The acclaimed graphic artist and journalist Joe Sacco on the limits of satire–and what it means if Muslims don’t find it funny

Even at the starting line?

See? Black and white people were side by side at the starting line. Why can't blacks make it to the finish line?

Someone asked me, "Where is the Native American path?" Alas, Natives had to go back to start when they lost their land, obviously.

For more on the subject, see Myth of the Level Playing Field and Whites Think They're Losing to Blacks.

Betty Boop in Rhythm on the Reservation

This cartoon has the usual compendium of racist stereotypes. The worst may be the Tonto talk, the teepees, and the complete ignorance of modern life. This cartoon was set in 1939, when Indians were wearing Western clothes, working in factories, and enlisting in the military. They weren't dressing in buckskins or blankets and beating tom-toms.

Long Shadow in Justice League Unlimited

Someone told me about the cartoon character Long Shadow a while ago. Last year, I saw the three episodes of Justice League Unlimited in which Long Shadow appeared. Here's the story on him:

Long ShadowLong Shadow was a former member of the Ultimen. As with the rest of the team, he was genetically engineered by the U.S. Government to be a powerful team of superheroes obedient to them, unlike the Justice League.

Background information

Like the other members of the Ultimen, Long Shadow was based on an original character from the old SuperFriends show. In that respect, Long Shadow was a reference/update to Apache Chief, another giant-sized superhero of Native American origin. However, as an artificial human, Long Shadow has no genuine Native American background beyond his implanted memories. Also unlike his SuperFriends counterpart, he requires no phrases to activate his powers. (Apache Chief would shout the magic phrase "Inukchuk" to activate his power and grow to fifty feet tall.)

History

Notably unlike his teammates, Long Shadow was more cool-headed, humble and didn't let superhero fame go to his head. He still retained his admiration of the heroes of the Justice League, considered them as his role models and continued to desire an alliance with them.

Long Shadow wanted his team to join the Justice League, but the other Ultimen, despite some of whom originally also admired the League, were against it. Unlike the rest of the group, who had been enjoying their newfound fame, wealth, and popularity, Long Shadow earnestly wanted to join the Justice League to help more people and be a better hero. Long Shadow's efforts were constantly rebuffed and mocked by his teammates.

After helping the League, Long Shadow developed somewhat of a crush on Wonder Woman. While the attitudes of the rest of the Ultimen and the Justice League were at odds with each other, Long Shadow's humility and admiration earned a good friendship with Wonder Woman, who became a sort of mentor figure to him.Comment:  There's a lot to like about Long Shadow. For instance, his name evokes the natural world without using a cliché such as "Big Bear." His costume is futuristic but still Native-style in color and design.

As the "History" section indicates, the best part is his refreshing personality. He wasn't the stoic or savage member of the Ultimen. In fact, he was the opposite: friendly, helpful, and open about his desire to be a hero.

That doesn't seem like much, but it's surprising how often a Native character is some variation of stoic and savage. It's the 21st century, people. Indians are extroverts and peace lovers like everyone else.

For more on the subject, see Ty Longshadow = Apache Chief? and Apache Chief.

"Redskins Rusher" in NFL Rush Zone

I had to make sure this wasn't a satirical item from the Onion. I don't think it is.

Selling Hate to Children: Snyder and the NFL's Problem of Marketing 'Redskin'

By Stephen SonneveldThe Viacom network's Nicktoons is currently airing a cartoon program in which one of the characters is referred to by his skin color, a word which is also a racial slur.

The McDonald's corporation is currently selling Happy Meal toys based on this program, exposing children to this racist term.

It is absolutely shameful that, in the year 2013, Viacom and McDonald's would participate in any endeavor that endorses racist language and images being marketed to children, but that is exactly what these conglomerates are doing.

The program in question is “NFL Rush Zone,” a Pokemon-type show in which young heroes call upon the energy of NFL team mascots to battle evil.

Of the 30 mascots anthropomorphized in Happy Meal toy form, 12 are animals, three are myths, seven represent professions or titles (Cowboys, Chiefs, Packers, Saints, 49ers, Buccaneers, Steelers), five are abstractions (Patriots, Browns, Raiders, Chargers, Jets), one represents a geographic location (Texans), one represents a race of people unseen since the 11th century (Vikings) and one bastardizes a living, breathing group of human beings—Native Americans—that the NFL singles out for the color of their flesh with the disparaging slur “Redskins.”The NFL's official website for the program has a bio that names the mascot as “The Redskins Rusher [who] defends not only the Washington Redskins and their Megacorp, but also the capital!”

A visit to the NFL's official online store has a bevy of tie-in merchandise, including a hat for preschoolers emblazoned with the character and official team logo. The sales description proclaims, “Your little Redskins fan can’t get enough NFL football. When he can’t watch a game with the fam, he’s watching Nickelodeon’s NFL Rush Zone.”

What is worse, though, is that the online store reveals the name of the “Rusher” is Zeke Red Corn. Yes, apparently the mascot/Rusher itself is an actual Native American.Comment:  This cartoon undercuts the claim that the "Redskins" team name is completely separate from any slur applied to Indians. "Zeke Red Corn" is evidence that Dan Snyder and the NFL don't recognize the separation. They're applying the racial slur to Indians just as bigots have done for the last century.

Also note the spear-wielding Kansas City "Chief" (below). This is even clearer evidence of what Dan Snyder and the NFL think of Indians. Like most Americans, they believe Indians are spear-chucking savages--i.e., primitive people of the past.

Best Thanksgiving cartoons 2013

The best Thanksgiving cartoons I saw this year:









And a poem in the same vein:

'Thanksgiving,' a Poem by Jonathan Garfield

For more on the subject, see PEACE PARTY Political Cartoon: Costumes and PEACE PARTY Political Cartoon: Thanksgiving.

Natives protest Hamhawk Hazard

Hamhawk Hazard has to go: fire chief

By Sharon WeatherallThe First Nation chief and his community’s fire chief agree that Hamhawk Hazard has to go.

“It is demeaning and stereotyping to portray a First Nations person to be very unintelligent,” says Chief Roly Monague, commenting on a controversial cartoon character being used to teach safety to children in materials that were approved by Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation (OFNTSC). “Little kids will be reading this and we have been stereotyped enough in our lives. This kind of stuff in this day and age is not well received.”

Chief and council support the stance of Fire Chief Allan J. Manitowabi–who says the caricature has no cultural significance–and have asked OFNTSC to have the Hamhawk Hazard name and character changed.

“I was shocked and surprised to see this material had been sent out to Tribal Councils,” says Manitowabi, who began his fight to change the depiction after he first saw it in an electrical booklet that was published in 2010. “At the time I inquired by phone to see where this had come from and found it had been OFNTSC approved.”

The OFNTSC Fire Program provides First Nation Fire Prevention Officers with technical advisory services for fire prevention, code interpretation, emergency service vehicles, and community fire prevention issues. Manitowabi says the corporation has overseen the creation and distribution of numerous fire prevention materials and brochures using Hamhawk Hazard without consultation and approval by First Nations fire services personnel.

“Speaking with Elders from our community, they feel the material is scary for kids and is putting constraints on how we see ourselves,” says the fire chief. “They say the picture is derived from negative portrayals through caricature and is misleading of the culture of First Nations–it presents flawed imagery of Native people.”Comment:  All we have to go on is the image below and the description of a Native who is "very unintelligent." I imagine the Hamhawk Hazard does foolish things, such as touching an electrified fence, and learns a painful lesson.

Let's see...the headband and feather are stereotypical. The braids are borderline stereotypical, although a few Natives wear their hair that way. The "Hamhawk Hazard" name is somewhere between comical and stereotypical.

It sounds like the character's behavior is the worst problem.

Even if the material is intended for Natives, does it really need a Native cartoon character to work? Why not use a generic boy and girl? Make their ethnicity vague so anyone can relate to them. See Dick start a fire and Jane electrocute herself...that sort of thing.

The Deerskins on APTN

From a Facebook posting on the Aboriginal People's Television Network (APTN) page:The Deerskins are making their debut in one week! This comedic animated series is about a family forced off the rez and then move to a blue-collar town. What do their new non-Aboriginal neighbors think of them?



Comment:  You can't tell much from these 15-second snippets. But so far the animation, voices, and humor doesn't seem appealing.

For more on Native cartoons, see Black Cat in Space and Animated Stories for NA Heritage Month.

Pokémayans

Pokémayans: Pokémon Redesigned as Mayan MonstersPokémon get a new, Maya-inspired look in the hands of artist Monarobot. These modern monsters look majestic with their ornate, Mesoamerican makeovers.Pokémayans

Comment:  For more on Indians and Pokémon, see Chieftain's Challenge and Wargle.

Black Cat in Space

Navajo filmmaker needs funds to animate cats in space

By Kathaleen RobertsMelissa Henry grew up on the Navajo Reservation without running water or electricity.

She had no TV until one day her father hooked one up to his car battery. Between hookups, he spun stories about felines. His makeshift entertainment center exposed her to “Star Trek,” “Star Wars” and “Battlestar Galactica.” The family always cared for an abundance of both barn cats and house cats.

The memories coalesced and intertwined. Her imagination soared beneath the canopy of stars that flickered and glowed without the glare of city lights.

“It was the mystery,” Henry said from her School for Advanced Research studio. “There’s something up there and we don’t know what it is. It gave me the opportunity to imagine different worlds out there.”

Those interstellar memories melded with observations of her cat Voodoo to produce her upcoming film “Black Cat in Space” during a three-month residency at SAR. Henry will unveil the results Wednesday in the facility’s boardroom as a 2013 Eric and Barbara Dobkin Native Artist Fellow.

Henry packed 210 tissue-layered, hand-drawn storyboards into a plastic box as she prepared for the end of her fellowship this month. She plans to put the project on Kickstarter to raise the estimated $25,000 she will need to turn her oil pastel drawings into an animated film.

The story of the good kitty who saves Earth from a planet-devouring feline is rooted in Navajo myth.

“It’s this monster who threatened the Earth, so these twin warriors came and killed him,” she said. “The lava rock at Mount Taylor is the blood of that monster.”Comment:  For more on Navajo movies, see Navajo Star Wars Cast Chosen and Science-Fair Star Inspires Movie.

Below:  "Melissa Henry, Navajo, poses with storyboard renditions of Captain Meow, the hero of her upcoming movie, Black Cat in Space. (Eddie Moore/Albuquerque Journal)

Stereotyping explained to South Park apologists

My 2010 "Tardicaca Indians" in South Park posting received a slew of comments from South Park devotees. Read the original posting to see what the fuss was about.

I guess these fans expected me to respond right away, because they became increasingly whiny. Too bad, crybabies...I'm approaching 12,000 blog postings and I don't have time to respond to everything.

But I finally felt like addressing these comments, so here they are with my responses:

Two minutes = one line?!

Let's start with a commenter who thought it was silly to criticize "one line" in the episode. By that he presumably meant the juvenile "Tardicaca Indians" name:Even if you ... stick to your view and insist that they are simply plain old, mean spirited racists/sexists/bigots, then how is that ONE LINE the only offensive thing worthy of comment?One line?! Did you witless apologists even watch the clip? It was 1:51 long and all about the Tardicaca Indians and reservation. The scene showed a fake reservation with tipis and "burial grounds" and labeled it dangerous. Half-naked "braves" skewered the "boss" with arrows.

Most important, there was nothing whatsoever telling the viewer that this was a false or "satirical" view of Indians. The satire is entirely in your imagination, because it isn't in the clip. If you disagree, quote me the line that demonstrates to the viewers that this is a put-on.

Most of you anonymous cowards didn't even address the clip's content. Those who did suggested it indeed may have been stereotypical, but for a "good" reason. Namely, that South Park insults and offends everyone, so it's okay to do it to Indians too.

So let's start with the basic question you were too afraid to answer. Did the clip stereotype Indians? Answer yes or no and then we'll discuss whether the "reasons" justify the stereotyping.

South Park didn't mean it?South Park, at its very best, is supposed to make you squirm and it is intended to be facetious, in-your-face, and to contain massive stereotyping.And I noted its massive stereotyping of Indians. So what's the problem?

I'm glad you wrote "intended to be facetious." If Parker and Stone intended the Native stereotypes to be facetious, they didn't put that on the screen. Trying to read their minds is ridiculous compared to the fact of what's on display.South Park is being "racist" towards Native American Indians in order to make people think that they don't like them. It's to highlight racism and equality issues that exist within our society.This episode highlighted the racism against Indians? How did it do that, exactly? Explain how a typical viewer goes from seeing the stereotypes he's seen a million times before to realizing these stereotypes are false.

Apparently you all haven't watched a thousand stereotypical movies, TV shows, and cartoons like I have. Apparently you're clueless about the difference between presenting stereotypes and challenging them. South Park hasn't challenged the stereotypes it presented about Indians. Its "satirical" presentation is indistinguishable from straightforward stereotyping.

Commenters prove their ignorance

Two of you geniuses helped prove my point when you wrote:People like me living in Australia don't know much about native Americans, and i assumed they would attack you if you trespassed, guess i was wrong.And:Many South American Indian tribes are rather savage so it is still fine to portray Injuns in that light. It's all in good humor.Wow. South American Indians are savage, so that justifies portraying Indians 10,000 miles away as savage also. Because all Indians are the same, I guess, in your little pea-brains.

And Indians would attack you if you trespassed? What, while you were driving on one of the many roads through their reservations? Perhaps to visit their casinos, resorts, or cultural centers? Do you really think reservations are tiny patches of land and Indians stand guard at their borders? With bows and arrows?

Alas, you're apparently unaware that "Injun" is considered an insult too. Thanks for demonstrating that you're ignorant if not racist, bright boy.

To everyone else, explain to your fellow morons that Indians aren't savage and violent as portrayed in South Park. Because they haven't gotten the message yet. Somehow they failed to understand that the Tardicaca bit was a "satire."

Why doesn't Rob criticize everyoneWhat about when they poke fun at Catholics, Muslims, Jews, the handicapped, redheads, Scientology, Mexicans, Canadians, etc etc etc.???What about it? You're an idiot if you think I have time to criticize all the stereotyping of all these groups. I barely have time to criticize most of the stereotyping of Native Americans. This blog has a narrow focus and there's nothing wrong with that.

When a posting touches upon other groups--e.g., women, blacks, Latinos, Muslims, or gays--I'll often support those groups and attack their critics. If you haven't seen these postings, you haven't been reading long. Since I believe most of you came from a South Park forum, spare me your ignorance of my long history of criticism."Guesses don't interest me; facts do."

Bullshit. Hardly a post goes by without guesses and assumptions on your part about the people you criticize. Now, I don't expect you to do a thorough content analysis of 201 episodes of South Park, but most of the time about 30 seconds of googling would make your articles more factual and thus, more impactful.When I wrote, "Guesses don't interest me; facts do," that was a reference to your guesses about South Park. Specifically about whether you can prove it's a genuine equal-opportunity offender or you just "believe" it is. Guesses in general often interest me; I encourage people to speculate if they're not trying to prove a case.

"Offending everyone" still a guess

A few of you repeated the "equal-opportunity offender" defense without any attempt to justify it. So I'll simply repeat what I said before:

Don't bother telling me South Park is an equal-opportunity offender who insults every political, racial, and religious group equally. Unless you've done a study in which you tallied all the insults and compared them to US and world demographics, you're just guessing that South Park is evenhanded. Guesses [on this subject] don't interest me; facts do.

As for making my postings more factual, go ahead and give one example of an obvious and important fact I missed in any posting. I'm betting you can't, and this "criticism" of yours is nothing but childish chest-beating.If this show offends you that much don't watch it. No one is holding you down forcing you watch the hilarity of South Park.If my criticism bothers you, don't read it. Apply your own dumbass "thinking" to yourself, hypocrite.

Clueless about video-sharingOh, and if you don't support them, then why are you linking their videos off their site... You complain about it, but use their servers to stream your crap... Real nice...Like every other video-sharing site on the Web, the South Park site includes an "embed" option so you can post their videos. If they didn't want us to share it, they wouldn't let us share it. Duhhh.

In short, better luck next time, losers. When you have a question I can't answer, it'll be a red-letter day. Unfortunately for you, that hasn't happened yet.

For more on South Park, see Native Canadians in South Park and "Tardicaca Indians" in South Park

Below:  An image from South Park's previous racist "satire" about Indians.

Morris Mirror: Natives = "terrorists"

Manitoba newspaper sparks furor with racist editorialThe mayor of the southern Manitoba town of Morris is furious over what he calls racist comments about aboriginal people in a recent edition of the community newspaper.

"I'm shocked and appalled that somebody can write something like that and think that it was right and acceptable to say it," said Mayor Gavin van der Linde.

"We can have our opinions about what people do and that's fine. But the tone and the words he chose to use were totally unacceptable."

The editorial in the Morris Mirror, written by editor-in-chief Reed Turcotte and published in the current edition, states that "in some cases, natives are acting like terrorists in their own country. Indians/Natives want it all but corruption and laziness prevent some of them from working for it."

On the same page is a cartoon depicting a traditional First Nation person holding a small campfire in his hand and sending out smoke signals.

The caption on the cartoon states: “Before they were partially wiped out by white men’s diseases, the Canadian Indian had a highly evolved society built around the world’s first cellphone.”

Turcotte, who said he has received about 37 inquiries from media outlets across North America, has since issued an apology. He said a special edition of the paper will be published Friday.

But van der Linde calls the apology weak and meaningless.

"It was an attempt at an apology. He then went and tried to justify himself and so in my opinion, that's no apology at all," van der Linde said.

"If you apologize, just apologize, you don't have to go and re-justify your opinion."Here's the cartoon in question:



The most obvious question is: How is it relevant to show an Indian from hundreds of years ago in a debate about today's Indians? Answer: It isn't. This cartoon does nothing except insinuate that Indians are primitive and barbaric compared to white men. Not only then, but now.

Even as an attempt to belittle Indians of the past, the cartoon fails. Some Indians did use smoke signals--and that system was more advanced than any communications used contemporaneously by white men. Primitive Euro-Americans didn't have anything better than hand-carried messages until Alter invented the telegraph in 1836.

In other words, for most of their existence, Indians had better communications technology than the white man.

Newspaper "apologizes"

'Racist' view getting support, rural Manitoba editor saysThe editor of a small-town Manitoba newspaper at the centre of a firestorm over comments that labelled some aboriginal people lazy, corrupt and terrorists, claims most people agree with him.

Morris Mirror editor-in-chief Reed Turcotte estimates that 75 per cent of the feedback he has received is from people who support his position.

In a one-paragraph comment, which appeared earlier this week in the Mirror, Turcotte gave a "thumbs down" to the Idle No More movement and wrote that some aboriginals "are demanding unrealistic expectations of the government and … in some cases, natives are acting like terrorists in their own country. Indians/natives want it all but corruption and laziness prevent some of them from working for it."

The comment grabbed national headlines and sparked outrage from several people, including Morris Mayor Gavin van der Linde, who said he was "shocked and appalled."

In the wake of the reaction on Thursday, Turcotte wrote, "We apologize to those we offended in that regards; however, we stand by the fact that the natives must work to get out of their situation rather than sit 'Idle No More.'"

The ongoing furor then prompted him to publish a special edition of the Mirror on Friday, in which he included 15 letters supporting his position and seven opposed.

Turcotte also printed a followup editorial stating that he believes "citizens, whether they are native or otherwise, have the right to protest and try and make their lives better."Morris Mirror's Racist Cartoon And Editorial Prompt Non-ApologyIn a new editorial, Turcotte acknowledges First Nations' peoples right to protest and free speech, but references a recent Ipsos Reid poll that found a majority of Canadians think aboriginal people get too much support from taxpayers and that most of their problems are brought on by themselves.

The special edition also features a number of letters from readers, both in favour and against the editorial and cartoon (though more than half are in favour).

"I heard on the news this morning about your article regarding aboriginals being lazy.. [sic] I would just like to say congratulations for having the guts to say what everyone else is thinking," one of the letters reads.

In a letter of his own, the town's Mayor Gavin van der Linde, who has loudly denounced Turcotte's work, calls the cartoon and editorial " inappropriate and racist" and characterizes the editor's apology as "weak and meaningless."

On CBC's "Power And Politics" earlier this week, van der Linde said the print edition of the Mirror actually featured a more offensive version of the editorial. Turcotte told CTV News that the phrase "a type of paganism" was removed from the cartoon for the online version, according to The Canadian Press.You can see the special edition here:

Morris Mirror--January 21, 2013

If a majority of Canadians think aboriginal people get too much support from taxpayers, what does that tell you? That aboriginal people actually do get too much support from taxpayers? Or that a majority of Canadians are ignorant if not racist?

I'd say the latter. Note that Turcotte hasn't even considered this possibility. He apparently thinks the "truth" is whatever the majority believes.

White man enforced dependence

A columnist answers the "laziness" charge that so many Canadians believe:

Racism, hunger and laziness: A First Nations youth perspective on Idle No More media coverage

By Sasha Chabot GaspeI have followed the Idle No More movement ravenously, consuming online Canadian media coverage, as well as the commentary section following every article. In these comments, it is clear that, in a purportedly enlightened country like Canada, racism against First Nations people is everywhere.

In particular, I'm struck by the repeated accusation of the laziness of First Nations people. The hypocrisy of such a characterization is astounding. In fact, few Canadians have taken any time to find out the facts, preferring instead to regurgitate the racist stereotypes that we've been fed by the media and the mainstream education system for generations.

As one commentator pointed out, it's 2013 and it's time for us to collectively grow up: Canadians, do your research and educate yourselves about the gross injustices, oppression, colonization, and frankly illegal activity perpetrated by the Canadian government against Aboriginal people for centuries.And:Next, educate yourselves about oppressive legislation like the Gradual Civilization Act, the Gradual Enfranchisement Act and the Indian Act, which made it illegal for First Nations people to engage in many types of economic activities, to go to university, to join the armed forces, or to even learn how to read, without giving up their Indian status.

It will quickly become clear that the dependency you sometimes see in Aboriginal communities, what you short-sightedly identify as laziness, was in fact deliberately created by your government through policy and legislation.

Finally, educate yourselves about Residential schools--you'll soon understand the depth of physical and sexual abuse experienced by the over 100,000 Aboriginal children who were forced to attend these schools, in addition to the feelings of worthlessness and shame these children were made to feel towards their culture, their traditions, and the colour of their skin. You'll come to realize that the type of education given at these schools was intended to create a poor labouring class. You'll quickly discover that the last residential school was closed in 1996, a mere 17 years ago. And you'll understand that the intergenerational effects of the horrific traumas experienced at these schools are the reasons for the social problems you see now in many Aboriginal communities.

Hopefully, once you've done this research, you'll feel compassion, and you'll realize that centuries of abuse and oppression don't merely go away in the blink of an eye. It takes time--some might even say it takes seven generations.For more on Idle No More, see Idle No More's "Day of Action" and Supervisor: Idle No More Is "Pointless".

PEACE PARTY cartoon: Idle No More

The Peace Party political cartoon returns to tackle Idle No More.



For more on Idle No More, see Idle No More = Occupy and Harper to Meet with Chiefs.

Animated stories for NA Heritage Month

Native American Heritage Month: Check Out These Animated Stories on YouTubeOne may not think of YouTube as being a place to find information about Native American history, but a number of individuals and tribes have taken to using animation to tell their stories.

So, for Native American Heritage Month, here are a few examples of how animation has been used to tell Native stories.Comment:  The posting includes seven examples of animated Native videos.

For more on the subject, see Halbritter Signs Books, DVDs and Iktomi Cartoons on GoodHealth TV.

Below:  "This animation uses puppets to tell the story of The Owl and the Lemming: An Eskimo Legend, in which the main character is outsmarted by his would-be dinner with flattery."

Primitive Indian in gas-tax cartoon

Tribal Gas Stations Get a Sweetheart Deal in Washington

Gov. Chris Gregoire says she was forced to give tribes a break on taxes, but some lawyers say that doesn't pass the smell test.

Comment:  What's interesting here is the Dan Carino cartoon used to illustrate this article.


That's Gregoire on the right. The issue is the state's gas-tax compact, which the article calls a "sweetheart deal." Gregoire's gas can is labeled "gas tax compact," and she's obviously pouring gas on the flames.

Unfortunately, nothing else is clear. Pouring gas on a fire is a metaphor for encouraging a bad result. And the bad result in this case is...smoke signals? How does a puff of smoke suggest that Indians are profiting from an allegedly unfair deal?

Conceptually, the cartoon is a failure. But the real problem, of course, is the stereotypical Indian. He's got a buckskin dress-shirt, a feather in a headband, and a big hooked nose. More subtly, he's got pointed ears and a 5 o'clock shadow, which make him look faintly disreputable.

This Indian is making smoke signals because any technology from a handwritten letter to the telegraph to telephones and the Internet is beyond his reach. He's clearly out of date by a couple of centuries. Moreover, he looks more like an Eastern Woodlands Indian (like Jay Silverheels the Mohawk Tonto) than an Indian from Washington state.

In short, the image is badly stereotypical. Yet he's paired with a 21st-century white woman in a modern business suit. Conclusion: Indians are primitive; white people aren't.

This depiction is so typical and "normal" that most people won't think about it. It shows us how the mainstream's view of Indians is stuck in the 19th century. We're civilized and they're savage--the message we've seen and heard a million times

For more on the subject, see Indian Chief Bust at White Faux Taxidermy and Race in Revealing Eden.

Ty Longshadow = Apache Chief?

Demythify: Young Justice Invasion Newest Debut Inspired By Super Friends & Justice League Unlimited?

By John BabosIn this week’s episode five of Young Justice Invasion: Season 2 titled “Beneath”, from Cartoon Network’s DC Nation block of programming, we see the debut of a seemingly younger version of a classic TV iconic cartoon hero. Intrigued?

The episode opens with a Native American boy named “Ty” who is reaching out to his friend Jaime Reyes–who happens to be the teen hero Blue Beetle on Young Justice–after a fight with his mom’s boyfriend. Ty is planning to runaway to Houston via bus, but is kidnapped before Jaime can get to the bus station to stop his already thwarted runaway plans. Interestingly the mystery around Ty forms the subplot of this week’s episode. So, big things are likely ahead.Ty looks a lot like a young Apache Chief--down to the stereotypical bandana.



But there's more:Throughout this week’s Young Justice episode on Cartoon Network more clues emerge, beyond appearance, that make the case for Ty being (eventually) the Young Justice world’s (Earth 16 in the DC Comics / Entertainment multiverse) Apache Chief or perhaps a character with a less stereotypical nom de guerre.

For instance, when Jaime Reyes visits Ty’s mom, we learn that her name is Shelley Longshadow.

In addition, Jaime also visits Ty’s maternal grandfather named Holling Longshadow.

So, why are these two references significant clues in the Apache Chief puzzle?

Well, in the episode “Ultimatum” of the more recent 2000s era Justice League Unlimited animated series, viewers were introduced to a character code-named Long Shadow who was a Native American with stature changing powers similar to the Super Friends’ Apache Chief. This by itself during the JLU may have been dismissed as a Super Friends connection if not for the uncanny similarities between Long Shadow’s Ultimen teammates to other Super Friends: namely Juice being similar to Black Vulcan and Wind Dragon’s similarity to Samurai.

We also learn in the Young Justice Invasion / DC Nation episode that Ty comes from a long line of Apache Chiefs and his grandfather tells Jaime that Ty is likely on a vision quest to seek out his important role in the world.Comment:  I imagine DC will introduce Ty Longshadow as...Long Shadow, an update of the stereotypical Apache Chief.

Except for Ty's stereotypical appearance, this looks like a good update. Unlike Apache Chief, Ty has a whole history as a real, contemporary person. He's descended from Apache chiefs, which links him to his predecessor. But I trust he's not a (young) chief himself.

Moreover, "Long Shadow" is a good name for a Native character with growing powers. Presumably he'll be dressed like the Long Shadow in the Ultimen:



For more on the subject, see Manitou Raven Was Apache Chief.

Animated Inuit film honored

Education : Animated Nunavut film honoured at Cine Las Americas International Film FestivalThe award-winning animated Nunavut film Amaqqut Nunaat: The Country of Wolves has won the jury award for "Best Narrative Short" at the 15th Cine Las Americas International Film Festival in Austin, Texas.

Cine Las Americas is a multi-cultural, non-profit organization based in Austin Texas. Its mission is to promote cross-cultural understanding and growth by educating, entertaining and challenging diverse audiences through film and media arts.

"This film seems to be getting a lot of positive responses from audiences across the world," said Director Neil Christopher. "I couldn't be happier with how this traditional Inuit story is being received."

Amaquut Nunaat is based on an Inuit traditional story that can be found across Nunavut.Comment:  For more on Inuit filmmaking, see Natives and Québécois Partner on Film and National Distribution for On the Ice.