The Dartmouth Dolezal?

Native Americans Blast Dartmouth for New Hire

The new director of Dartmouth’s Native American Program is causing controversy over her confusing—and possibly inaccurate—background.

By Samantha AllenA week ago, Dartmouth announced that ethnomusicologist Susan Taffe Reed is the new director of the college’s Native American Program, boasting that she is “the president of the Eastern Delaware Nations.”

But the Eastern Delaware Nations (EDN) is not a federally recognized Native American tribe, it’s a 501(c)(3) that also allows “members [who] are not of Native American descent, but [who] join as social members.” And, after a searing blog post unearthed alleged death certificates of Taffe’s ancestors that show her family coming to the U.S. from Ireland after the Indian Removal Act, Native American alumni of the college are protesting the hire on their Facebook page. Native American media is also scrutinizing Dartmouth’s decision to hire someone for a student affairs position who seems less than forthcoming about her own heritage.

The issue, they say, is not necessarily the EDN’s lack of federal recognition but a refusal of transparency on Taffe Reed’s part that recalls recent cases like disgraced former NAACP chapter president Rachel Dolezal and UC Riverside professor Andrea Smith, who continues to claim Cherokee identity despite backlash from Cherokee scholars and leaders.And:Dr. Nicky Kay Michael, a Native American historian and member of the federally recognized Delaware Tribal Council told The Daily Beast that she is very skeptical of Taffe Reed’s claim to be from the Turtle Clan if she is unwilling to openly discuss her heritage.

“When you say those things, that’s a red flag,” Michael said. “If you are Delaware, you’re going to have to say who your family is. It’s not just a case of federal recognition; we want to know who you are. What family do you come from?”

As Michael notes, the Delaware tribes in the United States that currently have federal recognition originally lived near the Delaware River but relocated west under pressure from the government beginning in the mid-eighteenth century. The Pennsylvania-based Eastern Delaware Nations group from which Taffe Reed hails claims on its website that most of its members are “descendants of Native Americans who lived in the Endless Mountains Region of Northeastern Pennsylvania and resisted being removed” but many in official Delaware tribes, Michael included, dispute the notion that a substantial number of Native Americans stayed behind in the Northeast.

“They don’t ask our permission to use our name and then they appropriate our culture,” Michael said of the EDN. “What [Taffe Reed] did is she basically used this 501(c)(3) as a forum and then she wrote articles claiming to be Delaware.” Michael does not speak for the Delaware Tribe but she says that an official statement is forthcoming.The head of a Native studies program doesn't have to be Native herself. But people are questioning whether she fibbed about being Native, which is an ethics issue regardless of her ancestry.

They're also concerned about conflating a nonprofit organization--one with non-Natives as members--with an unrecognized tribe. An unrecognized tribe has people living together with a shared culture and a documented history. A nonprofit like the Eastern Delaware Nations (EDN) Inc. generally doesn't.

For more on the subject, see "White" = Ordinary and Bland and Andrea Smith the White Savior.

Stereotypes threaten academic achievement

Professor affirms effects of Indian mascots

By Jack RooneyStephanie Fryberg, a visiting professor of psychology at the University of Washington, presented her research Tuesday on the psychological effects of American Indian sports mascots, which affirmed these types of social representations depress the self-esteem of American Indian students.

Fryberg’s lecture, titled “From Stereotyping to Invisibility: The Psychological Consequences of Using American Indian Mascots,” highlighted several studies she and her colleagues have performed.And:All of the studies, though, concluded that essentially any American Indian mascot representations harmed the self-esteem of American Indian students, Fryberg said.

“Consistent with the past two studies, it turns out that being exposed to any one of these mascots decreased achievement-related possible selves,” she said. “So what it means is if they saw the Indian mascot, then any possible selves they had related to achievement in school were depressed.”

Indians and blacks too

Some related research on stereotypes:

Stereotype Threat Widens Achievement GapSteele, Aronson and Spencer, have examined how group stereotypes can threaten how students evaluate themselves, which then alters academic identity and intellectual performance. This social-psychological predicament can, researchers believe, beset members of any group about whom negative stereotypes exist.

Steele and Aronson gave Black and White college students a half-hour test using difficult items from the verbal Graduate Record Exam (GRE). In the stereotype-threat condition, they told students the test diagnosed intellectual ability, thus potentially eliciting the stereotype that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. In the no-stereotype-threat condition, the researchers told students that the test was a problem-solving lab task that said nothing about ability, presumably rendering stereotypes irrelevant. In the stereotype threat condition, Blacks--who were matched with Whites in their group by SAT scores--did less well than Whites. In the no stereotype- threat condition--in which the exact same test was described as a lab task that did not indicate ability--Blacks' performance rose to match that of equally skilled Whites. Additional experiments that minimized the stereotype threat endemic to standardized tests also resulted in equal performance. One study found that when students merely recorded their race (presumably making the stereotype salient), and were not told the test was diagnostic of their ability, Blacks still performed worse than Whites.

Spencer, Steele, and Diane Quinn, PhD, also found that merely telling women that a math test does not show gender differences improved their test performance. The researchers gave a math test to men and women after telling half the women that the test had shown gender differences, and telling the rest that it found none. When test administrators told women that that tests showed no gender differences, the women performed equal to men. Those who were told the test showed gender differences did significantly worse than men, just like women who were told nothing about the test. This experiment was conducted with women who were top performers in math, just as the experiments on race were conducted with strong, motivated students.Stereotypes found to affect performance on standardized testSteele's theory is that stereotype vulnerability, the unsettling expectation that one's membership in a stigmatized group will limit individual ability, may be at the root of lower grades and SAT scores for African Americans. Stereotype vulnerability raises interfering anxiety during testing or classroom situations, Steele wrote. The same dynamic also could explain why highly skilled women at the university level drop out of programs in math, engineering and the physical sciences, he added.

"Surprisingly, you don't have to believe in the stereotype to be vulnerable to it," he pointed out to his audience at the APA convention.

"Everyone in a collective knows the stereotypes about a given target group, including the group members themselves, and everyone knows that everyone knows," Steele wrote in a paper prepared for the convention. "Thus the predicament of 'stereotype vulnerability': The group members then know that anything about them or anything they do that fits the stereotype can be taken as confirming it as self-characteristic, in the eyes of others, and perhaps even in their own eyes. This vulnerability amounts to a jeopardy of double devaluation: once for whatever bad thing the stereotype-fitting behavior or feature would say about anyone, and again for its confirmation of the bad things alleged in the stereotype.Yes, it makes sense that any kind of stigmatizing--e.g., "You're a girl, so you have to try harder"--would increase anxiety and decrease performance. So there's no rational way to spin a racist stereotype as an "honor" that helps Native children. It would be like encouraging me with an 18th-century image of a dirt-poor farmer in an log cabin.

How would that relate to my experience in the 21st century? Try harder and I can be a dirt-poor farmer too?

If a school had a program that honored real live Natives, that might be different. But few if any schools have that.

This point could generate a whole article. An article ripping the idea that centuries-old images are supposed to help Natives in general and Native students in particular.

It obviously wouldn't work if you showed black students pictures of half-naked African spearchuckers. How exactly is the Native case different?


Be all that you can be, African Americans! Aim for the stars!

Anthropological Association Takes a Stand in Native American Mascot Debate

By Rob StottThough the American Anthropological Association has been a vocal proponent of indigenous rights throughout its history, the group had remained quiet on the Native American mascot debate. That changed last week when AAA released a statement on the issue.

Anthropologists have joined a long line of groups to call on professional and college sports communities to rethink their use of Native American mascots and nicknames. Except in instances where tribes or key stakeholders have been consulted (see Florida State University and San Diego State University), sports organizations should “denounce and abandon the use of American Indian” imagery, the American Anthropological Association said in a statement [PDF] released last week.

“While these organizations may feel they are honoring Native Americans, many in that community view it to be a degrading and painful symbol of racism,” Monica Heller, AAA president, said in the statement. “Research has established that the continued use of American Indian sports mascots harms American Indian people in psychological, educational, and social ways. Frankly, I don’t see where the honor is in that.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see The Harm of Native Stereotyping: Facts and Evidence.

California's 4th-grade mission mythology

Lying to Children About the California Missions and the Indians

By Deborah A. MirandaAll my life, I have heard only one story about California Indians: godless, dirty, stupid, primitive, ugly, passive, drunken, immoral, lazy, weak-willed people who might make good workers if properly trained and motivated. What kind of story is that to grow up with?

The story of the missionization of California.

In 1769, after missionizing much of Mexico, the Spaniards began to move up the west coast of North America in order to establish claims to rich resources and before other European nations could get a foothold. Together, the Franciscan priests and Spanish soldiers "built" a series of 21 missions along what is now coastal California. (California's Indigenous peoples, numbering more than 1 million at the time, did most of the actual labor.) These missions, some rehabilitated from melting adobe, others in near-original state, are now one of the state's biggest tourist attractions; in the little town of Carmel, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo is the biggest attraction. Elsewhere, so-called Mission décor drenches Southern California, from restaurants to homes, apartment buildings, animal shelters, grocery stores, and post offices. In many neighborhoods, a bastardized Mission style is actually required by cities or neighborhood associations. Along with this visual mythology of adobe and red clay roof tiles comes the cultural storytelling that drains the missions of their brutal and bloody pasts for popular consumption.

In California schools, students come up against the "Mission Unit" in 4th grade, reinforcing the same lies those children have been breathing in most of their lives. Part of California's history curriculum, the unit is entrenched in the educational system and impossible to avoid, a powerfully authoritative indoctrination in Mission Mythology to which 4th graders have little if any resistance. Intense pressure is put upon students (and their parents) to create a "Mission Project" that glorifies the era and glosses over both Spanish and Mexican exploitation of Indians, as well as enslavement of those same Indians during U.S. rule. In other words, the Mission Unit is all too often a lesson in imperialism, racism, and Manifest Destiny rather than actually educational or a jumping-off point for critical thinking or accurate history.

I can confirm that my California school had a "mission" unit. I was in 5th grade, but it was a joint social studies class with grades 3-5 (experimental school). We divided into teams and made some sort of cutout missions, but nothing as good as these.

What's up with constructing missions, anyway? What about the White House, the Alamo, or Sutter's Mill? Why is a mission the only historical building constructed by California students?

Someone could make the case that this veers too far into state-sponsored religion. I mean, you could read the Bible or reenact a Catholic ceremony and claim it was for learning about California's mission era. Constructing a mission isn't much different.

For more on California's missions, see Indoctrinating Students About Missions.

Below:  Happy-go-lucky Indians Preaching and Farming at Mission Dolores by Anton Refregier. Former Rincon Annex Post Office, San Francisco, California.

Conservatives want to brainwash kids

Conservatives are trying to indoctrinate our youth in many ways. Every argument about teaching evolution or school prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance is about this. So are the attempts to politicize the textbook selection process or to ban ethnic studies as "divisive."

Lately, conservatives are trying to brainwash kids by straight-up changing the curriculum to emphasize Christianity and capitalism. Or by eliminating education altogether.

The latest examples of this:

Will Right-Wing Extremist Documentary Be Required Viewing in Florida?

By Tanya H. LeeD’Souza answers the charge of genocide this way: “In the two centuries after Columbus, the Native American population declined by 80 percent. But it wasn’t due to warfare. Rather, as historian William McNeil points out, they contracted diseases—measles, typhus, smallpox, cholera and malaria, to which they had no immunities. Now this is tragedy on a grand scale, but it’s not genocide because genocide implies an intention to wipe out a people.”

ICTMN asked three university professors to respond. Dr. James Riding In, Pawnee, associate professor of American Indian Studies at Arizona State University, says:

“D’Souza does not understand what genocide is. There is a UN convention that was adopted in 1948 that defines genocide. What the declaration on genocide says is that it’s the killing of members of a group… or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group…[or] inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part… [or] imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children to another group.

“All of these things happened to Indians. Yes, a lot of Indians died of disease and the population of the Americas declined over 90 percent after the arrival of Europeans. A big part of that population decline is attributed to disease, but there were survivors.

“Those survivors were trying to hold on to their culture, their beliefs, their way of life, their philosophies about life that had been developed in the distant past and were supposed to continue on indefinitely. What United States colonialism did was disrupt the future of Indigenous Peoples.”

Riding In notes, “U.S. policy was genocide. It was designed, to use the jargon of the time, to kill the savage and save the man. Well, there was a lot of killing of the man along the way. And women. And children.”

Oklahoma’s demented fight against AP history

A new bill would fight teaching "what's bad about America"

By Mary Elizabeth WilliamsIt may not be true that history is written by the victors, but in certain places, they’re making a hell of an effort to make sure it’s at least taught by them. In Oklahoma this week, a legislative committee took aim at Advanced Placement U.S. History classes in public schools.

House Bill 1380, introduced by Republican Rep. Dan Fisher, would “give sole control of curriculum and assessment to the state,” with particular regard to Advanced Placement classes offered for students to earn college credit. Fisher happens to be a member of the ominously named Black Robe Regiment, a group whose aims include “To educate all people and restore to its rightful place the Church in America (indeed, the entire earth)” and “To provide educational materials for use in the Church and for the American Public to restore our American History and the History of the American Church, so as to restore what has been lost by way of deception and historical revision.” Fisher claims the AP curriculum emphasizes “what is bad about America” and neglects the concept of “American exceptionalism.” College Board representative John Williamson, meanwhile, calls Fisher’s objections “mythology and not true.”

The simplistic notion that kids need to be taught “exceptionalism,” a pervasive and often flat out inaccurate, bathed-in-glory vision of American superiority, has led to multiple educational skirmishes over the past few years. In Colorado last year, a Board of Education member took issue with AP History’s “overly negative view” of slavery, noting, “Yes, we practiced slavery. But we also ended it voluntarily, at great sacrifice, while the practice continues in many countries still today!” In North Carolina this past December, the State Board of Education held a debate over the AP US History course’s omission of exceptionalism in its 70 page framework. Similar battles over educational “ideological bias” and the “negative aspects” of history have waged in Georgia and South Carolina.

Ignorance is bad for everybody. It only lowers the collective IQ when lawmakers still push to teach “intelligent design.” It similarly should never be a matter of any dispute that the Inquisition and the Crusades were bad ideas, and to take offense over pointing that out is inane. Likewise, these targeted, strategic attempts to force students—students who are intellectually sophisticated enough to take on college level coursework—to accept a propaganda-based curriculum is detrimental to critical thought as a whole. It should be absurd to promote any educational agenda that pushes jingoism as a lesson plan. It should never have gotten this far. And the reality of life in the 21st century is that we are sharing this planet with the rest of its inhabitants. It’s not just dumb and wrong to teach kids that we’re better than the rest of the world, and to attempt to conspicuously leave our past misdeeds from lessons—it’s bad diplomacy and it’s bad business. That’s not teaching exceptionalism; it’s teaching entitlement—not a useful quality on the global playing field.

There’s a profound insecurity at the heart of any agenda that presumes that if kids aren’t spoon fed a black and white fairy tale of our national greatness, they’ll have no pride or loyalty. Arrogance isn’t patriotism, and education isn’t indoctrination. And anyone who doesn’t comprehend that difference doesn’t just need a history lesson, he needs a dictionary.Fox Host: 'There Really Shouldn't Be Public Schools' Anymore

By Ahiza GarciaFox host Lisa "Kennedy" Montgomery suggested getting rid of the nation's public schools during a discussion on Thursday's "Outnumbered."

Kennedy's comments came during a segment about an Oklahoma bill, approved by a House committee, that seeks to eliminate AP US History. The bill asserts that the current iteration of the course doesn't show "American exceptionalism," instead highlighting "what is bad about America."

"There really shouldn't be public schools, should there?" Kennedy said. "I mean we should really go to a system where parents of every stripe have a choice, have a say in the kind of education their kids get because, when we have centralized, bureaucratic education doctrines and dogmas like this, that's exactly what happens."Comment:  For more on the subject, see Christian Curriculum Praises Trail of Tears, What Conservatives Consider Objective History, and Ethnic History Corrects American History.

Three paragraphs of European history

What if people told European history like they told Native American history?

By KaiThe first immigrants to Europe arrived thousands of years ago from central Asia. Most pre-contact Europeans lived together in small villages. Because the continent was very crowded, their lives were ruled by strict hierarchies within the family and outside it to control resources. Europe was highly multi-ethnic, and most tribes were ruled by hereditary leaders who commanded the majority “commoners.” These groups were engaged in near constant warfare.

Pre-contact Europeans wore clothing made of natural materials such as animal skin and plant and animal-based textiles. Women wore long dresses and covered their hair, and men wore tunics and leggings. Both men and women liked to wear jewelry made from precious stones and metals as a sign of status. Before contact, Europeans had very poor diets. Most people were farmers and grew wheat and vegetables and raised cows and sheep to eat. They rarely washed themselves, and had many diseases because they often let their animals live with them.

Religion infused every part of Europeans’ lives. Europeans believed in one supreme deity, a father figure, who they believed was made of three parts, and they particularly worshiped the deity’s son. They claimed that their god had given humans domination over the earth. They built elaborate temples to him and performed ceremonies in which they ate crackers and drank wine and believed it was the body and blood of their god, who would provide them with entrance into a wondrous afterlife called heaven when they died. Many wars were fought over disagreements about the details of this religion, each group believing their interpretation was the right one that should be spread across the land.

Now imagine that is part of a textbook that has entire chapters on the Mississippian polities of the 1200s and a detailed account of the diplomatic situation of the southeastern provinces in the 1400s and 1500s, an enormous section that goes through the history of the rise of the Triple Alliance in Mexico and goes through the rule of each tlatoani and their policies, the heritage of Teotihuacan and its legacy in later Mesoamerican politics, elaborate descriptions of the trade routes that connected and drove various nations in North America. Long explanations of the rise of various religious movements such as the calumet ceremony and Midewiwin, and how they affected political agendas and artistic trends. Pages and pages and pages going through the past thousand years of American history century by century.

And these three paragraphs are the only mention of European history before the year 1500.

Oklahoma schools reenact Land Run

Elementary School Alternative To Land Run Reenactments Offers More Sides Of The Story

By Susan ShannonSara Adams Cornell has two daughters in the Oklahoma City school district. Last year her daughters participated in a reenactment of the Oklahoma Land Run of 1889.

As members of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Cornell said her daughters didn’t understand why anyone would want to reenact that occasion. Cornell contacted the school and was told by her daughter’s teacher and the school principal they could sit in the office or miss a day of school with an unexcused absence.

Cornell found these alternatives unacceptable, so at a Native American Student Services parents meeting, Cornell brought up the land run reenactments.

“Their reaction was really what I think inspired us most to do this,” Cornell said. “They talked about feeling singled out, and they talked about feeling embarrassed. These are a lot of emotions that equated to what children feel when their being bullied.”

April 22nd is Land Run Re-enactment Day: Students & Teachers Race to Stake Their Claims

By Joyce Griffin OberlyEven though we were the original inhabitants of Oklahoma, we were not allowed to participate in the Land Run events. This separation of Oklahoma society, still echoes today. For example, we have little say on the organization and culturally appropriate education for students in public schools, including but not limited to the Land Run celebrations.

Earlier this month, I received a note from my son's school stating that on April 22nd, students and staff will re-enact the Land Run of 1889. The re-enactment will include students grouped into "families" to race across the playground and stake their claims.

As a kid raised in Oklahoma, I remember participating in a similar event in first grade. I went to a school with a significant Indian student population. My teacher specifically asked that the Indian children wear their Indian clothes to school that day. I can only surmise this added to the dramatic effect for our re-enactment.

Thirty years later, I assumed Oklahoma public schools taught this subject without the Land Run re-enactment. I am not the only one with this viewpoint. Beginning in 2007, the Society to Preserve the Indigenous Rights and Indigenous Traditions attempted to petition the state to ban these land run re-enactments at public schools. From my perspective, re-enacting the Land Run of 1889 only serves to physically demonstrate one side of history.In contrast to the schools' happy reenactments, some actual history:

Native History: Land Rush for Oklahoma Indian Territory Begins



Comment:  I'm not sure kids should be reenacting any part of US history, including the uncontroversial ones. Take the signing of the Declaration of Independence, for instance. What educational value does it have to reenact it--as opposed to reading about it?

The reenactment is mostly propaganda--sending a message about how great and glorious the American enterprise is. Well, what would the British loyalists say? What would the Indian tribes, who mostly sided with the British, say? The reenactment sends the message that this history matters and other histories don't.

The first school eventually instituted an Oklahoma History Day, which includes a Native perspective. It sounds like that perspective is only one of many, so it's not as if they're seriously trying to counteract the settler story.

And we don't know how this one day compares to the Land Run festivities in scope. I'm guessing the Manifest Destiny narrative still predominates.

The school's initial response is telling. As with the Pledge of Allegiance, if you challenge the government propaganda machine, you get punished or shamed. Message: Conform and submit!

Anyway, play-acting the Land Run contributes to several stereotypes: that the land was empty and free for the taking. That Indian nations weren't using it "productively." And that conquest and land theft is something to be celebrated rather than condemned. For these reasons, these news items are a Stereotype of the Month entry.

For more on the subject, see Empty Land in True Grit.

The Pyramid of Hate

Exactly. Mascots and other forms of stereotyping aren't separate from and unrelated to hate, violence, and mass murder. Rather, they form the base from which deadly impulses spring.

Some background on the Pyramid of Hate:

Pyramid of Hate ExerciseThe Pyramid of Hate was developed by the Anti-Defamation League as part of its curriculum for its A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE® Institute. This exercise was created jointly by the Anti-Defamation League and the USC Shoah Foundation Institute using video testimony from the Institute’s archive.The Pyramid of HateThe Anti-Defamation League and Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation are partnering to provide resources to educators and students for anti-bias education. To commemorate the United Nation’s International Day for Tolerance, they have combined one of ADL’s anti-bias learning tools, its Pyramid of Hate©, with visual history from the Shoah Foundation’s unmatched archive of Holocaust survivor and witness testimonies, to create an innovative classroom lesson for contemporary educators.

Alternatives to "Got land?" shirt

Michelle Tittler seems to be the driving force behind the opposition to the "Got land?" Thank an Indian" apparel. In my posting on the subject, I wondered what kind of shirt she'd approve.

There's no need to speculate further. In the debate she launched on her End Race Based Law page in Facebook, her first comment was this:IMAGINE T-SHIRTS THAT SAID 'Got money? thank a white person"

this has got to go.
You are going to get that racist sweater out of your school.

You are going to make sure that NO child has to learn this bullying abusive racism from the natives.

How dare you!

This is enough now from their racist bullying dialogue.

Michele TittlerMy response:

"Thank a white person"? I think you mean "Thank a Canadian," since Canadian is a multicultural and multiethnic country. Indians as a group did give up their land, so the girl's shirt is accurate. Your proposed shirt isn't, since Canadians, not white people, paid for the land with money.

Thank whites?

Perhaps realizing her initial alternative sounded racist, Tittler tried again:



I don't think this is any better. True, it doesn't set up whites as the alternative to Indians. But it still blames Indians as a whole for their own problems.

Alas, every line in this proposed shirt is stupid or wrong or both. Let's see how:

Never paid for it? Never earned it? The first occupant of a place doesn't have to pay anyone since there was no previous owner. When humans spread into Europe and Asia for the first time, they also didn't pay anyone.

Did the US pay anyone before it set up a base in Antarctica or landed on the moon? Why not? Because no one was there, dummy.

Similarly, earning the land implies working with or for the previous owners. If there were no previous owners, it wouldn't have been possible to earn anything from them.

In short, that's how reality works. Unless there's a prior agreement, the first person to find something gets it. Duhhh.

Never built anything on it? Not true, but more important, so what? Owning and developing land are two separate things. There's no requirement that land owners must develop their land.

Never contributed to others? You mean other than keeping the first colonists from dying of cold and hunger? Or fighting the Americans in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 alongside British Canadians?

More important, "contributing to others" also isn't a requirement for owning land. Millions of landowners in the US and Canada do nothing on their property except live. Their land contributes nothing to other people.

"Stole it"? Uh, from whom? The animals?

See previous answers about paying for and earning the land.

Even if the arguments are based on multiethnic Canada, the overall effect of these assertions is racist. Even if Tittler somehow managed to speak for Canadians of every color, she's still spewing venom at Indians and only Indians. That's discriminatory and therefore racist.

Got education?

There there are people who chimed in with alternatives such as "Got education? Thank a Canadian" or "Got money? Thank a Canadian." Let's use the first of these as an example.

For starters, these people mean Western education, not education. Indians were well-educated about their own lives and environments. That's why they had to help the pitiful colonists who couldn't survive in America.

Western education became necessary only when Euro-Americans conquered the Indians and stole their land. If the settlers had obeyed the treaties they signed, Natives might've managed for centuries without needing or wanting Western education.

Assuming Western education is necessary now, Indians would've adapted the way all cultures do when they encounter other cultures. Both sides would've learned from the other and the sum would've been greater than the parts.

The key point is that it would've been a mutual exchange of ideas between equals. The Indians would've traded resources for the white man's knowledge and vice versa. Canadians wouldn't have needed to give the Indians "free schools," which is undoubtedly what Tittler and company hate.

All that was short-circuited, again, by the Euro-American conquest of the Indians and theft of their land. I don't know about Canada, but in the US, every one of the 400 broken treaties was an illegal act of piracy. If Indians still owned a third or whatever of the continent, you can bet they'd be exchanging education, jobs, technology, and so forth on an equal basis.

All clear? For more on colonization, see:

White democracy depends on exterminating Indians
The #1 Thanksgiving myth
Murphy: Natives dismiss Canada's generosity
Black colonist excuses "Redskins," genocide
Places Europeans actually discovered

"Got land?" shirt stirs controversy

First Nation teen told not to wear 'Got Land?' shirt at school

Controversy resolved after additional meetings with nearby First NationA Saskatchewan student was told not to wear a sweatshirt in school that has the words "Got Land? Thank an Indian" on it, although officials have since relented.

Tenelle Starr, 13, is in Grade 8 and goes to school in Balcarres, about 90 kilometres northeast of Regina. She is a member of the nearby Star Blanket First Nation.

"It supports our treaty and land rights ... It's important." Starr told CBC News Tuesday, as the issue over the message on her shirt reverberated at her school and online through her Facebook page.How did people react to this seemingly harmless shirt?Starr said she wore her new sweatshirt to school on the first day of classes after the Christmas break, with no problems.

Since then, however, she was told other students had complained about the message on her sweater and was asked to change.

"They told me to remove my sweater because it was offending other people," she said.

Starr added that one of her teachers told her that some people viewed the message as racist.

"I didn't think it was racist," she said, adding she was embarrassed by the request to change. Although she did wear a cousin's shirt on the day she was first asked to change, she wore the sweatshirt again on subsequent school days.The outcome:Controversy resolved

Additional meetings between the school and leaders of the Star Blanket First Nation led to an understanding that Star's sweatshirt, and its message, were acceptable after all.

"We're all on the same page," Sheldon Poitras, a council member from the reserve, told CBC News Tuesday night. "They're in full support of the students wearing that type of a T-shirt or sweater and they had no intention of infringing on anything."A happy ending?

'Thank an Indian' shirt creator says orders flooding in

Winnipegger Jeff Menard says he wants to give his people pride, not cash inThe Winnipeg man behind "Got land? Thank an Indian" shirts says his phone has been ringing off the hook since a Saskatchewan girl helped make the phrase famous.

"Orders are just coming here left, right and centre," Jeff Menard told CBC News. "I'm being flooded with calls."

Tenelle Starr, 13, recently ran into opposition wearing her pink "Got land?" sweatshirt to school in Balcarres, Sask., although people at the school eventually relented.

Since Tuesday, her story has been on headlines and broadcasts across Canada.Alas, not quite.

'Thank an Indian' shirt generates intense reactionStarr's Facebook page was then swamped with comments, many expressing support and admiration for what she did and others criticizing her.

Joseph Gordon said his niece was bearing the scrutiny well.

"She's fine," Gordon told CBC News Thursday. "She is a strong girl but she has a lot of people sheltering her and keeping this from her."

There were also many negative and hurtful postings, which led to concerns.

"It was racist remarks with attempts to shadow it in opinion but they were pretty forceful, pretty racist," Sheldon Poitras, a friend of the family and a member of the band council for the Star Blanket First Nation, told CBC News.

"The family was concerned about Tenelle's safety."

On advice from RCMP, the family decided to deactivate Starr's Facebook account. An officer from the File Hills detachment of the RCMP confirmed that an investigation had begun.

Much of the online discussion dealt with people's perceptions of racism and what was conveyed by the message on the shirt.

Some people felt linking current day land ownership with historic Indian treaties was inappropriate.

Michele Tittler was posting on social media sites connected to the story. Tittler, from Vancouver, is a co-founder of a non-profit political organization called End Race-Based Laws, or ERBL Inc.

"I was immensely offended," Tittler told CBC News Thursday, regarding the message of the shirt. "And I was going to do everything within my power to have that shirt banned from that school."

Tittler said she had written to the Balcarres school and also sent notes to Facebook, complaining about the content on Starr's page.

She is also planning to lodge a formal complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, although it's not clear on what grounds. Tittler is, however, convinced that the message of the shirt is racist.

"This is racism," she said. "Canadians are really getting sick of the double-standard. No white kid could walk into a school with a shirt that says that in reverse."Stupid people confuse "racial" (anything about race) and "racist" (discrimination based on race). Most racial topics aren't "racist"...duh.

Indian treaties aren't racial at all. They're political agreements signed between one political entity and another.

By one ranking, the least diverse countries in the world are North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Tunisia, and Italy. So if we signed a treaty with North Korea, would it be illegal because it was race-based? No. It would be a political agreement regardless of the signers' ethnicity.

Indian treaties are like that. You could say they were politically and racially based because the political entities were often, but not always, a single race. But the fundamental basis for the agreements was political, not racial.

Facts aren't racist

I don't know how Tittler figures it's racist to make a factual statement about Indians. Is "Indians were the first Americans" racist? "Got land? Thank an Indian" is the same idea, only phrased differently.

And I'm not sure what Tittler considers the reverse of "Got land? Thank an Indian." "Illegally obtained land? Thank a white man"?

Perhaps she's thinking of something like "Founded the United States? Thank a white man" or "Invented penicillin? Thank a white man." But these were the work of particular white men, not all white men.

Indeed, white men opposed the Greek and Roman civilizations...the Christian church...and the American revolution. I can't think of anything that every white person and no nonwhite person created or discovered.

In contrast, every Indian was an owner/occupant of America before Columbus arrived. And no white man was. So this is something we can attribute to the entire group--unlike any discovery or invention by white men. Every piece of land in the Americas was either taken from Indians illegally or given by Indians legally.

Shirt haters = mascot lovers

The racist comments are about what you can expect whenever you take a pro-Indian position. Non-Indians seethe with racist resentment over the "special rights" and "government handouts" Indians supposedly get. They can't stand the idea that someone other than white Christians might be ahead.

This racist attitude is the same force behind other stereotypical incidents. For instance, Thanksgiving pageants, Halloween costumes, and sports mascots.

Non-Indians want to think, "We were friends with the Indians. We admired their courage and tenacity. We honor them because Americans are paragons of virtue who love everybody and do the right thing."

The corollary is that they don't want to think, "We robbed the Indians of their land. We broke the treaties we signed because we're liars and cheaters. We captured or killed any Indians who refused to sign and surrender."

I suspect there's a large overlap between people who'd hurl racist epithets at someone wearing a "Got land?" shirt and people who'd defend racist Indian mascots. As always, it's about upholding the American mythology of taming the wilderness, bringing civilization to the land, and earning God's blessing. Denouncing this shirt and worshiping a mascot are two sides of the same coin. They're both examples of protecting the Euro-Christian mentality and the power derived from it.

Chamberlain rejects Lakota honor song

Chamberlain board again rejects Lakota honor song

It may be performed at an assembly, superintendent says, but not at graduation

By Nick LowreyThe Chamberlain School Board for a second time has voted against allowing a Lakota honor song to be played during the district’s high school graduation ceremony.

The seven-member board voted 4-2 with one member abstaining for conflict of interest.

District Superintendent Debra Johnson said that she and Chamberlain High School’s principal, Allen Bertram, have been working to devise an all-school assembly to be held each spring that will include an honor song for seniors.

“We will have an honor song at our school, but it won’t be at graduation,” Johnson said.OUR VIEW: Arguments thin against honor song for IndiansAfter students this May petitioned the board anew on the question, trustees rejected the proposed three-minute song, 6-1. Board president Rebecca Reimer argued that most schools with large Indian populations allow either a “feathering” ceremony (where graduates wear ceremonial feathers) or an honor song, but not both, and that the district has done and continues to do more for Indian students than any other minority group over the years; and board member Casey Hutmacher said he did not see how a song not in English “honors everybody.”

Then, in November, the board revisited the issue and again rejected it, this time 4-2, citing language differences and length of the existing graduation program, as well as concerns that authorizing the song would give the appearance of favoring one culture over another.

None of these arguments seems particularly germane or compelling.

“Because we have never done it” is a cliché non-argument. The feathering ceremony, new this year, was held for Indian students earlier and separate from Chamberlain High’s baccalaureate, so it should not be linked to this discussion. Worry that an added three-minute song would cause the graduation time schedule to become unwieldy seems thin. And, finally, to imply that the Lakota language is somehow a foreign tongue that has no place in a Western American school, even in a wholly positive application, is, at best, petty. Lakota was spoken here before whites arrived; it is an inescapable, and valuable, part of the American historical experience. Surely, we can find it in our hearts to be enriched and not threatened by a Lakota honor song.

Possibly the most pertinent statement in this entire controversy was from board president Reimer, who said the issue is not about students, academics or even the song. “It’s about control and power. It’s about control and power,” she said, twice. “I’m extremely disappointed in a handful of people.”Is Racism Behind Banning of Honor Song From Graduation Ceremonies?

By Christina RoseA history of racism lurks in the shadows of Chamberlain, South Dakota’s past, and many see the Chamberlain School District’s refusal to allow the Honor Song to be played at graduation (again) as evidence of that continuing disrespect.

A letter from 1954 has resurfaced, written by then Mayor Herschel V. Melcher, who wrote that the people of the city of Chamberlain are opposed to “having Indians in our schools or living in the unsanitary conditions about the city.” “We have no intention of making an Indian comfortable around here, especially an official,” Melcher wrote.

Attached to the letter is a resolution refusing to allow tribal offices in the town. The resolution was signed by Commissioners O.L. McDonal, Frank G. Knippling, Willard A. Wilin, and R.C. Martin. The letter was in opposition to relocating the Indian Office from Fort Thompson, South Dakota to Chamberlain.

No one involved in the quest for the Honor Song believes that the entire town of Chamberlain is as blatantly racist as it was more than half a century ago. However, there is a prevailing assumption that the tug-of-war over a song to honor all students is at least partly due to the racist history of the town.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Crow Creek Sioux Boycott Chamberlain and Tribe Threatens Boycott Over Honor Song.

Below:  "Students and supporters of last year’s Honor Song gathered outside the Chamberlain Armory in front of the graduation procession and played the Honor Song for the graduates. They will do so again this year." (James Cadwell)

White students complain about race talk

An open letter addresses a classic case of white privilege in action:

Open Letter to the Three White Students Who Filed a Discrimination Complaint Against Their Black Teacher

By Olivia ColeHi guys. Before you ask, I'm white too. Someone wise said social activism tastes better when the waiter is white, and while this is unfortunate, you clearly aren't listening to your professor, Shannon Gibney, so I thought I'd take a moment to clear some things up, mano-a-mano. You know, Caucasian-a-Caucasian.

Let me make something clear right up front: you have no real idea what it's like to be discriminated against on the basis of race. Neither do I. You know why? Because we're white. We're white people in America, and that means almost every aspect of the country we live in is geared toward us: 99 percent of books, television, film, magazines, and even porn, is made for us and represents us. Maybe you read (though for some reason I deeply doubt it) my article on the absurdity of #WhiteGirlsRock. It's absurd because white people don't need an extra reminder of their value... because it's reaffirmed for them (for us) every single day by the people we see in the media, by the people that run this country, and yes, even by the people that act as our educators. American education has long been under fire by people who use their brains over the continued teaching that Christopher Columbus was a great dude and a hero and someone we should all celebrate year after year. But you probably still think that, don't you?

Probably before you got to college, most of your teachers taught the version of American history that high schools are wont to teach: Columbus was like Mr. Rogers with a (crappy) map, the Pilgrims sang Kumbaya with the Native Americans, and slavery just wasn't that bad. I imagine college courses might have been a bit of a shock for you, with discussions that maybe didn't valorize violent colonization and actually shone a light on the perspective of people who weren't white.

Is this where things started to get uncomfortable for you? I imagine the first lecture on America's legacy of brutality and oppression left you in shock. Maybe you thought that particular professor was just a wayward nut job. But then another class discussed institutional racism, and another. And you began to squirm in your seat because whoa this wasn't just one time where your whiteness--the thing that you might have squeaked by on for the entirety of your short life; the thing you've unconsciously relied upon to get you out of trouble with the campus police, out of detention and on the honor roll in high school; the thing that might have gotten you your consecutive summer jobs--that thing, that whiteness, is being criticized, not just once by one random professor who your privilege enables you to ignore, but more than once. You see petitions and articles on the Internet talking about racism and bias and...gasp...white privilege. And you're sick of it, right? Because who wants to sit in a room full of people, people who don't all look and sound like you, and talk about the ways that you are flawed? That's uncomfortable. That's awkward. That doesn't feel good. It feels like being singled out; it feels like being held accountable for things you don't feel responsible for; it feels like being defined by the color of your skin; it feels like being blamed; it feels like being...discriminated against.

But it's not discrimination, boys. And here's why.

Because this is one classroom in your entire life. One speck of discomfort in an ocean that is your life of privilege. Because white supremacy dictates that your skin--and let's not forget your maleness--will make things fundamentally easier for you than for a person (and especially a woman) of color. That feeling of being on the spot? Of being defined by the color of your skin? Of being blamed for things that other people of your color do, even if you have not done them yourself? That's not a classroom for people of color. That's life. There's no walking out of class. There's no transferring to a different professor. There is only more of the same, with the hope that dialogue, education, and activism will pull the collective ostrich head from the ground, bit by bit, until that structural racism that you don't like talking about is eradicated.

Look, guys. I see why you're uncomfortable. You have been taught your entire life that white is always right. Your formal education has revolved around the valorization of colonization, the championing of racist brutes, and the marginalization of people of color. You have grown up insulated from racism and discrimination and what those words truly mean. You have been trained to see your whiteness as the norm, the default, the center of the world: you think that Other people have a race, but you are just... you. Your whiteness has been an invisible tool that you have wielded your entire life, mostly without really realizing it, but now that people are criticizing the invisible tool, you are pissed, defensive, and maybe even afraid. I would say that's normal. Everything you've been taught is being contradicted, so a little discomfort is expected.

That's what you said, right? That the discussion of structural racism made you uncomfortable? That you felt the classroom was hostile? That you didn't like that "we have to talk about this all the time"? I have a simple question for you: how do you think people of color feel? What if that classroom that you felt was hostile was your world, your life? You have now filed a formal discrimination complaint with your college against your professor, which I'm sure in your mind is some kind of activism, but by filing that complaint, you are attempting to silence a voice speaking out against discrimination. It's odd, you see. It's odd that you want your voice to be heard and your pain acknowledged, but you don't want to acknowledge the suffering of people of color. You want to talk about discrimination against yourself--but you don't want to talk about discrimination against people of color. Interesting. Maybe if you'd actually paid attention in that lecture on structural racism, you'd have learned that discrimination in the context of 21st century America has political, social, and economic ramifications. Your hurt feelings, your 90 minutes of discomfort, are just not included in that, fellas.

Bottom line: I want you to be uncomfortable. It means you're being challenged. And that's what college is for, isn't it? I'm not a teacher, but I know that mental growth, like physical growth, comes with growing pains. It's not always easy. It's not always fun. It's going to hurt and you're going to come out the other side bumped and bruised... but better. Shannon Gibney is trying to make the world better. She's trying to make you better. What have you done lately?Below:  Professor Shannon Gibney.



Tough questions

In a related story, an artist developed Thirty-Nine Questions for White People to challenge their preconceptions about race:

“Thirty-Nine Questions for White People” artist Naima Lowe: “Who gets to be white hasn’t always been the same”

Lowe talked to Salon about race, privilege and how she arrived at questions like “How do you know you’re white?”

By Prachi GuptaIt sounds like what it’s really forcing people to do—and not just white people—but it’s forcing people in America to think about race in broader terms. But it sounds also like a lot of it is about the inherent privilege of being white, or being part of a majority, in that the whole point of this is that these are questions white people don’t usually have to think about.

Exactly, exactly. I think that’s kind of the point. Also, to be really clear about the idea that this isn’t something that’s static—because there’s this weird way that we have this concept of a norm of whiteness that doesn’t get interrogated, and yet it’s not a real category. That’s kind of the point too. It’s a thing that’s been created, that’s created in order to distinguish between the norm and the majority and everybody else. But it’s something that’s not necessarily inherently real, and something that people have kind of had to adopt into over time. There’s a way that I, personally, as an educator and a thinker, I’m interested in the ways that whiteness hasn’t always been the same. Who gets to be white hasn’t always been the same, historically, and isn’t necessarily this static thing.

I guess to some extent where I see people get frustrated at having to think about it is the fact that tells me something. Even just the fact that people find it hard tells me something, because there is this inherent privilege in not having to think about it.Comment:  No word on whether anyone is suing Lowe yet for forcing them to think about white privilege.

For more on white privilege, see The Rage of Angry White Men and The Obama/Oprah Myth.

Racist attempts to ban True Diary

Yet another attempt to ban Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian:

Montana Community Unites to Save Sherman Alexie Book From Being Banned

By Adrian JawortAbout 150 people—half of whom were Natives—crowded into a Billings, Montana School District 2 boardroom in overwhelming support of Sherman Alexie’s critically acclaimed 2007 novel, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian on Monday, November 11.

Three parents spoke on behalf of those wanting the book removed from the 10th-grade required reading list. Objecting to the books “vulgar” use of inappropriate words and phrases, Gail Supola says the book has no educational value in regards to Native Americans and only perpetuates negative stereotypes against them.

Supola says about the media spotlight surrounding her, “During this whole process my words have been misconstrued greatly. I want to ensure that every parent and child is given the option or alternative—whereas known as a choice—about what they have to read without being afraid of persecution.”

Supola’s sentiments, however, were stifled by those of Alexie’s supporters, who waited up to two hours to speak on the book’s behalf. Afterwards, the school board unanimously agreed to keep the book in the required curriculum.And:Student Bryce Curry—a friend of Chad’s—said although he’s white, the story provided a window to him into the lives of Native Americans as it cleared up misconceptions and prejudices locals have.

“You know the parts that are ‘controversial’ and ‘offensive’? They’re meant to be offensive for a reason: to show that yes, prejudices do happen. The racism and prejudices Natives face is real. It’s not in the past, it’s in the present, and will remain in the future unless we openly discuss it in classrooms and show why it is wrong.”Montana's Institutional Racism Behind Calls to Ban Alexie's Book

By Adrian JawortTo herself, Supola’s actions are undoubtedly the opposite of racist and a noble public service. And while Supola is entitled to her opinion about the pertinence of the book as an educational tool, going against her opinion is the heavy fact Alexie’s book has cleaned house in awards, including winning the 2007 National Book Award for Young People’s Literature.

However, to fully ingest my accusation of “institutionalized racism” against my own beloved state‘s people, one only needs to go back just a few years ago and look at the contents of a book that was also actually banned in 2007 from a Laurel, Mont. high school’s curriculum: Blackfeet author James Welch’s American Book Award winning Fools Crow. Coincidentally, Laurel is just 15 miles from Billings.

Although Fools Crow is historical fiction, it was described by Dee Brown of Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee fame as “the closest we will every come to understanding what life was like for a western Indian.” The book details the life of a Blackfeet man living in Montana in the post-Civil War era in which Plains Indians faced a transition of whites encroaching on their territory along with the continued wanton destruction of their lifeline that was the buffalo.

The book was not only challenged to be banned by Laurel parents, but high school students in Montana’s Bozeman and Helena towns who objected to the violence in it. Fools Crow details the Jan. 23, 1870 Marias Massacre in which a non-hostile Blackfeet camp was attacked and 173 men, women, and children were killed. Many more froze to death after their tipis were burned.

The camp was already weakened from a recent smallpox epidemic, and was made further defenseless by the fact most of the able bodied men were out hunting. Chief Heavy Runner was gunned down first while trying to approach the 200 U.S. cavalrymen with a paper showing he had friendly relations with the whites.

One student claimed the book left disturbing images in his head, while his mother argued that children were already exposed to too much violence via other mediums like TV and movies.

While it was the violent descriptions that disturbed students and parents, it’d obviously be naïve not to talk, write, or read about that period of time in Montana history without marking that as pivotal among its first indigenous inhabitants. The people who wanted it banned obviously didn’t care about that, however.Comment:  If it's not one thing, it's another. Funny how white people always find some reason to ban books by minorities.

Have they ever objected to a book by a white author and demanded the school replace it with a book by a minority author? I doubt it.

Even if they object to books with too much sex and violence, the goal is similar. They want to censor anything that contradicts the Euro-Christian myth of America as a "shining city on a hill" where goodness and purity reign.

For more on our cultural values, see America = Captain Ahab and America's Culture Based on Violence.

Below:  "Gail Supola, a mother upset by the selection of Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, addresses a packed boardroom. Supola is asking School District 2 to remove the novel from its required reading list and tighten up its classroom opt-out policy." (Larry Mayer/Billings Gazzette)

Hi-Ho Mistahey!

Obomsawin doc brings First Nations education issue to TIFF

By Cassandra SzklarskiHi-Ho Mistahey! explores the wide disparity between educational opportunities for First Nations communities and the rest of the country.

It centres on the children of Attawapiskat, who have been waiting for a school for more than 10 years.

The community’s previous elementary school was closed in 2000 due to toxic land contamination. Ever since, students have been forced to learn in portables that have degraded substantially with each harsh northern winter. Today, the structures are rundown, drafty and infested with rodents, says Obomsawin.

“I was shocked,” Obomsawin says of the conditions she found in the James Bay community.Comment:  For more on Attawapiskat, see Therese Spence Reelected and Natives Subsidize Canada, Not Vice Versa.

Native professor: Republicans "raped" country

Native Prof in Trouble for Ripping Old Republicans Who ‘Raped’ CountryAfter being secretly recorded by a student on the first day of class at Michigan State University, award-winning creative writing professor William Penn, Nez Perce/Osage, has found himself in trouble with mainstream media and possibly the university.

Every news source that reported on the story dubbed the video Penn’s “first-day anti-Republican rant.”

And yes, Penn did have a lot of things to say about Republicans.

“If you go to the Republican convention in Florida, you see all of the old Republicans with the dead skin cells washing off them,” he says in the video. “They’re cheap. They don’t want to pay taxes because they have already raped this country and gotten everything out of it they possibly could.MSU Relieves Prof. Who Went On GOP Rant: ‘They Have Already Raped This Country’

By Catherine Thompson“The dean of the College of Arts and Letters and a representative from the provost’s office met with Penn, who acknowledged that some of his comments were inappropriate, disrespectful and offensive and may have negatively affected the learning environment,” the university said in a statement, as quoted by the Detroit News.

MSU spokesman Jason Cody told the newspaper that Penn will remain employed with the university, although his classes have been reassigned for at least the remainder of the fall semester.Comment:  For more on what Republicans think, see Republicans Alienated "Nontraditional" Voters and Romney: Obama Gave "Gifts" to Win.

Crow Creek Sioux boycott Chamberlain

Crow Creek Sioux Boycott Border-town Businesses Over Banned Honor Song

By Stephanie WoodardCrow Creek Sioux Tribe chairman Brandon Sazue is willing to drive an hour across the rolling central South Dakota grasslands that separate his reservation from Pierre, the state capital, in order to buy sneakers for his kids. He has declared a personal economic boycott of Chamberlain, the reservation border town that’s a half-hour closer to his house.

Chamberlain is where he and other tribal members have long shopped and done their business. However, its high school wouldn’t allow a Sioux honor song to be performed during its recent late-May graduation—even though about one-third of the student body is Native, and there’s a petition signed by staff and students requesting it. The song was eventually presented, but outdoors, across the street, rather than inside at the ceremony.

The tall, strapping chairman is still fuming. “Their refusal is ringing in my ears,” Sazue said.

The tribe’s history has been especially painful, and opportunities to celebrate are valued. Fort Thompson, where most of the 3,000-member tribe lives, was originally a prison camp. Most tribal members are descended from Dakotas exiled there from Minnesota following the Dakota–U.S. War of 1862. The journey was so grueling that many, including hundreds of children, died of starvation and disease, writes Mdewakanton Dakota author Diane Wilson in Beloved Child: A Dakota Way of Life.

Sazue isn’t requiring anyone to join his boycott, and it’s not known how many individuals have followed his lead. But one prominent business is joining the boycott: the tribe’s Lode Star Casino, in Fort Thompson. The casino’s board of directors voted in early June to begin purchasing goods and services—from beverages to air-conditioner repair—from non-Chamberlain suppliers, Sazue said.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Tribe Threatens Boycott Over Honor Song.

Poarch Creek student avoids fine

Poarch Creek Student Not Required to Pay Fine, Receives Diploma

By Vincent SchillingAfter nearly a month of not knowing her fate, Chelsey Ramer, of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and her family have been informed by Escambia Academy officials that she would not have to pay a $1,000 fine for wearing an eagle feather on her cap during her graduation ceremony in May. (Related story: “Poarch Creek Student Fined for Wearing Eagle Feather at Graduation”)

Escambia interim headmaster David Walker was not able to comment with any specific details about the matter, but he did confirm that Ramer would receive her diploma and would not pay the copy,000 fine.

“The young lady has her diploma; she received it yesterday. She did not have to pay a fine,” said Walker. “The decision was made before graduation. Chelsey has done everything she needed to do to fulfill her graduation requirement.”

Even if Ramer had been made to pay the fine, enough money was raised by an online campaign to cover the cost, so the family wouldn’t have to pay it. The “Chelsey Ramer can’t graduate because she is proud to be Native American” campaign was started by Dan Morrison, communications director at First Peoples Worldwide, and has raised $1,127 that will now go to Chelsey’s education.Comment:  This story played out about as I expected. There was no way the school district was going to enforce the fine. It would've been a PR nightmare.

For more on the subject, see Christian Prayer Yes, Native Prayer No and Student Fined for Wearing Feather.

Below:  "Pictured is the Ramer family, from left, Jamie Ramer, Chelsey’s father; Chelsey Ramer; and Debra Ramer, her mother, at Chelsey’s graduation."

Top three Native stereotypes

The top 3 stereotypes or beliefs that people have when they walk in to my Native American Studies courses or #FileThisUnderReasonsWhyITeachNAS

By Cutcha Risling BaldyThe top 3 stereotypes or beliefs that people have when they walk in to my Native American Studies courses--

#3: Native Americans are poor because they want to be poor because that’s how they get all the free stuff from the government that the government gives them.

#2.5 Native Americans who are not poor have casinos. Those casinos make them so rich that they buy the government off to give them things.

#2 If you go to a reservation you will get shot. Or beat. Or shot and beat. Or somebody will be mean to you. They will probably be mean to you and then shoot you.

#1 Everything you need to know about Native peoples you can learn by watching Disney’s PocahontasComment:  Let's rephrase these a bit, like so:

1) Movies about noble or murderous savages are realistic portrayals of Indians.

2) Reservations are cesspools of crime, poverty, despair, and hopelessness.

3) Indians don't pay taxes, live off welfare, and get everything free--either from the government or casinos.

In this form, I could support these as the top three Native stereotypes. They sum up the perceptions most Americans have about Indians.

For more on the subject, see Comanche Chairman Justifies Tonto's Stereotypes and Mithlo's TEDx Talk on Stereotypes.

Christian prayer yes, Native feather no

A good analysis juxtaposes two similar stories to show our inconsistent values:

Christian Student Cheered for Prayer, Native Student Snubbed for FeatherSo a white student decides to stand up and demonstrate his religious beliefs and gets cheered. A Native student does the same and can’t get her diploma and gets fined? A juxtaposition that hasn’t gone unnoticed by the online community.

A user-generated post titled “So a Native American girl gets no diploma and a $1,000 fine for putting a feather in her cap, while a Christian valedictorian disobeys rules by reciting prayer and gets standing ovation” on Reddit has been pushed to the front page of the site by other users with more than 15,000 upvotes and 1,630 comments. And those numbers are steadily increasing.

The original poster on Reddit says, “It’s just frustrating to me that when reading these two stories side by side, it comes across as ‘Hey you Indian, stop expressing your culture! This is no place for your savagery. No diploma for you, and now you owe me money for some reason! Oh, hey Christian kid, you weren’t supposed to be inciting prayer at this event. Ahh well, whattya gonna do? You little skamp, hehehe.’”

User Azbug on Reddit says, “What kills me is she worked for four years to get those grades and walk with her class. Somehow, showing one small bit of honor and pride in her ancestry automatically erases her four years of achievement... The other sad commentary is that young man had the opportunity to speak directly to his class, faculty, and the families of the graduates. Instead of saying something interesting or profound, he chose to cough up something that shows no introspection on growing up... On the other hand, the native girl merely whispers deep personal convictions, and is mercilessly stepped on.”A Facebook friend suggested that Chelsey was merely expressing her culture. You know, like someone wearing a sari, a beret, or a turquoise bracelet. Which wouldn't be constitutionally protected, of course.

I said I was pretty sure this conflict raised freedom of speech and religion issues. I'm glad to see a lawyer agrees with me:

Student fined $1,000: Attorney Says First Amendment Rights Were Violated"Not only do you have no parents signing the contract, you don't have her signing the contract, and you have the issues of free speech," said Phillips.

In addition to First Amendment rights, Alex Alvarez, Ramer's former tribal teacher said the private school violated the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

"We should be allowed to wear our feathers," said Alvarez.

He added, "It has a lot of ties into our spirituality as well."

Phillips said he agrees. He stated she can sue the private school for breach of contract.

He stated, "Chelsey Ramer agreed to attend class. She met her commitments for graduation."

Phillips said, "Who breached the contract? The school breached the contract."Fortunately, Chelsey won't have to pay the fine herself:

Poarch Creek Student’s Fine Raised by Online DonationsJust five days after starting a campaign to help the Ramer family raise the $1,000 the Escambia Academy school board said it would fine Chelsey Ramer, the money has been raised in full.

The “Chelsey Ramer can’t graduate because she is proud to be Native American” campaign was started by Dan Morrison, communications director at First Peoples Worldwide. Yesterday, the fund had $177, today it’s overfunded at $1,050. Morrison says on the campaign site that if more money is raised or if the academy doesn’t make the family pay, the money will go toward Chelsey’s education.

Chelsey is the 17-year-old member of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, who wore an eagle feather on her graduation cap May 23 and been in the news since.

Contributions listed on the site ranged from $2 to $476 per person and comments were positive. Natalia Corres reminded Chelsey to know she is supported and Jeremiah LaRoche said “represent and always be proud.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Valedictorian Denounces Smudging Ban and Student Fined for Wearing Feather.

Below:  "Valedictorian Roy Costner IV of Liberty High School in South Carolina rips up his speech before reciting the Lord's Prayer instead."

Anthropology students dressed as "Indians"

Joely Proudfit, who happens to be a Native colleague of mine, apparently saw this image on someone's Facebook page. Apparently it was from a party of anthropology students at Cal State University San Marcos, where she works. She reposted it on a public page with an accompanying message and the fireworks began.

As the Director of Native Studies and American Indian Academic Strategic Planning at CSUSM struggling to grow a culturally sensitive and relevant native studies program and curriculum I am disappointed that students from this campus would deem this appropriate.

The fact that anyone would think it is ok to appropriate, stereotype and fetishize American Indian culture is disturbing particularly in light of the efforts American Indians have made at CSUSM.

Vine Deloria, Jr. was a critic of the field of anthropology and provided much evidence to support his criticism. This is why he valued American Indians gearing up for battle in the intellectual arena.

“The problems of Indians have always been ideological rather than social, political or economic ... [I]t is vitally important that the Indian people pick the intellectual arena as the one in which to wage war." --Vine Deloria, Jr.

The actions of these CSUSM graduates sets back the progress this field has made.

His words have never been more significant.

I would encourage these students to return to the CSUSM campus and take a Native Studies course, engage with our American Indian Student Alliance, visit the California Indian Culture and Sovereignty Center and dialogue with our Office of Tribal Liaison. Perhaps now the powers that be will understand that a Major in Native Studies is required and courses in American Indian studies should be required by all of our students to graduate.

I hope that the entire CSUSM community understands how truly offensive and inexcusable this party was especially in light of recent racist antics by others on campus against the Latino community.

Joely Proudfit, Ph.D.
Director, California Indian Culture and Sovereignty Center
Director of Native American Academic Strategic Planning
Director of Native Studies & Associate Professor of Sociology and Native StudiesThe basic debate

The commenters on this posting argued various points in depth:Racism will never go away because accusations like this. I am absolutely appalled that a professor would post and make comments about this, as a public figure for such a great organization you should focus on the positive aspects of OUR culture and not point fingers for something as ridiculous as this, and yes i say our culture as more that 50% of the guests here were native american. Stop trying to boost how many "likes" you have with back asswards accusations and maybe well forgive the slander and defamation you posted of YOUR students!

You all need to grow up and think outside of your liberal tree hugging box! It was a celebration, not a holocaust. ARE ANY OF YOU PEOPLE BLEEDING? did we make any remarks or do anything to offend the indian society? NO! Im sure you all have dressed up for halloween. soooo before you go and get all judgmental, maybe you should take a deep breath and really focus on other things you can do with your time!!! use that "ANTH GRAD DEGREE" you worked so hard to get and help out on a reservation or maybe go volunteer at a homeless shelter. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE.

Maybe you guys should spend less time looking up people's facebooks and instagrams and use your time and energy to do something USEFUL towards your program! Such a waste of people's tax dollars to have professors sit on Facebook and bash someone's pictures do what your paid for and grade some papers or donate your extra time to your organization and GROW UP!Versus:A professor's job is to educate, and clearly many commenters and the idiots in this picture need educating. When you objectify a race of people whether it's through blackface, redface, or any other mockery of identity, you are implicitly participating in their dehumanization and ultimately the oppression of that group of people. What's better--the Golden Rule, or fighting for your right to idiotically objectify a group of people who have endured enough?

I will use Jessica Borders' comment in my FB as an example of how my students should NOT think. Thank you for your limited knowledge not only about history but also about current issues that, certainly, you are reproducing in this forum.

This professor absolutely did the right thing by exposing this cancer. I could a write a book in response to the absolutely ignorant comments by the insensitive commenters on this post, in their feeble attempts to justify cultural appropriation, & in doing so, perpetuate the oppression of Native peoples. These mindsets are a poison in the greater society & contribute to the continued subjugation of Indian Country, as well as the sexual assault of Native women. Guess what, we will NEVER get over it. Continue to fuel our fire until this inferno erupts in your face. We will be idle no more. The difference between you ignorant, insensitive individuals & us is that we have the deepest stake in confronting these oppressive & racist views. Have some respect for the original peoples of the land you walk on.The legal questionWhether you find the themes of the party offensive or not, you are entitled to your opinion, but I would hope that you have legal representation gearing up to wage war on your account Ms. Proudfit, because those photos are the intellectual property of those who posted them, not public domain.

By not removing these photos you are putting your job, and Cal State San Marcos at risk of a lawsuit for violating the rights of those you are slandering in a public forum.Versus:Sorry ladies, it's not slander unless its a lie. So what exactly did the professor lie about that you are going to sue her for slander? Good luck on that case. Also, when you post something on a social media account, you really shouldn't be surprised when people see it, comment on it, or share it. If you were that concerned about it, maybe you shouldn't have posted on it. Finally, just because there were so called "Native Americans" were there, doesn't make it okay. That's like me having a Retard party, and inviting my Autistic cousin and then saying "we'll it's okay cuz he's autistic." Really? That's you're logic?The issue's importance

Some back and forth on whether this is worth protesting:"What would it take for people to just listen to what many Native Americans are saying about images such as this?" Hmm...perhaps calm discourse and private instruction rather than threats, intimidation and public ridicule?

How much 'calm discourse' would you be having, Jack, if the same group of people who'd just burned down your house then had a "homeless housefire survivors"-themed party? You throw the "*we* didn't do it" excuse around like you aren't doing it RIGHT NOW. Telling native americans they shouldn't be upset that the people occupying their country thinks it's LOLarious to dress up like stereotypes of them. Public ridicule is exactly what should happen to people who act like asses.

Got hyperbole? Just a guess, your car is covered in bumper-stickers? If you're so fired up about "your cause", why aren't you going after your "real" enemies rather than a bunch of young girls who meant no harm? I'm assuming you've protested in front of the costume store, yes? Sad, mean, and ridiculous.

Jack, if this bores you so much, why are you even here? Considering how head-up you are about the "threats" against these girls and their OH SO TERRIBLE "public shaming" I'm not sure where you think your hyperbole begins and ends? And finally, you know, the rampant genocide, cultural bleaching and subsequent shaming and appropriation of native americans has *actually happened*, is still happening, and you're helping perpetuate it. So that sounds "real" enough to me.The anthropology connectionLets not forget that the party attendees, who originally posted these pictures to begin with on social media websites, were posting material that was insensitive and disrespectful to the employees and students of CSUSM who are Native American, current and past CSUSM Anthropology students who would not want to be associated with behavior like this that could threaten the validity of their Anthropology degree, and the Native Communities of San Diego County who offer their expertise and services to CSUSM students. If the pictures were removed these issues would still be valid and relevant, and obviously there were potentially some mistakes made by many people who decided to post or repost images to social media sites, so maybe try and move past that and focus on the point of this problem. There is obviously a gross lack of understanding of why this party was wrong and I think previous commenters and the original letter have effectively provided points to explain that.

When you are working in the field of anthropology, pursuing a graduate degree in anthropology, have to list your bachelors degree on applications, and are assessed based on the quality of the program where you obtained your degree, and have dedicated yourself to the discipline this does matter. Specifically it affects the credibility of current and past students at CSUSM when it becomes a public issue. In addition when you are working in the field as an anthropologist and people have negative and misrepresented perspectives of anthropologists because of people doing things like this it matters. These are minor issues compared to how this affects the Native Community though, but maybe people should realize their actions have real consequences on personal, cultural, political, and professional levels. Speaking out on issues in a public forum is important as well because personally I dont feel people that act in this way should represent anthropology because this is everything anthropology isnt. Lets also remember the party attendees labeled the photos in connection with CSUSM and the Anthropology program so once the images were circulated we became associated with the issue.My take

I responded to some of these issues and others as follows:

Are you serious with the legal threats, people? Reposting and commenting on "private" photos is absolutely covered under the fair-use exception to the Copyright Act. End of story.

"Did we make any remarks or do anything to offend the indian society?" Yes, you stereotyped Indians as primitive people of the past. You did it with the costume itself. No remarks are necessary; the costume itself is objectionable.

Your references to the Indian culture or society only prove the point. You apparently think all Indians are the same. So your comments here reinforce the costume's implicit message. Namely, that Indians are nothing but feather-wearing savages.

You sent this message to party attendees, and anyone who viewed your "private" photo, whether you realized it or not. And you're still sending this message by defending and excusing the photo. The message is that it's okay to stereotype Indians.

To the know-nothings who wondered if Natives are protesting every Halloween costume: No, because there are millions of these costumes. But I've seen activists protest hundreds of similar examples of stereotyping. What does that tell you?

You weren't aware of this long history of protest? Despite being or associating with anthropology students who should know better? Whose fault is that? Stop braying like asses and educate yourself on the subject.

With all the ducking and dodging, I don't think any defender of this photo has addressed the core issues. 1) Is this costume a racial stereotype? 2) Is it okay to stereotype a racial group? Answer yes or no to these questions and then we'll discuss your position.

To the idiots who used the "two wrongs make a right" argument: Seriously? Stereotyping all Italians as gangsters, all Irishmen as drunks, and all Jews as money-grubbers pretty much ended in the 1960s and '70s. A few exceptions don't disprove the rule.

Yet Indians face the same level of racist stereotyping constantly--almost unabated since the Civil Rights era. And you're defending such modern-day minstrel shows.

Is there any way we think "bullying and threatening" (i.e., criticizing) these girls will help our cause? I dunno...is there any way these girls would rethink their offensive behavior without criticism? If so, tell us the way. Tell us how to end stereotypical if not racist "cowboys and Indians" parties permanently and we'll do it.

"Perhaps calm discourse and private instruction rather than threats, intimidation and public ridicule?" Which parts of Joely Proudfit's initial message weren't calm? About the strongest thing she said was that she's disappointed and disturbed. She intentionally held her tongue to reason with you and you reacted like idiots anyway.

If those mild words bother you, you're not open to calm discourse. You're trying to halt the criticism rather than engage with it. Nice try, but no sale.

Sorry, Jack, but censorship never solved anything. If you don't like the criticism, tell the grad students to stop the behavior causing the criticism. In other words, stop blaming the messenger and act on the message.

Conclusion

Summing it up:

1) People can behave like racists without "intending" to cause harm. As always, racism is about the outcome, not the intent.

2) White people don't like to be criticized for acting on their white privilege. When confronted with their bad behavior, they'll excuse, defend, or deny it.

3) Even well-educated anthropology students, who should be the least likely people to exhibit this behavior, can make fools of themselves. That demonstrates how far we have to go, unfortunately.

4) Since I didn't mention the young women's names, and don't know their names for sure, this is not about shaming individuals. It's about educating the masses--everyone who reads this.

5) Perhaps nothing will get stereotype-minded people to change their attitudes. But you can bet they'll think twice before dressing up as Indians again. That alone is an accomplishment.

For more on the subject, see Debauched "Indians" on Caesarian Sunday and Racist "Make Me Indian" App.