Nugent "tomahawk chops" mascot critics

A Tomahawk Chop to Political Correctness

Exclusive: Ted Nugent asserts changing team names won't help his 'Indian BloodBrothers'

By Ted NugentEvery so often some numbskull beats the politically correct war drum protesting the names of sports teams.

The terminally disconnected claim the names of the some teams and their mascots are insensitive, even offensive, to Native Americans. Classic names like the Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks.

My advice: Don’t swing at their politically correct spitballs.

If there are Native Americans whose feathers are ruffled over the names of sports teams, I submit that they are sorely focused on all the wrong things.

But that’s what too many Americans do–waste time and energy focusing on things that matter about as much as a giant ball of string.

There are many other issues that should demand our attention instead of talking about how insensitive the “Tomahawk Chop” is to Native Americans.

If we want to focus on the plight of Native Americans, call me crazy horse, but maybe we should start by addressing issues that truly matter most and would actually save Indian’s lives.

The high school dropout rates for American Indians is the highest in the nation.

How about focusing on the disastrous unemployment rate of American Indians, which is near 15 percent?

Suicide rates of American Indian males are twice that of other American males.

Alcoholism rates among American Indians are double that of other ethic groups.

The infant mortality rates among Native Americans are the highest in the nation. No one reports on that.

Abject poverty is the norm on reservations.

These brutally ugly and heartbreaking conditions are the real modern trail of tears, but what’s really disgusting is that a Motown guitar player has to shine a light on the tragedy.

According to the politically correct numbskulls, focusing on the supposedly insensitive names of sports teams somehow matters, and changing the names of the teams will somehow miraculously improve the lot of American Indians.

They are wrong as usual.

There are wafting smoke signals of real distress coming from the American Indian community that are being ignored. These are the life and death issues that actually matter, not pushing a brain-dead agenda to get sports teams to change their names.

Political correctness doesn’t fix anything. The cult of denial that is political correctness masks what matters most, which is why I refer to it as a social cancer that should be eradicated.

Because of my clean and sober, hands-on conservation bowhunting lifestyle and song “The Great White Buffalo,” Native American tribes have invited me to teach their young people how to reconnect with the land and teach them how to bow hunt the mighty American bison. It was in their midst that I learned firsthand about the terrible problems facing my Indian BloodBrothers.

We have a choice: actually doing good by focusing on real issues, or just feeling good by lobbying to get the names of sports teams changed.

Those of you who focus on feel-good issues aren’t helping one bit. More often than not, genuine quality-of-life upgrade comes from facing the painful demons and putting forth honest effort to rectify entrenched mistakes.

“Above the canyon walls, strong eyes did glow. It was the leader of the land, the Great White Buffalo! So listen everybody to what I got to say. There’s hope for tomorrow if we wake up today!”

Some comments on Indian Country Today's write-up of this column:

Ted Nugent: Don't Change Redskins and Other Native Sports Team Nicknames, Won't Help 'My Indian BloodBrothers'Why even bother giving this idiot coverage? I'm from Detroit, and he does not represent the Motor City and its citizens. He has long fought against the hunting and fishing rights guaranteed by treaty to tribes in Michigan, and is pretty well despised by many folks in the Detroit metro Native community. As long as he can get media coverage, he will continue to spout his racist bile. I, for one, would prefer NOT to see his opinions in my favorite Native newspaper.

I think nobody really wants him speaking for us...at all...no thanks...jerk!!

When will someone shut this Lunatic up?

That white guy needs to face the truth about how he came to live the life of white privilege on Native peoples lands.

More of the Republican minority outreach initiative...

Funny I didn't invite Mr. Nugent to help my oyate, nor do I have to authority to if I wanted to. He is spot on the issues facing mine and other Native Peoples, but what are his solutions beside stopping frequently outdated and dehumanizing misappropriate use of our ancestors images?

We do not need your help to "teach us" to reconnect with the land and teach us how to hunt buffalo. This is truly an insult and I would love to know which Native American tribes asked for such things. Freaking ridiculous!Comment:  Once again, a conservative shows what he thinks of Natives and their concerns.

You gotta love how Nugent used half a dozen stupid stereotypes to explain how stupid stereotypes aren't a problem. If he knows anything about Indians beyond "Redskins," "Braves," and "Chiefs," I'd be surprised.

How stupid do you have to be not to understand the concept of multitasking? One can care about and address Indian mascots while doing the same re other issues.

No one claims Nugent stopped being a musician because he spent a few hours supporting mascots in this column. Why wouldn't the same apply to someone who spends a few hours opposing mascots?

Not to mention the fact that stereotypes are connected to all the serious issues Nugent mentions. As I've demonstrated many times.

If you're ignorant of the proven harm of stereotyping, you're too ignorant to write a column on the subject. Stick to music, Ted, and leave the deep thinking to the rest of us.

Coincidentally, Sherman Alexie explained one of the problems with Native stereotypes around the same time as Nugent's screed:

The Absence of Native American PowerIn an extended clip from this weekend’s Moyers & Company, writer Sherman Alexie, who was born on a Native American reservation, talks to Bill about feeling “lost and insignificant inside the larger culture,” and how his culture’s “lack of power” is illustrated in stereotypical sports mascots.

“At least half the country thinks the mascot issue is insignificant. But I think it’s indicative of the ways in which Indians have no cultural power. We’re still placed in the past. So we’re either in the past or we’re only viewed through casinos,” Alexie tells Bill. “I know a lot more about being white than you know about being Indian.”One literally could find a thousand statements from Natives about the harm of stereotypes. Nugent hasn't addressed any of these claims; indeed, he's dismissed them. Once again, the Great White Father knows best.

For more on Ted Nugent, see 13 Rock Stars in Headdresses and Nugent's Implied Death Threat.

Indians are "whiners," not warriors?

If we're approaching a tipping point on the Washington Redskins, mascot lovers won't go down without a fight. Many Redskins fans refuse to give up their beloved "redskin." Often their reasons are dripping with racism and stereotyping, as in this example:

From War Whoops to Whining

By Jim GoadThen again, the Injuns’ descendants don’t seem to be doing nearly as well as those descended from Vikings, Celts, crusaders, and cowboys. But who’s to blame for this? With apparently zero sense of irony, the founder of the Native American Journalists Association blames the persistent use of such team names as “Redskins” on simple “redneck stupidity.” A self-identified Native American woman writes of how Injun-derived team logos are “decidedly not cool” and how they fill her “with shame and rage” and make her feel “sick to my stomach,” ultimately rendering her “too shocked or angered to engage in long dialogues” while she runs around snapping pictures of white people and chiding them for being racists. And “a White girl who dressed up as Pocahontas for Halloween when I was 4” sees fit to lecture us about how “it’s absolutely never okay to use Native American culture and people as costumes or mascots.”

We are told that such costumes and mascots psychologically traumatize and lower the self-esteem of the so-called natives, which in turn hinders their performance in modern society. In fact, the American Psychological Association issued a 2005 resolution that called for the “Immediate Retirement of American Indian Mascots, Symbols, Images, and Personalities by Schools, Colleges, Universities, Athletic Teams, and Organizations.” The APA argued that such team names and logos create hostile environments that are disrespectful and possibly violate Injuns’ civil rights and need to be “eradicated” before this historically underperforming group can reach upward and maximize its innate potential. This past May, the state of Oregon passed a measure that would soon cut funding for any school teams that continued to employ Native American imagery.

Personally, I liked the Injuns more when they were bold and noble warriors than thought-policing whiners. They seemed far more…honorable?

But sure, let’s focus on the kooky mascots and the team names and the foam tomahawks. Let’s never dare mention the gas-huffing and the fetal alcohol syndrome and the drug use and the teen pregnancy. Let’s never ask why these once bold and noble warriors, despite decades of federal payouts and tax breaks, still seem incapable of thriving in a modern technological society. Don’t ever question the wisdom of bringing arrows to a gunfight. Don’t dare search for cultural and possibly even genetic reasons for why the Indians always seem to get the short end of the firestick. It’s obvious that the kooky mascots and the team names and the foam tomahawks are to blame.Comment:  Goad's last paragraph doesn't address his third-to-last paragraph, where he accurately summarizes the problem. Research shows that mascots psychologically traumatize Natives. Goad can't touch this point, apparently, so he switches to a list of social problems, most of which are caused by psychological trauma.

It's not exactly a crushing argument to say we should ignore the mascots that cause psychological trauma because there's a lot of psychological trauma. Better luck next time, bright boy.

Also note how he scorns the Natives he supposedly admires. "Injuns"..."war whoops"..."drum beat"..."so-called natives"..."firestick"...etc. He liked Indians when they were safely in the past, vanishing or vanished, and he didn't have to think about his genocidal ancestors or racial bias.

Well, boo-hoo, bigot. Sorry if today's Indians don't conform to your stupid stereotypes.

Goad's last paragraph is full of false or misleading statements.

Most Indians live off the rez where they're "thriving in a modern technological society" just fine.

The Native media talks about drug use, obesity, alcoholism, teen pregnancy, gangs, suicide, and other social problems often--several times a week. Goad is more ignorant than he seems if he thinks he's the only one willing to discuss these issues.

Indians added guns to their repertoire of weapons whenever they could. They didn't always have access to guns because the white men tried to keep guns away. But it's silly to imply Indians chose to use bows and arrows because they were too primitive to know better.

"Genetic reasons for why the Indians always seem to get the short end of the firestick" means Goad thinks Indians may be genetically inferior to others. They can't thrive in the modern world, they didn't understand the value of guns...he's practically saying they were born to be uncivilized louts. You know, animal-like brutes who were too stupid to survive against smart and sophisticated white men.

In other words, he's practically admitting his prejudice against Indians as a race.

Goad's repeated use of "Injuns" is more of the same. This epithet serves to belittle Indians--to make them seem childlike and cartoonish. As in "Ten Little Injuns."

Commenters confirm the racism

The commenters on this column make Goad's racism even more explicit. Here are a few examples and my responses:You have obviously never lived on a reserve. I have. They are mostly very drunk, sadly very lazy, and seemingly quite unintelligent. I'm sorry, but should all the whites and other races leave north america tomorrow within a decade they'd be back to running around naked cannibalizing each other.You wouldn't romanticize Indians? That's obvious from your "naked cannibalizing" line. Which clearly indicates you think Indians are inferior. Racist much?

If all the non-Indians left, the 70% of Indians who live off the rez would continue working as doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, business owners, politicians, etc. They'd have no more problem running the country than any other small group. Again, if you think Indians were savages and are lazy drunks, you're a racist.I get sick and tired of people complaining about Indian mascots. My beef with them is that they are too generous toward Indians. "The Atlanta Braves"? How about the "Atlanta fat, drunken wasters lazy good for nothings who wait all month for their casino check so they can drink it down that night"? It's a little bit long, but it's a more accurate description of the Indians I met in Arizona.

Seriously. The Braves and Red Skins logos are the best face one can put on an Indian. Chief Wahoo is simply fun.

An insult? Yeah, who names their teams for something they hate and denigrate? Team names are always something that the team wants to associate itself with: nobility, ferocity, prowess, speed, fighting spirit. There are very few exceptions to that rule, and Indians, Redskins, and Braves aren't among the exceptions.

These people are pussies.How about the "Atlanta fat, drunken wasters lazy good for nothings who wait all month for their casino check so they can drink it down that night"? How about you're a racist?

"The Braves and Red Skins logos are the best face one can put on an Indian"? You mean better than the faces of Will Rogers, Jim Thorpe, Wilma Mankiller, Dennis Banks, Elouise Cobell, Billy Mills, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Sherman Alexie, Winona LaDuke, Vine Deloria Jr., Louise Erdrich, John Herrington, Maria Tallchief, Graham Greene, N. Scott Momaday, Tantoo Cardinal, and millions of other modern Indians? Thank you for your racist opinion.

"Who names their teams for something they hate and denigrate?" Who creates movies, TV shows, books, plays, songs, commercials, and ads that alienate audiences? Americans, apparently, since we had a century or two of productions featuring Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, Mexican peasants and banditos, Chinese coolies, Japanese geishas, drunk Irishmen, Italian mobsters, penny-pinching Jews, dumb Pollacks, towel-headed Muslims, effeminate gays, and on and on.

Nobody thought these blatant stereotypes were offensive at the time. Same with our one-dimensional view of Indians as savage killers. Every other racist stereotype has gone by the wayside, but the out-of-date "redskin" remains.

Rob doesn't know Indians?How about you visit an area heavily populated by Indians and see that I'm not making it up?

I invite you to go teach on the Rez for a year or two.

I used to fall for the myth. Maybe the desert heat cooked my brain, but I'll be damned if I didn't get a hell of a shock when smashed in the face with the overwhelming evidence.

Maybe you'd rather stay in your romantic universe where Ol' Chief sees pollution and a tear rolls down his cheek. Dream on, son.How about if you visit several dozen reservations as I have and see their wide variety? Or if you work in the Native media as I do, reading dozens of stories every day about Indian life across the country? How about if you interact with thousands of Indians in person and online over 20-plus years?

I invite you to learn that 70% of Indians don't live on reservations, so your point is largely irrelevant. You people who talk about reservations seem blissfully ignorant of this fact.

I'm aware that many reservations are still poor. I'm also aware why they're poor. Apparently you're not, since you're blaming the victim.

But you keep asserting that your experiences on one reservation out of several hundred make you an expert--not only on all the reservations, but on all the urban Indians too. Again, can you say "racist"? Because I sure can.

"Overwhelming evidence"? Good to hear you've got evidence for your views. Okay, what percentage of the roughly 5 million Indians are alcoholics? What percentage are unemployed? What percentage receive casino checks? Cite and quote your sources.

I sure hope the numbers are greater than 50%. If they aren't, you've mistaken a small minority for the whole. Which would make your beliefs ignorant, stereotypical, and racist.Do you know any American Indians who were pushed off "good" land? Neither do I, but I *do* know white farmers who bought their "good" tribal land off very eager tribes. In the last 50-100 years no one has robbed the American Indian of his land more than himself. Why farm when you get a free house and $80k a year from the government? Yet many reservations still look like Road Warrior.Which Indians get $80K? Name exactly which individuals or tribes you mean. Indeed, feel free to offer a shred of evidence for this spurious claim used to justify your racism.

I know that white men broke every single one of the 400 treaties they signed with the Indians. I know how the Dawes Allotment Act declared something like 90% of the Indian lands "surplus" and gave them away to white men looking for a government handout. Do you know these things?

Random bits of ignoranceThe Injuns never knew an age that wasn't dark.If you call a dozen large-scale civilizations "dark," I guess.Here's how the Indians lived in the 1800s, courtesy of Mark Twain.

The Noble Red ManYou mean the Mark Twain who was notable for his racism against Indians?

Mark Twain, Indian HaterAll you say is true sir...but mascots are not your big problem. Indian mascots are used, by the way, because of their positive attributes. Careful what you wish for. If all native american imagery is forcibly removed from the public view and consciousness then we'll forget about you entirely or be replaced by the casino slot machine...The notion that mascots are the only thing keeping Indians in our collective consciousness is idiotic beyond belief.

Mascots teach us Indians?

For more on the Redskins, see Annenberg's "Redskins" Survey and Kickstarter Campaign to Change Redskins Name.

Columnist defends Mummers parade

Recently, Philadelphia's Mummers parade included white folks dressed as American Indians, Asian Indians, and blacks. Now another columnist has tried to defend this obvious racism. His key argument about why the parade was okay:

Thou Shalt Not Wear a Native American Headdress

By Thom NickelsWearing Native American headdresses used to be a rite of passage for most American boys. My childhood Boy Scout troop, for instance, had many halo and straight-up Native war bonnets that we wore during Scout Jamborees in Maryland along the Mason-Dixon line. Dressed up, we built campfires, put on war paint, and hunted one another down in a great Native American fantasy that usually ended in a great bonfire and a circle dance. (Today, a bonfire would be outlawed as "dangerous" and war paint as "unacceptable.") Such ceremonies taught us to be respectful and to honor the American Indian. These rituals were the high point of camp life, so much so that for the longest time I wanted to be an American Indian. Pretending I was American Indian was such an intense childhood obsession I'd take my bow and arrow, spear and halo war bonnet and lead charges against my faux cowboy or Calvary friends on the steep hills behind my house in Chester County. I didn't care that I was the only kid playing the part of an Indian because I saw the American Indian as a scared underdog in an unjust war with the land-stealing Calvary.

The girls in my Chester County country neighborhood would often don a headband with one feather sticking straight up in the back. They played Native squaws. In those days, nobody thought that outdoor theater like this was disrespecting Native culture. If anything, the opposite feeling was usually present: by our dressing up as American Indians, we felt we were honoring our true American ancestors in a special way.Readers respond

Because this column appeared on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, the comments were actually good--thoughtful and intelligent--for once. A sample:Matthew Atkinson

Sorry, but I am totally out of sympathy with your complaint, starting from the first sentence in which you decry "political correctness" with the pathetic cliche about a "warpath." This is not about your fond memories of pretending to be another race. For us (I am Native), headdresses are not costume pieces or decorations. They are holy. They indicate achievements and reverence akin to wearing a priest's stole--you don't simply put on a fake one and go play. For you to describe our ceremonial lives as mere "inconsequential minutiae" is PRECISELY the attitude of arrogance and cultural bigotry that makes our protectiveness necessary. The fact that you have a history of behaving in such ways is not a validation of the history, any more than the legacy of blackface is a defense of that. It's a shame that you've attached such nostalgia to bigotry as a rite of passage, but that's what makes this our problem.

Grafton Kevan

WTF.

American Indian people: "We find it offensive when you dress up as caricatures of us."

Thom Nickels: "We do it to honor you! You're being oversensitive! We're not gonna stop!"

Sane people: "..."

Clarification: Thom, you cannot honor somebody by doing something they find offensive. When somebody tells you they find something offensive, you can either ignore them, which is in your rights but disrespectful, or you can be respectful and comply with their wishes. You cannot honor somebody by being disrespectful.

This is not hard. The fact that you can write this many words about this topic and not stumble upon this simple fact is pretty impressive, though.

Celeste Smith

My father used to “play Indian” as a child too. The only problem was, he always wanted to be the “cowboy” which was ironic because we are Oneida/6 Nations People. He told me this was because the cowboys always won and the Indians always lost. Westerns were big (in the '50s) and of course, little kids emulated those stereotypes in play. The white kids in the neighbourhood thought it was great they had “real” Indians to chase and terrorize. You see the difference between us is that when you are done playing Indian you can take off the headdress. We cannot. We are stuck with dealing all those stereotypes you have created for us, good or bad, and we are the ones who have to live with them.

J-Roc77

Seems much of the time I see people complaining about 'political correctness' they are complaining about being called out for demeaning other cultures, race or ethnicity.

I find it interesting that you claim wearing a headdress as a rite of passage for your youth, totally oblivious to the rites of passage of the people you supposedly honor with such portrayals in your appropriation. Claiming it is just as much yours as the people who still use the traditions because you played with their culture, religion and traditions as a toy when you were a kid only shows the lowly stance you hold these people and their culture. It is a kids' toy to you, a romanticized idea or a source of amusement. It means something different to those who you claim are being overly sensitive and you refuse to acknowledge their side but insinuate they should accept yours as theirs.

You state you wanted to be a Native American is if it were a job or simply a lifestyle, have you ever played Mexican or black? Instead of warpaint you can wear black-face and you can pretend to fight against slavery or something, why not?

You are willingly ignorant to the other side of the story or to actually put some context into your actions. You are too busy in a mock defense of your right to speech, freedom etc. to realize your actions do not protect you from the consequences of your freedoms you choose to exercise.

Nancie Velasquez

I totally missed the part where you said the girls dressed up as "squaws." You do realize that that's a derogatory term right? What am I saying, of course you don't. That's the same as calling a black guy or gal a n*****. Let me suggest a past time for you to try next...go paint your face black and go out to see how people react. I'm so tired of people like you saying others are overly sensitive about our heritage and culture.I posted some additional thoughts as a comment too:

What you and all those children were respecting, Thom, is a clownish caricature of Native culture. You know, the savagery of primitive people whooping and dancing and committing other acts of wild abandon. That's not what Native cultures were like.

You were not respecting real Native cultures--either those that existed then or those that exist now. If you were, you'd be volunteering on a reservation, supporting Idle No More, or writing pro-Indian columns. I'm guessing your "childhood obsession" hasn't translated into any of these actions.

Respecting a caricature of Indians is exactly like respecting blacks by supporting minstrel shows, Aunt Jemima, and Amos 'n' Andy. Do you consider those fair and honorable representations of blacks? If there's a difference, explain it to us, because I don't see it.

Nickels tries again

Nickels's closing argument is worth noting too. He tries to shift gears radically and ends up proving his critics' point:Two years ago, a male acquaintance of mine dressed up as a 19th-century Turkish sultan for a Halloween ball. He was walking with friends across North Broad Street when he was attacked by another man who said he was insulting Islam. My friend was beaten pretty badly and spent a day in the hospital.

Now, dressing up as a 19th-century Turkish sultan is something straight out of an MGM movie set. A costume like that, to the modern mind, has a storybook quality with only a vague connection to Islam. Yet somebody was outraged and took matters into their own hands.

Welcome once again to our super-hypersensitive world.The response I posted:

What exactly is the point of your Turkish sultan anecdote? First you say you had a deep childhood reverence for Native cultures. As demonstrated by your cartoonish costumes and mock savagery, presumably. Then you say your "Turkish" acquaintance, and by implication the costumed Mummers, had only "a vague connection" to reality. In other words, these people were falsifying an ethnic group, not honoring it.

Which is it? Were the Mummers trying to "honor" Indians the way you supposedly did in childhood? If so, why did they wear phony costumes only vaguely connected to reality? Or were they and you stereotyping Indians because you were too ignorant to know any better? If so, why did you expect to get a pass for your belittling behavior?

Please elucidate.

For more on the subject, see Racist "Make Me Indian" App and Halloween = "Socially Acceptable Racism."

Below:  Kids who probably think about Indians the way Nickels did.

Braves bring back "screaming savage"

Braves bring back 'screaming savage' logo on batting practice hats

By Chris ChaseWhen sports franchises go retro with uniform redesigns, it usually conjures idyllic versions of the past. The Atlanta Braves new batting practice caps are a surprising turn in the other direction.

Atlanta's new batting practice cap features the team's old "screaming savage" logo--a Mohawked Native American with a feather in his head engaged in a tribal yell. The logo was part of the team's uniform from 1967 to 1989. The team got rid of mascot Chief Noc-A-Homa (wait for it ...) two years earlier.

Paul Lukas of Uni Watch released photos of the new cap Thursday morning.

People are in a justifiable uproar at the return to the Mohawked caricature, as if they expected a more nuanced take on race relations from a franchise whose fans still do the tomahawk chop.Really, Atlanta? Braves Bring Back 'Screaming Savage' Logo[F]or Natives, and much of the sportswriting/blogging world, seeing the logo again in use is very disappointing. That's the word used by Paul Lukas of Uni-Watch.com, who is probably the foremost scribe on professional athlete apparel, in his ESPN review: "Unfortunately, it turns out that the logo hasn't been permanently mothballed. Disappointing. Grade: F"

Others had similar reactions:

"Perhaps ownership was sick and tired of the Washington Redskins and their culturally insensitive name remaining the most offensive rendition of Native American culture in this country," wrote Timothy Rapp of Bleacher Report. He added, "Atlanta should retract these hats immediately. The organization is better than this."

In a post tagged "racism," Tom Ley of Deadspin described the logo as an Indian "captured here in mid-shriek as he watches either a Braves home run or the forcible uprooting and assimilation of his culture."

"Hands down, the worst," was Trent Rosecrans' verdict at CBS Sports' Eye on Baseball blog.

Dylan Murphy of SportsGrid presents some pro and con Twitter reactions, but concludes that "No matter how the Braves PR department tries to spin it, the logo is racist–it’s just a screaming Native American head, emphasizing stereotypes and the emotional simplicity of a people."

Mascot lovers defend cap

As with almost any instance of racism and stereotyping, white people crawled out of the woodwork to defend their "right" to belittle others. Adrienne Keene tackled some of them, beginning with those who criticized Lukas's "Grade: F" above.

Dear Defender of the new Atlanta Braves Cap“Disappointing. Grade: F”

Read those vile and fighting words! Clearly he is calling each and every one of you a dirty, stinking racist. Clearly he is saying that you are the scum of the earth and that everything you hold dear is offensive to someone, so you might as well run around naked and live in a hole in the ground to stave off the “PC police” who are coming for you. Yes, by saying that returning to a tired, offensive stereotype of Native people is “disappointing,” that’s clearly what he meant.

Because in the comments, it seems you and your fellow sports fans have lost your damn minds. There are 30 caps in the post, 30 pieces of commentary from Lukas, but somehow, 99.9% of the comments on the article are concerning the Braves cap. You are so original to pretend you are a “pirate” and are offended by the Pirates, or that you are a “communist” and are offended by the Reds. Or Irish, or a Viking, or even more creatively, you’re an elephant who’s offended by the new A’s logo! L.O. effing L. Cause, yep, Indians are just like pirates and Irish and communists and elephants! All those folks are marginalized racial groups who have been historically oppressed and continue to have the highest statistics for poverty, and homelessness, and suicide, and live in third world conditions, while they constantly and repeatedly have their cultures and lives mocked and stereotyped on every corner. Yep! The welfare lines are just full of elephants this time of year.

And I’m so glad there are people like your friend “chrohandhaivey” who can tell me what I should be honored by and how “fierce” I “was”:Im tired of this native american racist crap…$@%! you should be honored your race is a team mascot…thats a good thing…it shows how fierce you were to be used as a sports team….its not like its the n****rs or something i mean come on…personally i wish there was an Atlanta team named the “White People”…Id rock the $@%! out of that with pride not complain about it like some puddinsOr your friend “canigs013″ who gave us a backhanded compliment by saying we’re “too smart” to care about mascots:for real. has anyone actually heard a native american complain about things like that? no, because they’re too smart to care about dumb things that do not matter.Nope, “canigs013,” you’re right. I’ve never heard of a Native American complain about Indian mascots. Nope, there’s not a Supreme Court case, or millions of news articles, or decades and decades of activism against the cause. Nope.

But I’m stoked that one of your other friends brought up the infamous Sports Illustrated poll that shows that 80% of Native Americans support Indian mascots. A poll from 2002. Here are 20 other things that were popular in 2002, and I don’t think you’d care to argue their relevance today. Though, who knows, maybe you are rockin’ your CD’s on your walkman right now while fearing a boyband anthrax attack. There are also a million other things wrong with that poll, including the fact that they won’t release their polling sample or how they determined who to interview. Read this article to hear all the ways that poll is ridiculous and shouldn’t be used in an argument a decade later. A decade later.

I really wonder if you know how you sound. Your arguments are tired, are weak, and are getting more eye-roll worthy by the day. How long will you stand by the argument that “PC culture” is ruining “your” America? I’d like to share this awesome quote by Dion Beary that sums up your thought process perfectly for me:“Politically correct” is just a term assholes came up with so they can dismiss people who have the nerve to want to be respected. Demanding not to be stereotyped is not political correctness, it’s a human right, and you are not some hero for refusing to respect people’s right to be treated like humans.I am a real person. Hi. I am a modern Indian who likes sports and doesn’t want to take away “your” beloved franchise. But the images aren’t yours to keep. They’re representations of me, and my people, and my ancestors, and I should have the right to control them. And you see, the thing is, times change. While maybe at one time (though I’m gonna stand by the fact that it’s never been acceptable) these images were deemed “A-ok,” we’re not in that time anymore. In the not-so-distant past, folks were lamenting the loss of the minstrel show as a lovely form of family entertainment, or demanding that black folks use separate water fountains. Which side of the fight do you really want to be on?The Womanist blog also tackled some of the mascot lovers' comments:

The Problem With the New Braves Practice HatThe aforementioned is only a small smattering of the racist commentary about the hat. There were a few reoccurring themes:

Native People should be proud of the representation and that it is actually complimentary to their culture.

Being upset is silly and there are more serious issues in the world than this hat

Being upset about the hat is a symptom of a leftist politically correct culture, which infringes on free speech.

Native People should be thankful because Whiteness does not get to be celebrated in the same vein

It could be worse and what about teams like Notre Dame and the offensiveness of the drunken fighting Irish stereotype?

The very idea that having your culture demonized and reduced to an insensitive racist caricature should be deemed a positive and something to be proud of is beyond a twisting of the truth. It speaks to a complete desire to silence any form of dissent and it further suggests that Native People should not have the right to define themselves as they see fit. It is not for those outside of the Native American community to set the agenda for organizing. If you do not belong to the group in question, you cannot possible understand the impact of racist caricatures used by sports team because you don't have to live with the consequences. It is important to note that there are no social stereotypes that specifically demonize Whiteness and even more accurately, regardless of context, Whiteness is deemed to be the universal good.

The lack of celebration of Whiteness is something that would amuse me because of the ridiculousness of the claim, if the concept itself didn't completely depress me. The only reason people can complain that Whiteness is not celebrated, is because it has become so ubiquitous. You don't need a special hat, or television station to celebrate something that is so socially ingrained. White culture, and White pride are everywhere you look and they appear in a multitude of fashions.

One of the most common comments I saw was the continual suggestion that complaining about racism is being politically correct. Just like asshats how stand behind their freedom of speech to say the most reprehensible things, the people who go on about politically correct speech want the freedom to say whatever they desire without being held accountable for the hateful shit that they regularly spew. The very idea that a demand to be respectful to marginalized people reduces the English language to newspeak is asinine at best. It's not politically correct to avoid hate speech, it's called being a decent human being. The reason they have such an issue with the idea that it is wrong to attack historically marginalized people is not from a fear of losing the ability to express thoughts or ideas, but because it represents a limitation of their ability to maintain and advance their undeserved social power and privilege.Rob weighs in

One mascot lover wrote a whole column defending the cap:

Braves BP Cap Is Perfectly Fine, Settle Down

By JR FrancisSomehow the people who don’t like the logo keep referring to it as the “Screaming Savage” even as the logo itself is quite obviously laughing. There is a smile on his face. No one with the Braves or the MLB calls him that, and that has not been the implication. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good hissy fit.

Let’s not forget what this logo is, or why it is there; It is an almost exact implementation of a logo the team first used 58 years ago when they were located in Milwaukee. This isn’t a team breaking new ground into imagery that might possibly offend, this is a team paying tribute to their logos past, to an image many, many Braves fans have seen their whole lives, who associate it with good times of watching baseball. And who buy massive quantities of throwback merchandise with this logo and its variations.

This is not some old logo, relegated to the dustbin for lack of interest. It is one of the prime identifying marks of the team, and it is popular. It is available as a FatHead everywhere on hundreds of different tshirts, and fills the Atlanta Braves Team Store in the CNN Center, and inside the stadium. During the season, thousands wear gear with this logo.Some admirers said this column was "perfect" and they loved it. To which I responded:

The people who "love" this article must've skipped the parts about how old and popular the clownish mascot is. Because those arguments are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the current protests.

"It shows them as selfless, honorable, and to be respected." Hee-hawing like a donkey (your claim) or screaming (the Native claim) is equivalent to selfless and honorable? I guess you don't have the slightest idea what "respectable" means if you think a braying "brave" is respectable.

I could add that a Mohawk from the Northeast has nothing to do with the Indians of Georgia. That alone makes the logo false and stereotypical. But why bother, since mascot lovers aren't amenable to reason? They love their traditional examples of racism and the feelings of superiority these examples engender.

For more on the Atlanta Braves, see Origin of the Tomahawk Chop and Animals, Objects, and Professions.

Below:  "Hee haw! I'm a savage brute who either laughs like a donkey or screams like an ape."

Debating Frog Woman Rock

I thought renaming Squaw Rock as Frog Woman Rock was unremarkable--a change barely worth mentioning. Judging by the comments on the original article, though, local residents are angry. Below are some of their remarks and my responses.

Note that no one is claiming the name change will affect them personally. It's all about who's in control. "We don't want our (white) name changed to their (Indian) name. We don't want the state spending our (white) money on those people (Indians). Even if the name change doesn't hurt anyone, it's our (white) decision, not theirs. We're the deciders because it's our (white) country now."

Let the debate beginI am afraid that I have to agree with Robert Bradford owner of the property. It will always be Squaw Rock to me. You would think that the state would have more pressing issues to deal with other than this trivial crap.You'd think all the people whining about the name change would have more pressing issues to deal with than their whiny hurt feelings.Gimme a break....Might as well name it "River Rock" and have the casino sponsor it.Have the casino sponsor it? There it is...the racism underlying the opposition to the name change.That article is really bad. Renaming because of its roots in questionable Indian lore and derogatory to women so we'll call it frog woman based on Indian lore. lolz.The Indian lore is questionable but the umpteenth "lovers leap" story isn't? Try the other way around.Seriously? This is the most stupidest thing/name I've heard! I'm w/ everyone else, it'll ALWAYS be Squaw Rock!The old name will be gone and forgotten in a generation or so. Good-bye and good riddance.Is the tribe funding the name change or is it more tax dollars being wasted? Either way it's a waste of time and money.

A fifth generation Sonoma county resident...it will always be Squaw Rock.

Saddened by the name change and appalled that Hopland Rancheria tribal members felt they needed to spend their energy in this totally worthless endeavor...a minor point won perhaps but the ensuing confusion will guarantee that Squaw Rock will always be Squaw Rock.

The real issues is that Squaw is not a PC term and we now have to pander and cater to everyone in this country.You mean you have to pander and cater to people whom you've traditionally oppressed and ignored? Boo-hoo!Ridiculous! Apparently these esteemed "historians" have too much time on their hands.What exactly do you expect the California State Historical Resource Commission to do instead?Let's name it "Just lost my paycheck at the casino rock."Or "white people won so they can name the rock whatever they want" rock.

New name is educationalSquaw, squaw, squaw and mother freakin squaw freakin rock!!!

I have NEVER heard the name or story about the frog woman! There are alot of traditional names, that might somehow be designated as not being politically correct. But how about keeping names and stories traditional? Does everything have to be "politically correct," so afraid of offending anybody/everybody? Come on. Squaw Rock will always be known, especially by locals and EVERYBODY native to the area as "Squaw Rock," regardless of whatever pc label might be attached.You never heard the story about Frog Woman? Sounds like a good reason to change the name. That is, to educate latecomers like you about the 10,000-year-old history of the land.What a joke....It is Squaw Rock and will always be Squaw Rock. It is a great legend. Not at all condescending or racial. Part of our local history. What a waste of time and money. What is it going to be changed to next year?It's condescending and racial because it's one of dozens of phony legends around the country of Indian maidens leaping to their deaths. It's part of the stereotypical belief that Indians had to die tragically because they were doomed to vanish. I.e., that they had no recourse other than to commit suicide.

White people invented these legends to explain where the Indians went. Whites didn't remove or kill the Indians, according to the spurious legends. Indians "vanished" themselves by leaping off rocks.

If anyone actually thinks this legend has a basis in fact...go ahead and provide the evidence for it. Make sure it's original source material, not romantic rumors passed down from one white man to another. Good luck with your answer...you'll need it.OH PLEASE can we stop with the PC bullsh#t???? First, ask the Native Americans if they feel disrespected by the name of that damn rock. If so, ask them why they haven't done anything about it for the last 50 years, if it's so f'ing offensive? Why spend time and TAXPAYER MONEY on such a stupid project? No wonder California is so screwed up....Ask them...and if they explain their reasoning, ignore it. In other words, you don't care what stupid Indians think. So noted.

As for the PC claim, "political correctness" = silencing criticism.I hope all the frog women out there don't get offended, cause then they'll have to change the name again...LOLI hope all the white people don't cry themselves to death over this simple name change.

What about the cost?I only want to know one thing, how much did this cost, during a recession.To issue a proclamation authorizing the name change on future maps and documents? A very small amount, I suspect. Not enough to justify all this whining, certainly.Always will be Squaw Rock to me...this was a milestone all of my life and this is a JOKE that they would try to rename this to a mythical "frog women" come on people...think about this when we vote for our local representatives and county officials...let's keep some history and culture here!Let's keep some white history, you mean.

Yeah, white people have stolen and renamed "only" 99% of the Indians' land. We want that last 1%, dammit. God gave America to the Europeans, not the Indians!Talk about some bull the locals have known Squaw Rock's majestic lore and learn at a young age the lessons from the story get off your high horse Cali and back off Squaw Rock.What lessons...that Indians committed suicide for no good reason? That they, not white men, were responsible for their deaths?

Why would anyone teach an obviously phony legend? Do you really think a young woman could lift a stone large enough to crush two people? Wow.Technically I'm a "squaw." What's so impolitically (unpolitically?) correct about it? All it means is an indigenous woman, i.e. an American Indian woman.squaw [skwaw]
noun

1. Often Offensive. a North American Indian woman, especially a wife.

2. Slang: Disparaging and Offensive.
a. a wife.
b. any woman or girl.I guess I am an idiot....I always thought "squaw" was a woman Indian, not a derogatory word.Now you know better. Most Natives consider it offensive these days. For more on the subject, see Squelching the S-Word.I've always called it "Progressive Slots Rock" and I will always call it that!

Always will be Squaw Rock...next there's going to be a lighted venue sign with directions to the casino built on it....

Wow! This is big news. It's just what we need, frog rock. Now where do I go for food stamps?You gotta love the implicit racism here. These people think the only reason this is happening is because the tribe's paying for it. And it's doing so to advertise its casino. Not because the government has listened to Indians and heard them say "squaw" is offensive and inappropriate for a place in Pomo country.

No, Indians and the people who support them can't have sincere motives. Because of their "savage" background, they must have some hidden agenda. That's what "those people" do: threaten to take what's ours with their tomahawks and name changes.

And the final comment implies the state is catering to Indians with this decision just like it does with food stamps and other government benefits. Nice.

A few voices of reason

There were a few supportive comments--other than mine, that is:You are all fools it has only been called Squaw Rock for 50 years WOW. 1st generation or 5th generation it dosent matter how long you people been here you still just got here we been here for THOUSANDS of years and it has always been Matha Kawo Kabe.

Apparently a lot of people disagree with the name change, but I applaud it. A derogatory term is a derogatory term.

Why complain now? It's a done deal and it was the right thing to. I noticed none of you were motivated to go to Auburn during public comment to oppose the name change. Hutray, I'm glad! I'm going to party like it's 1491. Signed Shawn Padi, Chairman of Hopland Band of Pomo Indians and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer.

I will probably always call it Squaw Rock but I couldn't care less if they change it. It's neat to read some new stories on it, though. On the other hand, if it was called Nigger Rock I bet nobody would object to changing the name would they? I can totally see where the demand for change is coming from. It's a cultural thing.And in response to "That's B.S.--how do we protest?"You could kill the Indians, take over their land, and re-name it.

Wait a minute....That wins the prize for the best comment on this thread.

For more on geographic place names, see Explorers Didn't Consider "Squaw" Offensive and Changing Park Name = Guilt Trip?

P.S. As usual, I edited the comments slightly to make them more readable.

Below:  Don't you dare take away our white power Squaw Rock Indian mascot!

Hipster racism

A brilliant analysis of the "hipster" phenomenon that deserves to be quoted and read in full:

Hipster Racism

By S.E. SmithHard on the heels of my discussion about liberal sexism, I think it’s time to talk about hipster racism. I’m borrowing the term “hipster racism” from Carmen Van Kerckhove over at Racialicious, because it really is a perfect word to describe the phenomenon, and I note that other people are using the term as well. Hipster racism is a pretty pernicious problem, and it seems to be growing.

What is hipster racism?

Hipster racism involves making derogatory comments with a racial basis in an attempt to seem witty and above it all. Specifically, the idea is to sound ironic, as in “I’m allowed to say this because of course I’m not racist, so it’s funny.” It’s an aspect of a larger part of the hipster culture, which wants to seem jaded and urbane and oh-so-witty. Using language which is viewed as inflammatory or not appropriate is supposed to push the boundaries and make someone look edgy, but it only really comes across that way to people who buy into that system. To everyone else, it’s just racist.

The thing about using racist content in an “ironic” context is that it still perpetuates racist ideas, and it is, in fact, racist. While people may ardently claim that they are not racist, the people who engage in hipster racism are overwhelmingly white and middle class, and they clearly have some unaddressed racial issues which are being subverted in their attempts to be edgy. Sometimes, they are actually explicitly racist, and they are using hipster racism as a way of presenting their racism in a way which will be acceptable within their social groups.

Hipster racism often hides under the unassailable guise of satire. People who suggest that something is racist, and not actually funny, are told that they obviously just don’t get it, and that the whole point of humour is to push boundaries. They are told that the racism is so obvious and overstated that it’s meant to be laughed at, and that people are laughing at the racism and the racists, not supporting the ideas which are supposedly being mocked. But, oddly enough, a lot of racist satire doesn’t read that way, and it ends up just being racist, full stop.

Much as people seem to think that having gay friends makes it ok to make homophobic comments, or that having female friends makes it ok to be sexist, hipster racists often draw upon their anti-racist credentials such as “having black friends,” “dated an Asian girl once,” or “really liking Mexican food” to fight accusations of racism. If they even bother fighting the accusations, that is, because most live in an insular world where they will not be challenged.

The other favourite hipster defense is, of course, to claim that people are being “too politically correct” or “too sensitive.” This is supposed to be a pithy insult which indicates that the person pointing out offensive behavior is too uptight, and not really part of the freewheeling hipster movement, but in fact, it’s just silencing. Saying that people deserve to be treated like human beings and that discourse should be respectful has nothing to do with being too sensitive, and everything to do with genuinely believing that people should be treated equally.

The very hipster lifestyle is, in some ways, racist, and definitely not very introspective when it comes to race. Hipsters are a driving force behind gentrification, driving out low income people and people of colour. They consistently co-opt and appropriate elements of other cultures, piecemeal, and often without any cultural sensitivity or respect. They regularly draw upon the work and legacy of people of colour, usually without crediting them, and most of their contact with people of colour comes in the form of the service personnel serving them their food, cleaning their wine bars, and picking their organic produce.

As hipster racism has become more widespread, it’s also crept into more general society. Racist content appears in films and television shows, disguised as “satire,” it’s on the cover of major magazines, it’s in the pages of respectable newspapers. While explicit racism is viewed as socially unacceptable, racism disguised as irony or satire is evidently perfectly acceptable, especially if it comes from middle class white people with trust funds. Indeed, I recently read a New York Times article in which the author suggested that people feel “relieved” when they are no longer “harassed by prevailing cultural sensitivities,” because apparently the idea of treating people with dignity or confronting your own racism is a burden.

I think that this concept is also pretty closely tied in with liberal sexism, because the core defense of practitioners of liberal sexism and hipster racism is “but I don’t really feel this way, therefore it’s funny/acceptable.”

But, guess what? It’s not.Comment:  For more on the subject, see:

Cultural appropriation on Al Jazeera
The magical power of intent
Cowboys & Findians in The Dudesons
Minorities suffer microaggressions
Why hipster headdresses aren't okay

Below:  Some examples of hipster racism.

Showband critics = "PC cockroaches"?!

In the same posting where the Corrigan Brothers supported the "Indians" showband, a debate broke out in the comments section. The instigator's name was Mojo Celtica and I gather she (?) is an American of Irish/Cherokee descent. Here's how it went:American insanity? It's not us. What's insane is that we tolerate these little roving bands of vocal PC cockroaches at all. The majority of Americans aren't like this. Those claiming offense aren't even American Indians (who would howl because I didn't say "Native Americans"). These PC-types are professional whiners. Ignore them. We do.Someone named Deejay NDN responded to Mojo:So now people think Native Americans as inanimate objects? We're living breathing PEOPLE who don't like being made fun of! That's it! STOP MAKING FUN OF US!Mojo responded to Deejay NDN:Okay Deejay, I can see you're angry an upset so I will address you seriously.

No one believes Native Americans are inanimate objects. Everyone knows they are living breathing persons and have feelings. You perceive this band as "making fun" and find it hurtful. I understand. I have a completely different perception. I believe imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, even if they're being silly. We Irish are a merry bunch. Being an "aboriginal" from the Americas is cool. They would not have chosen people to emulate if they despised them.

I am acutely aware of the history of Native American genocide and don't have to Google. Destroying this little Irish band will not heal the wounds of the American past. Many different peoples around the world have suffered genocide and have moved past it–not forgotten it, but moved past it… so they are not crippled in the present by the atrocities of the past.

I could slap the green beer out of the hand of every Englishman on St. Pat's, but it's history–not to be forgotten, but not to be relived each and every day of the present.

There are many worthwhile projects designed to directly help aboriginal peoples that would actually make a difference, yet you devote your time and attention to this little Irish band halfway around the world that most people have never heard of. I think you are angry and hurt, but if this band were disbanded tomorrow, you would still be just as angry and hurt. I can only wish you inner peace, Deejay.Rob weighs in

My response to Mojo Celtica:

You're incredibly ignorant if you think large numbers of Native Americans are protesting the band because they want to be called "Native Americans" rather than "Indians." Rather, they're protesting the band because it perpetuates racist stereotypes linked to weakened tribal sovereignty, losing court cases, reduced funding for services, etc. In other words, actual problems that affect Native health and welfare.

You can read more of the criticism here:

Showband criticism reaches Irish press
"Blacks" showband vs. "Indians" showband
Natives attack "Indians" showband

"I am acutely aware of the history of Native American genocide and don't have to Google."

That's nice. Meanwhile, your colleagues the Corrigan Brothers continue perpetuating the racist stereotypes of the "Indians" band. And thousands of Irish fans cheer these racist stereotypes.

"What's insane is that we tolerate these little roving bands of vocal PC cockroaches at all."

Yeah, we can see how sensitive and thoughtful you are. "Vocal PC cockroaches" = hundreds if not thousands of Natives on Facebook. Basically, every Native who saw the postings about the "Indians" band.

"The majority of Americans aren't like this."

The majority of Americans are ignorant of the racism and stereotyping they perpetuate against Natives. Just as you and the "Indians" band are.

"Those claiming offense aren't even American Indians (who would howl because I didn't say ‘Native Americans')."

So you did background checks on all the people protesting the "Indians"? Or you just fabricated these claims because they sounded good? The latter, I think.

In any case, you're wrong on both counts. Try Googling these points since you so badly misstated the facts. Educate yourself so we don't have to do it for you.

More from Mojo

Mojo mostly ignored my comments and continued:Perhaps my failure to understand is that my identity and sense of self is not based on any one ethnicity. I have a grandfather who was German, one that was Cherokee, my grandmothers both Scot and Irish, and I consider myself to be an American. I have their blood, but not their history. I didn't walk the Trail of Tears. I wasn't driven from Ireland to the US by starvation. My native tongue wasn't forbidden to be used by the British. You get the drift. I cannot fight a battle that's already over. I choose to live in the present, not the past. If you want understanding, then you must be willing to understand.

If I got cheesed off every time someone made fun of my sons wearing "dresses" (kilts), or hear about drunkards being thrown in the "Paddy Wagon," seeing leprechauns drawn with monkey faces (less than human), etc., etc., I would just be mad and unhappy all the damn time. No one offends me unless I choose to be offended. Generally, I choose not to.

Most of the arguments made here don't get past an eye roll. I have listened; however, to Deejay, who can articulate what and how he feels without being hateful and combative. The fact that he is living oppression in The Now helps me relate, feel compassion and want to help on a human level.

I still don't believe the dissolution of a show band is the answer. For however distasteful… ‘If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.' ~ Noam ChomskyDeejay NDN responded:The Indians aren’t imitating us. That’s the point. They’re making fun of us. What they’re doing is a misinformed stereotype of what Non Aboriginal people think we should look like. This is what’s so damaging. This is what’s racist.Mojo continued:@ Deejay: My issue with the show band is one of freedom of speech and expression. Not because I am a fan or am Irish.

I also have; however, an issue with oppression, and I am also concerned that people in your area "struggle for basic human necessities like drinkable water" and that "the suicide rate of aboriginals under the age 24 is 78.4 per 100 000".

Imagine if the publicity generated by this show band controversy instead highlighted these problems? What if all the energy expended in debating costumes were instead combined and directed at solving these issues and actually helping real people?

As Rob, The Diplomat, observed above, there are "hundreds if not thousands of Natives on Facebook." Why not harness the power of those people and enlist others to engage issues you can actually do something about? Beating this stereotyping thing to death could last forever. Tell us where to go, what to do, and how we can help right now.Rob replies to Mojo

All the "honoring" and "flattering" arguments are pretty darn silly. Does anyone seriously think the "Indians" showband could perform at a genuine powwow without getting booed? Let's book them for the next tribal summit in Washington DC and see how tribal leaders respond. Who wants to bet on the outcome?

What matters in these situations isn't the "intent" of the offenders. It's the reactions of the offended. Your "belief" that you're flattering Indians is irrelevant, Mojo, since Indians have told you otherwise.

The magical power of intent

The problem with white/Indian comparisons is that Germans, Scots, and Irish aren't oppressed in the United States anymore. Native Americans are.

As I'm sure you know, discrimination against Irish Americans was widespread in the 19th century:

Irish American--discrimination

I've never heard of these Irish (or blacks, or Latinos, or Asians) laughing at the palpable prejudice against them. I bet they protested just as Indians are doing now. They stopped protesting only when the prejudice went away.

Almost everyone participating in this action is also involved in other causes. It's called multitasking. It doesn't take much effort to criticize a showband between projects.

These activists understand the link between prejudicial images, beliefs, and acts. When people think Indians are primitive savages, they're less likely to take Native issues seriously. If stereotypes don't influence them, why are they so ignorant about Native life today?

You say you know about the genocide, but do you know about the water and suicide problems? Do your fellow Irish know about them? Do they know anything other than their stereotypical beliefs about Indians? Because it sure isn't obvious from the writings of Stephen Maguire or the Corrigan Brothers.

This protest is raising the profile of Indians in Ireland. Who knows how many people it will inspire to read, visit, or contribute after discovering Indians aren't an extinct race of savages? You seem to be learning something; so is everyone else.

You want things to do? Spend five minutes a day reading Pechanga.net, Indianz.com, or Indian Country Today. "Like" their pages on Facebook and follow them on Twitter. Learn what Indians think and want and they won't demand more of you.

Finally, I'm not sure anyone who uses the term "vocal PC cockroaches" should take a superior attitude. Clean up your nasty rhetoric before you worry about anyone else, okay?

More thoughts on "PC"

No one is saying the "Indians" band should disband, Mojo. We're saying they should stop using the stereotypical Indian names and images. They can perform under any identity they wish other than "Indians."

Sure, they have a right to "express" themselves. So does every racist who uses an offensive slur. But people also have a responsibility to other members of society. If you're going to indulge in stereotypes, you'd better have a good reason for doing it. Exploiting people for profit isn't enough of a reason for racist behavior.

Funny that you accused critics of trying to silence the "Indians." That's exactly what you did by labeling the critics "PC cockroaches," of course. That's what "political correctness" means these days: "I don't like your charges of racism so I'm going to call you the problem. I hope that'll shut you up so I can continue to enjoy racist images and acts."

"Political correctness" = silencing criticism

With your support for Aaron Paquette's reply, I guess you've backed off your foolish claim that the critics are non-Indians who care only about political correctness. Oh, well...better late than never. Maybe you'll think twice before you speak next time.

For more on the subject, see Irish Band Is Just Harmless Fun? and Most Racist Musical Group Ever?

Below:  Mojo's impression of Natives who dare to oppose racism and stereotyping.

How journalists frame the question

Asking the wrong question?

By Cynthia Coleman[W]hen a news story pits “scientists” against Indians, and it the story is framed as science, it is predictable which groups will gain instant legitimacy. In all the conflicts I’ve mentioned, scientists and government officials get a head start in the legitimacy race. Indians are left at the starting gate and are forced to voice their opposition within an already-established framework that journalists sanction, even if they’re unaware of their complicity.

An apt example is seen in 60 Minutes’ coverage of the Kennewick Man court battles. Veteran reporter Leslie Stahl positioned the Indian tribes as anti-science in her 2002 interview. Stahl set the stage for the story by framing the discovery of the skeleton as a “scientific treasure,” adding, “we’re talking about our history.” Therefore anyone disagreeing with the frame would be seen as anti-science. And by declaring that Kennewick Man represents “our history,” Stahl has deigned that the skeleton speaks to her history, not the local Indian tribes. Umatilla spokesman Armand Minthorn presented a different approach: not about science but about culture. “Our older people tell us that when a body goes into the ground, that’s where it’s to remain until the end of time. It’s been removed. It’s violating everything that we know.” He also noted that for 10,000 years his people have told stories about life on the Columbia River. “My teachings from my older people tell me how life was 10,000 years ago. And the scientists cannot accept the fact that just because it’s not written down in a book, it’s not fact. It’s fact to me, because I live it every day.”Comment:  Below is a Kennewick Man reconstruction by the National Geographic and the original "Captain Picard" reconstruction. Gosh, Kennewick Man doesn't look like Picard after all.

Making Kennewick Man look like a white man, as the "Picard" reconstruction did, was a huge factor in the subsequent controversy. People assumed white men had been here before Indians and framed the debate in terms of "political correctness." They deemed Indians who opposed the investigation obstructionists who wanted to preserve their quaint beliefs and superstitions.

Now we see how misleading the original reconstruction was. We could use another debate on why white people are so eager to discredit Indians. Because they can't stand the thought that their ancestors weren't first and best in everything, apparently. Because their ancestors didn't claim an "untamed wilderness" but had to steal it from its rightful owners.

For more on the subject, see Kennewick Man, Captain Picard, and Political Correctness.

"Political correctness" = silencing criticism

Two good postings tell us what claims of "political correctness" are really about:

There Is No Right to be Exempt From CriticismThe underlying premise ... is that one should be able to express bigotry while being exempt from criticism that might make the person expressing the bigotry uncomfortable.The Great P.C. DodgeThe only use for use of variations of “politically correct” is to use the obsolete cultural meaning (suggesting hypersensitivity to minor or non-existent offenses) to insulate gross bigotry from any scrutiny or criticism.Comment:  Any website that discusses race, including mine, hears charges of "political correctness" frequently. What they mean is, "Stop talking about Indians, stereotypes, racism, moral crimes, broken treaties, and genocide. We don't want to hear about America's mistakes and shortcomings, so shut up."

Sorry, I have no plans to shut up. If you don't like what I'm writing, leave.

Claiming people like me are "PC" is like saying you're too stupid to come up with any real counterarguments. So you throw the "PC" label and hope it sticks.

Too bad we're on to your transparently obvious tricks. Now try coming up with a real defense of racism and stereotyping in America. Good luck with your answer...you'll need it.

For more on the subject, see "Political Correctness" Defined.

Criticizing Comanche Moon = PC?

The debate over Comanche Moon continues:There is so much "politically correct" crap on TV and film about Indians that it was refreshing for a change to see a story about Indians and whites that didn't judge either side--that presented both as neither all good nor all bad, but HUMAN, flaws and all.