Bundys hold Paiute artifacts hostage

The 'hostages' of Oregon standoff: 4,000 Paiute artifacts? (+video)

The Burns Paiute tribe, whose ancestral lands are occupied by protesters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, have asked officials to prosecute the armed activists for potential damage to sacred sites and historical artifacts.

By Molly JacksonAs the armed occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge enters its third week, with little public response from the government, many Americans' initial fascination with Ammon Bundy's eclectic group of protesters demands to return the land "to the people" has faded to weary frustration.

For the nearby Burns Paiute tribe, however, much more is at stake: 4,000 tribal artifacts, maps, and hundreds of sacred sites that they fear may be damaged or carted off for profit while their ancestral lands remain under the control of armed activists who see loggers and ranchers, not Native Americans or the federal government, as the land's rightful owners.

"As far as I'm concerned, our history is just another hostage," Paiute Tribal Council Chairwoman Charlotte Rodrique told the Associated Press.

After weeks of speaking out against the occupation, the tribe has written a letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which manages the refuge, asking that the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, as the occupiers are now calling themselves, be prosecuted for any damage to federally protected artifacts. A copy was also sent to the US Attorney for the state of Oregon, Billy Williams, according to the AP.Burns Paiute Tribe: Oregon Occupiers Might Sell Sacred Artifacts on eBay

By Justin StreightCharlotte Roderique (pictured above), chair of the Burns Paiute Tribal Council, released a statement on the occupation Friday.

“Armed protestors don’t belong here. They continue to desecrate one of our most important sacred sites. They should be held accountable.”

Tribal council member Jarvis Kennedy highlighted one particular fear—that the artifacts could end up for sale.

“They could be on eBay right now—we don’t know. With militia members coming and going freely from the refuge, who knows what’s leaving there?”Interior and exterior threats

Oregon Wildlife Refuge Occupiers Rifle Through Native American Artifacts

By Brendan O'ConnorA video uploaded to Facebook on Wednesday appears to show the armed militants occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge rummaging through a storage area, accusing the Bureau of Land Management of improperly storing artifacts belonging to the local, native Paiute tribe. “SHARE!” the video is captioned. “BREAKING UPDATE BURNS OREGON BLM LEFT NATIVE ARTIFACTS TO ROT IN MICE DROPPINGS!”

Earlier this week, Burns Paiute tribal chairperson Charlotte Roderique expressed concern over how the militia was handling the tribe’s history. “We are really worried about the status of the artifacts down there,” Roderique told the Indian Country Today Media Network. (Gawker could not reach Roderique for comment.)

“I understand they took a bulldozer and built a line around the refuge headquarters,” Roderique told Indian Country Today. “You can’t go and bulldoze things. I don’t know what these people are doing if they are doing things to just get a rise or to be martyr—all they are doing is making enemies out of the people they professed to support.”

Last week, the tribe delivered a letter to the U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service demanding the militants’ prosecution “if the occupiers disturb, damage, remove, alter, or deface any archaeological resource on the refuge property.”Militants claim they want to return Paiute artifacts from Oregon reserve in new video

By Arturo GarciaMembers of Ammon Bundy’s militant group released a video on Wednesday claiming they want to “open a dialogue” with members of the Burns Paiute Tribe regarding artifacts stored inside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The video, posted on YouTube by multiple-time felon Stanley Blaine Hicks under his “Blaine Cooper” alias, shows LaVoy Finnicum walking through a storage room at the facility, saying it contains artifacts shoved into boxes.

“You can see there’s some rat’s nests in here,” Finnicum says, motioning toward one group of boxes. However, no rats are visible at any moment during the three-minute video.

“My question is, why do they just keep them down here?” Finnicum asks.

Militants Plow New Roads At Refuge, Possibly Damaging Artifacts

By Amanda PeacherKevin Foerster, the agency’s Pacific region chief, also denounced the construction.

“There’s a reason why there’s not a road there,” said Foerster. “If there was a need for a road in that particular location, we would have over the past 108 years put a road in that location.”

The agency said the action is likely a violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, also known as the ARPA.

“Even disturbing 3 to 4 inches on the surface is an ARPA violation,” said Holm. “Investigators will have to excavate to determine depth of disturbance in several areas to understand the extent of the damage.”Summing it up

Bundy Militia Compared To ISIS For Pawing Through Native American Artifacts, Destroying Sites

By Kristina KillgroveOn the face of it, this doesn’t seem like a bad sentiment. For an organization obsessed with individual rights, it makes sense in a way: Finicum and others may actually be convinced that the Paiute objects need rescuing. But their paternalistic concern for people they perceive as downtrodden by the US government is misplaced. The Paiute agree that the objects need to be rescued—but rescued from Finicum and the other militia members. Rodrique is further quoted in Daily Kos as saying that “we feel strongly because we have had a good working relationship with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge” prior to the occupation. “We view them as a protector of our cultural rights in that area.” The Paiute helped archive the artifacts at the refuge in the first place.

The Daily Kos quotes tribal council member Jarvis Kennedy as saying, “They just need to get the hell out of there. They didn’t ask anybody, we don’t want them here.” And the archaeologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Carla Burnside, told ICTMN that militants released photos of themselves in her office rifling through sensitive archaeological files. Fish and Wildlife Service assistant director of external affairs, Jason Holm, further told Oregon Public Broadcasting that the road the occupiers recently bulldozed is “an archaeological site important to the Burns Paiute Tribe.” They also removed a fence that Holm said was “a deterrent to keep fire crews from driving across the archaeological site.”

The actions of the Bundy-led militia almost certainly go against ARPA, in spite of what Finicum and friends seem to think. Legal protections have been put into place over decades in the US to protect Native sites, artifacts, and burials and to help right the wrongs done to Native archaeological remains since Europeans first landed. Finicum may think he is doing the right thing in his misguided attempt to repatriate artifacts that are being stored at the refuge by choice and by design, but the Paiute vehemently disagree. And as it’s their heritage, it’s their right to rebuff Finicum and to bring federal action against the occupants who have no idea how to handle the artifacts or how to safeguard their sacred sites.

Rodrique’s quote in ICTMN sums it up for me, and for many of the people in my Twitter feed outraged by this brash disregard for the opinions of Natives: “I don’t know what these people are doing… if they are doing things to just get a rise or to be a martyr—all they are doing is making enemies out of the people they professed to support.”Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Bundy: Paiutes Lost Their Claim and Paiutes Tell Bundys to Leave.

Native lead in The Revenant?

A Facebook friend wrote the following about The Revenant:I'm reading The Revenant, and it seems after the creators of the film bought the rights they took the liberty of completely adding in the story of Glass having a Native wife and son. So my question is, if they felt they needed to drastically change the story to add more humanity and drama, why didn't anyone think to just make the main character Hawk? He survives a bear attack, watches his white father get stabbed in front of him, and the movie ensues as is, a story of revenge, but with an Indian as the lead character. The movie would be filmed in the same fashion, therefore getting the same nominations, an Indian wins "Best Actor" and the Oscars don't have to explain another year lacking in diversity. BOOM everyone wins.I said something similar!

DiCaprio could've played the Tom Hardy role. Or, if we're further fictionalizing the story, a made-up role.

Marketers don't necessarily care whether a star plays a leading role or a supporting role. E.g., Johnny Depp in Into the Woods.

If DiCaprio's in it, they can sell it as if he's the star. Because audiences don't care that much either.Right. If audiences really cared, the turnout for Star Wars would've been significantly lower after learning of the storm trooper role. That's the logic of "white male leads put more butts in seats."There's also the fact that a star doesn't guarantee anything. See Johnny Depp in The Lone Ranger. No one could tell in advance whether The Revenant would be a hit or a flop.

DiCaprio vs. Depp

Someone else chimed in:Right, but I bet you [Depp] was a huge reason that movie got green lit. And the reason is flopped is, well, that is a TERRIBLE movie.Right, but the "Lone Ranger" experience contradicts your initial claim:

"The sad truth is, Leo [Johnny] sells tickets. He gets movies made. You couldn't realistically make this flick without him. With a budget of about 130m, you need to make sure you're going to get a certain amount back by casting a face who puts people's butts in seats."

The "selling tickets" part isn't a sad truth, it's a wish or a hope. An article of faith. The truth is that except for maybe Tom Cruise, no white actor can guarantee a hit movie. Certainly not Johnny Depp, whom Hollywood considers a hitmaker. These actors can't put "butts in the seats" and "make sure" a movie earns a profit.

I checked and DiCaprio's movies have a solid record of earning profits. But he generally does prestige projects with the likes of Martin Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, and James Cameron. I.e., big names who often have hits because of their directing and producing skills regardless of whom they cast. DiCaprio doesn't take many risks with low-brow popcorn fare like The Lone Ranger.

So The Revenant was a gamble, not a sure thing. A $60 million film with a Native star, DiCaprio as the co-star, and a big-name director also would've been a gamble. We won't know which is the bigger gamble until DiCaprio and Hollywood actually make the second movie.

The "gets movies made" part is the sad truth. Because Hollywood ignores the success of diverse films and continues to operate via its old-boy network aka racism.

In short, the facts are these:

Diverse movies are a huge business. Why doesn’t Hollywood make more?

Not whatever Hollywood thinks they are.

For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see The Revenant = "White Savior" Story and Is The Revenant a Game-Changer?

Means: Geronimo had 100+ errors

Hollywood v. Indians: Russell Means, The Great Mystery and Adam Sandler's Dreck

By Bayard JohnsonRussell came over for dinner one evening and sat down at the table, hardly speaking, staring into space. He was in another world. After a while he sat up straighter, cleared his throat, and came back to our kitchen table. “Got a look at the GERONIMO script,” he said. “It’s the worst piece of trash I’ve ever seen.” I can’t remember how many factual errors about Indians were written into the script. It was a staggering number, over 100. Everything about the script reflected an attempt by non-Indians, who knew nothing about Indians or their culture or beliefs or ways of life, to make money off the popular current interest in movies about American Indians. There was no attempt by the filmmakers to learn anything factual about Indians, or to represent them on screen with any accuracy whatsoever, according to Russell’s reading of the script.Means said he wouldn't do anything about it. The Great Mystery would take care of the problem:How was the Great Mystery going to take care of GERONIMO? I must’ve looked dubious. “If you look at the history of Hollywood,” said Russell, “you’ll see that recent movies that have treated Indians with respect—LAST OF THE MOHICANS, LITTLE BIG MAN, THE OUTLAW JOSIE WALES, DANCES WITH WOLVES—have all done well at the box office. Those like GERONIMO, which trampled roughshod over Indian culture, were box office disasters. Just wait, said Russell. You’ll see.

The numbers became clear later in 1993. GERONIMO cost $35 million to produce. The picture grossed $18 million, meaning that everyone who tried to exploit Indian culture to make money lost their ass instead.Of course, Means also told us what he thought the best Native movies of the 1990s were:Last of the Mohicans and the best one of them all, Pocahontas.Not Dances with Wolves or Smoke Signals but Pocahontas, which must've had hundreds if not thousands of historical errors. So take his claims with a grain of salt.

For more on Russell Means, see Means on His Acting Career and Means on Native Movies.

The Revenant = "white savior" story

The Revenant is not an indigenous story

Grandiose frontier epic never escapes colonial gaze of western genre

By Jesse WenteThe Revenant is not an indigenous story. Like Dances with Wolves before it (among many others) it is an American fable that uses First Nations characters to support its allegorical intent, and one that never escapes the colonial gaze of the western genre.

Like Kevin Costner's more traditional western, The Revenant takes great strides to get period details correct around clothing, language, housing and combat, but does little to elevate the indigenous characters beyond narrative and storytelling devices.Indigenous People’s Stories Need More Than Just Leonardo DiCaprio’s Speech

By Ryan McMahonMy social media is split between people who love the film for what it was—a story about how lost the English and the French were when they arrived in our territories—and people who hated the film for its tired tropes of violent Indians, and the portrayal of sexual violence against Indigenous women (and, yeah, one scene of sexual violence against an Indigenous woman is enough to mention it here). I've accepted the film for what it is: a look at how ugly and violent the fur trade and the settling of North America was.

Among friends, our "inside the circle" conversations (yes, Indigenous peoples have private conversations y'all are not privy to) about The Revenant have revolved around the white savior complex of the story, the bloodthirsty revenge narrative of the Arikara Chief, and the general musings of the violent times that were. For some, the anger and frustration at the representations of Indigenous people in the film don't allow all of us to see that The Revenant wasn't an Indigenous film. It was a film that happened to have a "B story" that included Native people, but it was not an Indigenous story alone.'Revenant' Review: It’s Ok, But Still the Same Ol’ White Savior Stuff for Native People

By Gyasi Ross[T]he actual human story pushed Revenant into the same “white savior” garbage pile that has permeated pretty much any mainstream movie that includes Natives as major characters. DiCaprio’s “Glass” character is a dirty, vicious, capitalistic and brutal white man who is trying to get some quick money at the expense of Native people’s resources just like every other white man in the movie. The only difference is that Glass has a half-Native son (some of his best friends are black) and so that, evidently, somehow makes him different than the rest of the dirty, vicious, brutal and capitalistic white men. Glass instructs his half-Native son to be silent and to not upset white men, for survival, as white men hold the key to Native people’s survival and can exterminate them at any time. “Be invisible.”

When one of those other dirty, vicious, capitalistic brutal white men kills Glass’s son, DiCaprio goes full-on Native; somehow surviving the worst tragedies, misfortunes and pains that the world can throw at him (‘cause that’s what we do). He’s bent on revenge—the only way that he can find redemption is through avenging his Native son. And that’s kinda the way Hollywood historically uses Native people and black bodies: as lesson providers and tragic figures. We usually don’t live long enough to see the glory of the white man’s redemption, but instead have to be killed so that the white protagonist can find his or her humanity.Chris Hemsworth and Leonardo DiCaprio Suffer for Oscars in Their New Movies

Both stars try to prove their seriousness as actors in old-timey survival tales In the Heart of the Sea and The Revenant, but there is a winner.

By Alison WillmoreThe Revenant is so prettily constructed that it’s painful to admit how ridiculous it actually is, and how empty it feels to watch a gruff, pseudo-mystical Western consisting of two actors method-style grunting their way toward an inevitable showdown in the snow. Like In the Heart of the Sea, The Revenant is set in a realm that’s entirely female-free, save for Glass’s ghost wife and an Arikara woman who’s kidnapped and raped. Movies don’t have to have a gender balance to be good, but The Revenant’s monotonous manliness is part of its weakness—it isn’t about anything other than the savage, violent world it’s so convinced has innate weight to it. Its revenge plot brings no satisfaction and its observations about the indifference of nature are prosaic. It’s a movie about survival in which survival seems as meaningless as everything else in its universe.

Though The Revenant is a more ambitious film than In the Heart of the Sea, in the end, the two survival dramas do the same thing: They treat struggle as synonymous with substance, even though one definitely doesn’t guarantee the other.Excellent points, especially in the final review. Even if The Revenant is historically accurate, its portrayals sound disturbing.

Indeed, they sound like a 19th-century version of "poverty porn." See how bad the violence against Indians was? See? See? See?

We could call it massacre porn, genocide porn, or something like that. I'm not sure it serves a useful purpose either artistically or historically.

Someone defended the movie as "based on a true story," to which I said:

If you're going to fictionalize Glass's story--as they did--you could fictionalize it with a female, black, or Native protagonist. Heck, you could set it in Africa with a lion or Asia with a tiger instead of a bear.

It's a choice to make a movie featuring a white male protagonist such as Hemsworth or DiCaprio. Not an unalterable law of nature.

For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see Is The Revenant a Game-Changer? and DiCaprio's Speech Isn't Enough.

Diversity is "an artistic necessity"

More on the #OscarsSoWhite controversy:

Oscars 2016: It's time for Hollywood to stop defining great drama as white men battling adversity

By Mary McNamaraBefore chalking all this up to a discussion of political correctness, Hollywood should take note that there is money at stake.

The movie and TV industries won't solve their main problem—how to capture the eyes of young audiences—by hewing to hallmarks of excellence set by previous generations. Millennials and post-millennials aren't just big franchise fans, they are also the most racially diverse and socially tolerant generations in history. As the crossover audiences for "Straight Outta Compton" and "The Hunger Games" series proved, they don't "need" their heroes to be white and don't expect them to be male or straight or anything but interesting.

So instead of panicking about the logistical challenges of the digital era, Hollywood should remember its own time-honored mantra: What matters is the story. The size and shape of the screens are, to a certain extent, outside the entertainment industry's control. What is playing on them, and how much it moves the audience, is not.

"Diversity," the lack of it and need for it, has been discussed and debated ad nauseam. But diversity isn't a civic duty, it's an artistic necessity. For any art form to remain relevant, it must grow with the society it explores, questions, criticizes and represents.#OscarsSoWhite, Again: A Symptom of Hollywood's Racism

By Jacqueline KeelerThis generation of Native Americans actors do not follow their dreams to Hollywood in order to continue to play buckskin and loincloth Potemkin villager parts that serve only to provide a backdrop to a white male actor’s heroics. I agree with Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie when she said in her TED Talk that “The Danger of a Single Story”—that is, the world seen only from the perspective of the white male—is that, “it robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different rather than how we are similar … Many stories matter.”

In light of this, I call for a moratorium on “buckskin and loincloth parts” until portrayals of Native people are balanced with those featuring modern Native American protagonists. We must get away from the portrayal of Native people as either savage warriors of the past, “Indian princesses” to be courted and conveniently killed off before giving birth to a Mestizo nation north of the Rio Grande, or as stoic stereotypes.And:In this vacuum of diverse portrayals, it is no wonder that stereotypes are all most Americans know about Native people.

The result of this whitewashing of racially diverse American stories—both those based in the real world and those in fantasy—was found in a 2014 UCLA study to reduce minority representation in films by more than half. Racial minorities make up 40 percent of the population but only 17 percent of leads in films, while 83 percent of the lead actors in films are white.

America is rich in stories—embarrassingly so. Let’s bring all the missing stories to the table and then we can begin to see each other as people.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Why Are Oscars So White? and #OscarsSoWhite2016.

Flipping the Whitesboro script

A couple of takes on the Whitesboro seal and what they tell us:



The "Whiteburros" seal is a satire, but it makes an important point. If the real seal shows a friendly wrestling match, then revise it to show both sides as equals. Or the Indian as the superior. Putting the white man in the superior position sends a racist message--whether the town of Whitesboro realizes it or not.



Would any white folks accept this as a seal even if it accurately reflected their history? Then why do you expect Indians to accept an image of an Indian in an inferior position? There's no logical consistency here--just "whites get to show themselves winning because of white privilege."

For more on government seals, see Comedians Mock Whitesboro Seal and Whitesboro Votes to Keep Seal.

Why are Oscars so white?

Some analyses of the #OscarsSoWhite phenomena:

The unbearable whiteness of Hollywood: The Academy should be ashamed—but the problem is bigger than the Oscars

For the second straight year, no performers of color have been nominated. Here's the real reason why

By Jack MirkinsonWhat’s behind all this? Let’s call it one part economics and two parts institutional bigotry.

First, the economics: It’s no accident that television’s explosion of diversity happened at the same time that the economics of the business have morphed so much that it’s hard to articulate what constitutes “television” anymore. The plunge in ratings, the rise of streaming and the insane proliferation of outlets spending money on original series mean that TV creators have the luxury of targeting smaller audiences than movies do, and of taking more risks. The prestige wing of the industry has also embraced the new platforms enthusiastically. Having a show on Netflix is now seen as equivalent to having one on HBO.

Movies aren’t there yet. 2015 was actually the biggest year in both global and domestic box office history. That money, though, was generated on the back of a small handful of films—mostly thundering 3-D blockbusters that were easily exportable to every country in the world. More and more, the movie industry won’t take a chance on anything but the seemingly surest bets, and until it sees a sufficient threat to its way of life, it won’t veer from this path. What’s more, the on-demand platforms that could potentially sustain smaller, more interesting films are still seen as second-class, meaning that they don’t have a chance to break through in the same way that similar TV ventures do.

Here’s where the bigotry part really starts to rear its ugly head. All too often, “risk-free” still means “white men.” There remains a stubborn belief that movies about women or people of color won’t “play” in the international markets that have become so important to sustaining the film industry. What’s so infuriating about this is that, over and over again, movies about people of color or women that do get released make piles of money for the studios. It’s institutional barriers, not box office clout, that are holding back more of these films.

Even when movies aren’t expected to make a ton of money, the same rules still apply. Take another look at the 2016 nominations, many of which were given to smaller films. It’s not like the chosen white actors were plucked out of diverse movies. With a couple of exceptions, all of the movies they starred in contain almost completely white casts from start to finish. (They’re overwhelmingly male-centered, too: the most prominent female character in “The Revenant,” which won the Best Picture award at the Golden Globes, is a bear.)Another Oscar Year, Another All-White Ballot

By Cara BuckleyFingers immediately pointed to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which gives out the Oscars and which, despite efforts to diversify its ranks in recent years, still skews older, male and white, according to a 2012 investigation by The Los Angeles Times. Academy members themselves were taken aback, saying in private conversations, “Don’t look at me,” but also, “This really doesn’t look good.”

But the truth probably springs from a murkier confluence of factors both sweeping and granular, from missteps and misjudgments in awards campaigns in support of individual movies to the systemic lack of diversity in Hollywood.

The studios behind two films that focus on black characters, “Creed” and “Straight Outta Compton,” seemed to come late to the realization that their productions were awards contenders or proved unable to win enough votes. The Academy’s preferential voting system also works against films and actors not selected as voters’ top picks. And, perhaps the biggest factor of all, the industry’s overall offerings: Many of the 305 films eligible for Oscars did not, demographically speaking, reflect the lives and complexions of movie audiences.

“Every time I say the same thing: Until we get a position of power, with a green-light vote, it’s not going to change,” Spike Lee said in an interview a few hours after the nominations came out. “We may win an Oscar now and then, but an Oscar is not going to fundamentally change how Hollywood does business. I’m not talking about Hollywood stars. I’m talking about executives. We’re not in the room.”The Oscars’ death spiral: The academy and Hollywood are locked in a crisis of their own making

Another super-white list of Oscar nominees, but the problem is less the academy than Hollywood's dominant ideology

By Andrew O'HehirFrom the point of view of the academy’s leadership, this pretty much presents an insoluble dilemma. Seriously, what are they supposed to do, beyond putting up with all the outraged blog posts and #OscarsSoWhite tweets and pushing onward for another year? Can they kick out all the stereotypical retired bit-part actors and movie executives in Beverly Hills, with their stereotypical sky-blue cardigans and white patent-leather shoes? Or send them all anthrax in the mail with their holiday-season screeners? They cannot. Can they rig the nomination process, or set up some informal quota system to ensure that at least one or two people of color show up in the acting and directing categories? Well, I suppose they could, and I wouldn’t be surprised if such things have been brainstormed in private. But consider all the ways that could go wrong—if Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh heard about it, for instance.

Barring such drastic measures, the academy is pretty much stuck with the membership it has, which is gradually growing younger and more diverse, but remains predominantly just the way you would think. Far more important, it’s also stuck with the production process of the Hollywood studios and “prestige” indie producers like Harvey Weinstein and Scott Rudin, which privileges certain kinds of movies, certain kinds of stories and certain kinds of characters over others. That’s where the heart of the problem lies, which is why I think it’s slightly misguided to point fingers and shriek at Mr. Sky-Blue Cardigan. Yes, to the extent Mr. SBC exists, he doesn’t get off the hook. (He didn’t nominate Ava DuVernay last year for “Selma,” the most Oscar-y movie imaginable.) But it should not come as an enormous surprise to learn that Oscar voters have safe and conservative tastes in many ways, or that they favor period pieces, inspirational fables and do-gooder tales, all wrapped in that indefinable quality best described as movie-ness.The Oscars Will Remain So White If These 5 Things Don't Change

The first step to fixing the problem is admitting that it exists.

By Carolina MorenoHollywood's Diversity Problem Starts at the Top

Major Talent Agencies Represent Few Actors of Color

Studios and Talent Agencies Won't Take Responsibility

Films Just Aren't Casting Actors of Color

Yes, Academy Voters Are Seriously Lacking DiversityComment:  For more on the subject, see Hollywood Still White in 2015 and Another White Year at Oscars.

Parents magazine shows "wild Indian"

Manning: When Media Promotes Offensive Indian Stereotypes

By Sarah Sunshine ManningThe cover of a popular magazine is catching the attention of Native American parents, writers, educators, and proponents of cultural awareness.

The January 2016 edition of Parents Magazine features a white mother, shaking her finger at a rambunctious child who jumps on furniture, wearing a faux Native American headdress and mouth open wide suggestive of a wild yell.

Native Americans quickly took to social media to call out the magazine for lack of cultural awareness, and for reinforcing harmful stereotypes. On Twitter, Native American educator, Dr. Debbie Reese (Nambe Pueblo), directed tweets at Parents Magazine, and also asked for support to share the message:Dear Editors at Parents Magazine,

Depicting a bored child, in a toy headdress, clearly screaming, suggests "wild Indian." You apparently do not realize that depiction is racist. I'm tweeting the cover on social media and tagging you (at your twitter ID: @parentsmagazine) and sharing this Facebook post widely. I'm encouraging others to do so, too.

Sincerely,

Dr. Debbie Reese
American Indians in Children's LiteratureThe magazine cover highlights the phenomena commonly known as “playing Indian,” which signifies a centuries-old American cultural practice of reducing minorities to demeaning and marginalizing, one-dimensional stereotypes. In this particular mockery, the child is seen portraying one of the most widely established stereotypes of Native Americans–the “wild savage,” or “wild Indian.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see IndianHeaddress.com and Los Angeles Magazine's "Going Native."

Bundy: Paiutes lost their claim

‘We Don’t Want Bloodshed’: Armed White Militants in Oregon v. Paiute Tribe

By Jacqueline KeelerThe tribe enjoys a strong working relationship with the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and participated extensively in creating a Comprehensive Conservation Plan in 2013.

“We utilize the refuge almost constantly,” Roderique explains, “We’ve had excursions where our elders sit down and practice traditional crafts and tell stories about how we once existed. There are petroglyphs down there—it’s a real valuable site for us. The youth program takes kids down and they make tule boats and swamp. Being Native people we think it is necessary to continue the practice of oral history. When you are down there these stories come naturally. When you take children out today and show them how we survived here so long it is an important tool to bringing the elders and the youth together so the youth are able to identify themselves as Paiute people.”

However, tribal council members expressed concerns about feeling unsafe with the arrival of more men with guns in their community. Tribal council secretary Wanda Johnson told ICTMN, “These people who have been intimidating our Indian men but they are unchallenged and they walk about town and our concern is if they could escalate things…we don’t want to see bloodshed or see anyone thrown in jail. We feel frustrated that these people can come and go in town and resupply. People are taking things out there and feeding them. Like they are out there in on an outing. It’s so frustrating.”

Some animosity towards Native people can be seen in the Harney County Committee of Safety, a local group Bundy started which refers to Natives as “savages" in their statement of purpose.Ryan Bundy: Native Americans have lost their claim to the Land.

By xxdr zombiexx This is the kicker though, buried all the way at the end of the piece.

"We also recognize that the Native Americans had the claim to the land, but they lost that claim," Bundy said. "There are things to learn from cultures of the past, but the current culture is the most important."

This is no different than the Taliban blowing up the Buddhas, or ISIS trying to find antiquities to destroy. No different whatsoever.

While these faux-militia assholes are technically entitled to their opinions, however fucking stupid those opinions are, they are using these “opinions” (delusions) to make real-world decisions that affect all sorts of people who have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to these public spaces. And they are set to damage irreplaceable artifacts because they are so delusional about their white supremacy.Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Paiutes Tell Bundys to Leave and Bundy Bunch vs. Dann Sisters.

#OscarsSoWhite 2016

Oscars 2016: Here's why the nominees are so white--again

By Rebecca Keegan and Steven ZeitchikIt's another embarrassing Hollywood sequel: For the second year in a row, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has nominated an all-white group of acting nominees.

This year's list of Oscar nominees passes over popular, well-reviewed performances in the movies “Creed” and “Straight Outta Compton” and excludes prominent actors of color in 2015 films including Idris Elba, Samuel L. Jackson and Will Smith.

The news again provoked an outcry and raised fresh questions over a familiar issue: whether an industry that prides itself on its progressiveness remains stubbornly stuck in the past.

“For the two black movies that made over $100 million at the box office, touched a nerve and are artistically fresh, only white people were nominated. How does that work?” asked producer and academy member Stephanie Allain, referring to “Creed” and “Compton.”Academy Nominates All White Actors for Second Year in Row

By Tim GraySome may conclude that the nominations reflect institutional bias against minorities and women within the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, but the problem is with Hollywood’s major studios and agencies. There were 305 films eligible this year. If hiring reflected the U.S. population, Oscar voters would have weighed 150-plus films directed by women, 45 directed by blacks, 50 by Hispanics, and dozens of movies by directors who are Asian-American, LGBT individuals, people with disabilities and members of other minorities. Of course, the actual tallies were a fraction of those numbers.

Surprising omissions from the actor race this year included Idris Elba for “Beasts of No Nation,” Will Smith for “Concussion,” Michael B. Jordan from “Creed” and the many young actors in “Compton.”

Last year, #OscarSoWhite lit up the Twitter-sphere, generally focused on the acting and directing categories, mostly due to omission of actor David Oyelowo and director Ava DuVernay from “Selma.” But in fact, the imbalance carries into the majority of categories due to lack of opportunity.

In the Jan. 14 announcement, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences listed 23 total producers for the eight movies picked in the best-pic race; seven were women. For the two screenplay races, 17 individuals are nominated, with four women and no racial minorities. The sole nom for “Straight Outta Compton” went to a self-described “white Jewish gay guy from Connecticut” and his white writing partners, Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff.)Oscars 2016: It’s a Nearly All-White Nominees’ List—Again

Comment:  For more on the subject, see Hollywood Still White in 2015 and Another White Year at Oscars.

Is The Revenant a game-changer?

The Revenant is a Game-Changer

By Leo KillsbackIn The Revenant we see sides to American culture and history that are typically romanticized—lawlessness and greed. History reveals that, in fact, the hordes of traders and trappers brought lawlessness to Indian country, which was not lawless and inhabited by sophisticated Native nations. The introduction of the alcohol, gun, and sex trades destabilized numerous Native nations. As presented in the movie, the Indians did not want much from the whites aside from muskets (which were inferior to the efficiency and accuracy of bow and arrows) and horses (which they could have acquired through trade with other Indians in the first place). The white traders however, wanted everything from the Indians—their land, animals, their women, and even their children.

The white men in The Revenant had one loyalty above all others, money. In the film most of the trappers were motivated by money, and they were reluctant to help one another without compensation. In fact, without the promise of pay the trappers had no other reason to be in the wilderness, and I believe this to be historically accurate. Whether deliberate or not, the writers revealed a fundamental difference between Indigenous and colonial cultures—one was motivated by greed, while the other by family ties and tribal loyalties.A press release written by me for Red Nation Films:

'The Revenant' showcases Native Americans in Hollywood“Leonardo DiCaprio is today’s Brando,” says actor/director Joanelle Romero, founder of Red Nations Films and its annual film festivals. “Not since Sacheen Littlefeather took the stage at the 1973 Oscars has anyone spoken this much truth to Hollywood. Like Marlon Brando and a few others, Leo gets it.”

The Revenant is further proof that indigenous-based movies can not only win awards, but succeed at the box office. In its opening weekend, it earned $39.8 million, narrowly losing to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. With the Oscar buzz it’s getting, it’s likely to join Avatar and the Twilight series in the pantheon of Native-themed hits.Comment:  For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see DiCaprio's Speech Isn't Enough and Mixed Reactions to DiCaprio's Speech.

Comedians mock Whitesboro seal

Stephen Colbert brutally mocks Whitesboro's 'racist' village seal (video)

By Geoff HerbertThe village of Whitesboro's controversial seal has drawn national attention -- and now jokes on late-night television.

"The Late Show" host Stephen Colbert brutally mocked the Upstate New York community on Wednesday night's show, calling its recent discussion on whether or not to keep the seal "the most important vote of 2016 in my opinion." He then showed viewers a partial picture of the seal, which some say depicts a white settler choking a Native American man.

"All right, let's not overreact. Maybe... it's not like he symbolically stands for all white guys. What's the name of the guy being depicted on the seal?" Colbert asks.

Then a screenshot from a syracuse.com article shows his name is Hugh White.

'The Daily Show' gave Whitesboro logos for village vote on 'racist' seal

By Elizabeth DoranComedy Central's "The Daily Show" provided serious and "mock" designs of possible village logos to Whitesboro for the village's poll on replacing its current seal that many have criticized as being "racist" and "offensive."

Both the serious and the comical logos were on display during Monday's night vote on whether to replace the controversial village seal, and people could vote for both. The mock designs were on filing cabinets separate from the main logo display to emphasize they weren't actually in the running, Whitesboro Mayor Patrick O'Connor said Wednesday.

The Daily Show had a film crew there capturing residents reactions to the seals on display. All the logos but one were provided by the show; one was done by a local artist.

One 'Daily Show' design shows former NHL goalie Robert Esche, who lives in the Whitesboro area. Others show a white man and a Native American dancing, a white settler and an Indian beating up a British soldier, ar closeup of two cartoon hands shaking, and a white settler dressed as a luchador wrestling with the Native American.Whitesboro mayor speaks out on why village used 'The Daily Show' logo designs

By Elizabeth DoranMayor Patrick O'Connor's statement

The village of Whitesboro seal has been called into question for decades, over the years, minor adjustments have been made, but the theme remains that of a "friendly wrestling match" between Whitesboro's Founder, Hugh White and a Native American.

This friendly wrestling match, which was a normal occurrence during that time period, is what helped foster good relations between the settlers and Native Americans. It is documented that the two shook hands after the wrestling match took place. While there were various depictions of the seal over the years, the original seal dates back to the late 1800s.And:We are in the process of forming a committee to look at options for modifying the current seal to create a more modern, professional, and culturally acceptable option that will reflect the historic relationship between our founder Hugh White and the Oneida American Indian he befriended. We expect this to be a lengthy process, but ultimately it may include an updated depiction of the friendly wrestling match, that appears less offensive, while still representing the original encounters of our settler with Native Americans.Rob's reply

If the handshake is documented, show the freakin' handshake rather than the "wrestling" takedown. Even on your own ludicrous terms, Mayor O'Connor, you're failing. You're not showing "good relations," you're showing the white dominance (in wrestling) that led to good relations. And your investment in this white dominance is precisely the problem.

Of course, there's no need to focus on the "good relations," which are now ancient history. If you insist on it, you could show a lone Indian giving a blessing. Or an Indian and a white man building something together. There's absolutely no need to regurgitate the Indian's loss in the alleged wrestling match.

For more on government seals, see Whitesboro Votes to Keep Seal and Massachusetts Sued Over State Seal.

DiCaprio's speech isn't enough

Leonardo DiCaprio Ended His Golden Globes Speech With a Cynical Remark About Indigenous Peoples

By Aisha HarrisWhat makes this moment so awkward and cynical is the fact that it’s so at odds with the movie DiCaprio and director Alejandro González Iñárritu produced. The Revenant is only the latest in a long history of major Hollywood studio films featuring indigenous characters that is told from the white male perspective. Their history is only “recognized” here in marginal juxtaposition to that of a white fur trader who is mauled by a bear, left to die, and then seeks revenge for the murder of his half-indigenous son (who barely says more than a few lines in the entire movie). The Pawnee tribesman (played by Arthur RedCloud) who later assists him in his journey home? He's much more a mysterious, kind person of color than any real, flesh-and-bone character. And while the film employed Native American performers from a dozen reserves in Alberta, those performers have, needless to say, not been the focus of the film's publicity or awards campaign, though DiCaprio has credited RedCloud with helping to psych him up to eat that bison liver.

Does DiCaprio believe in this cause? I'm sure he does. Does his movie have anything, truly, to do with this cause? Nope. But it's awards season, so sincerity doesn't matter. Cynically hitching your movie to a cause everyone can get behind—that matters.Indigenous People’s Stories Need More Than Just Leonardo DiCaprio’s Speech

By Ryan McMahonEvery representation matters in 2016 because we've never controlled what we, as Indigenous peoples, look/sound like to the mainstream. In 2016, it's time the world to step back from the historical "white gaze of Hollywood" and allow Indigenous peoples to tell them who they are. There are brilliant Indigenous writers and filmmakers chomping at the bit to work with budgets, studios and resources to tell the stories in our own words.

Leo, if you're serious about Indigenous representations and it being time to hear Indigenous stories, I can introduce you to some people.Leonardo Dicaprio Recognizes 1st Nations in Golden Globe Speech

By Chase Iron EyesThat is good but that is not our narrative. Those are not our awards. We are objects in that arena; the camera is directed at us not by us. We are consistently dressed out of time and out of place for their marketability, indeed our marketability as well. Our place in their media is as our ancestors pre-1900: feathers, leathers, plains-people the whole bit. That’s where we fit as Reel Injuns. We’ll keep taking those roles, that’s part of our survival and evolution. Much could be said about the portrayal of Natives in The Revenant or the very act of celebrating other people in idolatrous fashion when Natives show more allegiance to NFL teams than their own Tribal Nations but that’s none of my business.

We clamor to any recognition given where previously we have been ignored, or objectified. Look at all the Natives clawing at DiCaprio to leech of any social capital even mentioning his name will bring much less asking DiCaprio to recognize them. Reminds me of those hordes of Natives clamoring for a picture of President Obama because he hosted Tribal Nation conferences. These are huge steps no doubt but steps whose true character must be appreciated, must be kept in perspective when our great-grandfathers refused to even meet the President of the United States.Comment:  For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see Mixed Reactions to DiCaprio's Speech and DiCaprio's Golden Globes Speech.

The Revenant exemplifies white privilege

In response to this:

Leonardo DiCaprio Does Not Deserve An Oscar for The Revenant. Come On.

I wrote:

Someone could do a good analysis of how this Oscar talk exemplifies and perpetuates white privilege. DiCaprio used his clout to make a movie about him--I mean his character. He chose a historical period where white men were the predominant "heroes"--unless you try to do a risky slave or suffragette narrative. And he's "due" for an Oscar because of all his previous roles--Titanic, The Aviator, Wolf of Wall Street, etc.--featuring a white male protagonist.

The odds are stacked in his favor. Good luck, Will Smith and Denzel Washington, in finding, pitching, and making a similar movie featuring a nonwhite protagonist. As for you, Viola Davis and Taraji P. Henson, forget about it.

For more on Leonardo DiCaprio, see Mixed Reactions to DiCaprio's Speech and DiCaprio's Golden Globes Speech.

Paiutes tell Bundys to leave

Burns Paiute Tribe tells armed group to leave ancestral territoryLeaders of the Burns Paiute Tribe told an armed group to leave their ancestral territory as they educated the public about the true history of land ownership in Oregon.

The tribe was promised the land in and around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by treaty that was negotiated in 1868. But the Senate never ratified the agreement and the federal government ended up taking all 1.78 million acres.

"We as a tribe view that this is still our land no matter who's living on it," Chairwoman Charlotte Rodrique said at a press conference on Wednesday, The Oregonian reported.

Tribal leaders are worried that the armed group is damaging sacred, cultural and other sites at the refuge. About 20 people have been occupying the land since Saturday.Don’t Change the Status Quo—Unless It’s to Return Land to Tribal Control

By Charlotte RodriqueThere’s no real reason to change the status quo of land ownership out West. But if anyone should assume a greater caretaking role for the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which a group of armed protesters are occupying, it's not the state, or private owners, but the Burns Paiute Tribe.

We were forcefully removed from this land (and much more) over the course of numerous bloody disputes. Negotiated ownership terms that came later—first agreed upon, but not ratified, in a peace treaty with the government in 1868—were mostly ignored and unenforced, as ranchers and mining operators pushed further into Paiute territory over the following decades.

Our access to traditional lands has steadily eroded ever since, but the Malheur sanctuary, which is about 30 miles from our reservation, is of great cultural value to us still. Today, the Burns Paiute has a good relationship with the federal employees who work there: They have been a protector of our artifacts and history, which include petroglyphs and many natural resources that are culturally relevant to our needs. We can’t hunt on the parkland, of course, but tribal people still have a right to go in and gather certain plants, such as willow and tule.And:I am not sympathetic when I hear that a group of armed individuals want territory we have lived on for thousands of years to be “returned” to the “people of Oregon.” I’ve certainly had the urge to yell and demand for respect of our ancestral land, but these individuals certainly aren't speaking for us, let alone the ranchers, who have rejected their support.Paiute tribal chair: 'Don’t tell me any of these ranchers came across the Bering Strait'



Again, who owns the land?

Q&A: For Native Community, Irony and Shaky Claims in Oregon Standoff

By Anna ChalletWhat do you make of the Bundy militia’s demand that the federal government return the land to the people of Harney County?

It shows a lot of ignorance that most Americans have about the shaky nature, legally speaking, of the authority that the U.S. government has over the land it purports to own. It goes back to the Doctrine of Discovery, which was formulated by the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court … when a discovering Christian nation sets foot on land in the Americas, the title to that land immediately reverts to that discovering nation, and for the Native people, the indigenous people, their title disappears.

The indigenous people in the Americas are the only people in the world who do not possess fee simple title to their land. The Supreme Court has cited the Discovery doctrine as recently as 2005 as still being the law of the land, in a case between the city of Sherrill, New York and the Oneida Nation.Oregon's Land Dispute: Who Are the Original Owners?

By Jacqueline KeelerWhen Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who led an armed standoff against the US Bureau of Land Management in 2014, charged into the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, he said he was going to return the land from an overreaching federal government to its "original owners" he was not thinking of the Burns Paiute Tribe.

And he has since admitted he knows very little about them.

When he charged into town proclaiming he was "getting ranchers back to ranching, getting the loggers back to logging, getting the miners back to mining" the "original owners" he was thinking about? Without a doubt they were European Americans like himself.

But in fact, it is the Burns Paiute Tribe and other Northern Paiute tribes who are the "original owners" and possess the strongest legal claim to the land, particularly to the wildlife refuge which was once part of their former Malheur Indian Reservation. A 1.78 million acre reservation that was later opened to white settlement after the Paiute and another tribe, the Bannock, facing starvation rose up against settler depredations.Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Bundy Bunch vs. Dann Sisters and Bundy Bunch Occupies Paiute Land.

Whitesboro votes to keep seal

Whitesboro residents vote to keep controversial 'racist' village seal

By Elizabeth DoranWhitesboro residents voted Monday night to keep the village's controversial seal, rather than replace it with a new image.

Of 212 votes cast, 157 of them were in favor of retaining the current seal.

It was an informal vote, and village officials say they will discuss the results Tuesday night.

Whitesboro Mayor Patrick O'Connor said he wasn't entirely surprised by the vote results as numerous residents had been calling the village offices asking why the village was holding a vote in the first place.

The controversial village seal, which dates back to 1883, shows a white settler with his hands apparently choking a Native American man. Although village officials said the seal depicts a friendly wrestling match between Hugh White, the town's founder, and a member of the local Oneida tribe; it's caused controversy for years. Many called it racist and offensive.Why Natives object

Manning: Open Letter to the Village of Whitesboro, New York

By Sarah Sunshine ManningTo be clear, as an educator of the social sciences and history, I do acknowledge the possible validity of not only the historical accounts that this image does in fact highlight a friendly wrestling match that may have occurred, but also, I do acknowledge the cultural practice among the Oneida who did traditionally engage in friendly wrestling matches. I get it. There is a historical context. But that’s beside the point. There is also a history of slavery in America, but glorifying that on a town seal would never be deemed appropriate, no matter how historically accurate.

Yet all context aside, and without a thorough explanation, that seal, well, it looks racist. At first glance, this is what Whitesboro, New York, looks like: a white supremacist town. For one, your name is, Whitesboro, after all. And secondly, a white man is subduing an Indian, the original occupant of this land that was ultimately, near annihilated.

I know, I know. White is the last name of founder. But the combination of all of the different elements on the seal, together, evoke a soup of emotions among outsiders looking in, conjuring up discomfort, defensiveness, and even pain. Images matter, and your image is harmful.

Considering that Native Americans went from being 100-percent of the population pre-contact, to roughly 1-percent of the U.S. population today, your historical seal of a white man subduing an Indian highlights the reality of indigenous genocide, while twisting the knife of domination and colonization into the fresh wounds of the indigenous population still living today.Whitesboro Residents Vote to Keep Racist Seal: Here's What People Are Saying About the Decision

Comment:  For more on government seals, see Massachusetts Sued Over State Seal and "Ralph Cherokee" on Roanoke County Seal.

Mixed reactions to DiCaprio's speech

Reactions to Leonardo DiCaprio's Golden Globes speech poured in quickly. Some of them were off-the-charts ecstatic:

Leonardo DiCaprio's Golden Globes Acceptance Speech Is One of the Most Important He's Ever Made

Leonardo DiCaprio's Golden Globes Speech Made B.C. 'The Revenant' Actor All 'Choked up'

Others were more nuanced:

Leonardo DiCaprio's shout out to First Nations cause for introspection

Some quick to praise, but others skeptical of The Revenant star's Golden Globe speech

Native American Groups Officially Respond To Leonardo DiCaprio’s Call To Action

Representatives of the groups depicted in The Revenant spoke with BuzzFeed News about the actor’s Golden Globes speech calling on listeners to “protect … indigenous lands.”

By Ariane LangeThis week, Mark N. Fox, chair of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, wrote to BuzzFeed News: “Mr. DiCaprio’s words and support for our rights and the rights of all Indigenous nations are amazing and courageous. Like a man with true character, he is willing to challenge American Society where many others of influence fear to tread. His efforts both on and off the screen have brought honor to our Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan people. We look forward to allying with him in the struggle to promote truth and protect our rights as sovereign and Indigenous people!”But:Assiniboine activist Lauren Chief Elk-Young Bear tweeted Sunday night, “I think that shoutout was him making Native people his mascot,” noting that he did not thank any groups or individuals specifically and instead relied on vague language that rendered all Native peoples a monolith. In a separate series of tweets the next day, she criticized his wording as part and parcel of “white saviorism.”

“The reason the Leo shout out was so remarkable to folks is that Native peoples are invisible,” Keene tweeted. “It shouldn’t be revolutionary to call upon the peoples whose land you occupy, but it is.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Indians at Previous Oscar Ceremonies and All About Sacheen Littlefeather.

DiCaprio's Golden Globes speech

After the Golden Globes Sunday night, Leonardo DiCaprio's acceptance speech was the talk of Indian country:



Beginning at the 2:19 mark. PopSugar.com summarizes it:Leonardo DiCaprio was one of the honorees at the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday evening—he took home the trophy for best actor in a motion picture of his role in The Revenant. Not only did he look as handsome as ever, but he also a delivered an inspiring speech touching on the importance of raising awareness toward indigenous cultures and corporate greed, saying, "I want to share this award with all the first nation's people represented in this film and all the indigenous communities around the world. It is time that we recognize your history."Activist Dallas Goldtooth provides some context:Leonardo DiCaprio in his acceptance speech at the Golden Globe Awards tonight called out the need to support First Nations and Indigenous Peoples rights and our fights to protect Mother Earth.

I got to meet him last year when he marched with the Indigenous Bloc of the Peoples Climate March in NYC. Here is a photo I took of him standing with our folks in that march, holding a banner from IEN, Indigenous Environmental Network.

If you look closely former congressman Dennis Kucinich and Mark Ruffalo are in this photo as well--standing with many other frontline Indigenous leaders. ;-)

Much love to Leo. He walks his talk. And I hella respect that.

Comment:  For more on the subject, see Indians at Previous Oscar Ceremonies and All About Sacheen Littlefeather.

Of the North triggers protests

Of the North film screening goes ahead despite petition from Inuit against it

Documentary is made from clips from internet sites including YouTubeA group of Quebec Inuit are trying to stop a controversial documentary from screening at future film festivals after a showing in New York City on Sunday.

Of the North by Montreal filmmaker Dominic Gagnon has come under fire for its depiction of Inuit communities.

Made of video clips from various websites including YouTube, the film contains scenes of people appearing drunk and wrestling on the floor. To make the film, Gagnon says he drew from around 500 hours of footage of the circumpolar region and stitched it together at his computer in Montreal.

A petition to have the film's screening cancelled at the Museum of the Moving Image has garnered closed to 1,200 signatures.Comment:  For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

Is Ridiculous 6 a hit?

Adam Sandler’s ‘Ridiculous 6′ insulted some Native Americans. Now it’s Netflix’s ‘No. 1′ movie.

By Justin Wm. MoyerIts questionable politics and terrible reviews aside, “The Ridiculous 6″ is a certified Netflix hit. So said Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos on Wednesday during a keynote at the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

“It’s also enjoyed a spot at No. 1 in every territory we operate in, and in many of them it’s still No. 1,” Sarandos said, as Variety reported. The publication reported the movie had “been seen more times in 30 days than any other movie in Netflix history.” This wasn’t the same as saying “The Ridiculous 6″ was Netflix’s most watched movie ever, but many did think so—including the film’s co-star, Rob Schneider.Variety clarified the Netflix claim:Some outlets erroneously reported on Wednesday that “Ridiculous Six” was the most-watched Netflix title in history. A source later clarified: it’s the most streams ever in 30 days of release.Some Natives discussed this news on Facebook:I'm trying to figure out how this happened when it got horrible reviews and soon after disappeared altogether from the streaming for awhile. My first thought is morbid curiosity... people want to see how bad it is for themselves... I'm thinking not very many watched the entire movie. If it is as bad as the reviews claim the viewers switched to something else not far into it.

You're probably right, there. But how tin-eared can Netflix be trumpeting this? They are just encouraging other media companies to pursue race-baiting fare.

They are trying to beat back at bad press... salvage what they can for investors in future films... They have some other really good series. No idea why they would feel the need to lower themselves to crap like this.My thoughts

A lot of the "acclaim" is based on what they're really claiming. Namely,the most streams ever in 30 days of release.For starters, that excludes all theatrical and DVD releases. Which is like 99% of all movies. It's a "hit" compared to other movies where streaming was the second or third avenue of availability. Or original movies released only via streaming.

How long has Netflix touted its streaming service: two years? What major new movies has it released in that period? As I recall, the service was light on major releases. No Marvel movies, Hobbit movies, Pixar movies, Oscar-winning movies, etc. Not until months after they were available elsewhere, at least.

The claim also excludes any movie that started off "slowly" but continued to draw views after 30 days. Imagine a movie--say, Interstellar--that's gotten 9,999 views for every month of the two years it's been out. Now imagine Ridiculous 6 getting 10,000 views the first month, because of its notoriety, and zero views thereafter. Netflix could still make the claim it made.

All this assumes Netflix isn't fibbing about its stats. For instance, the company could be referring to movies only it released, not studio movies. It could be referring to customers who began streaming Ridiculous 6, not those who finished it.

In any case...against limited competition, Ridiculous 6 got enough (bad) publicity to do slightly better than the runner-up for a brief period. That's about all we can gauge from Netflix's claim.

For more on Adam Sandler, see Netflix Buries Ridiculous 6 and So-Called Humor in Ridiculous 6.

Bundy bunch vs. Dann sisters

Here’s What Happened When These Unarmed Native American Sisters Defended Their Land from the Feds

By Amanda GirardIn September of 2001, the government sent in the cavalry to show it was serious about its claim to the Shoshone tract:

The government considers it public land, and to drive the point home, 40 agents from the Bureau of Land Management descended on the Danns’ ranch in September, heavily armed and fortified with helicopters, and confiscated 232 cattle, which were later sold.

The sisters and their supporters argue that their tribe never legally ceded these range lands. Though the federal government controls 85 percent of Nevada, they contend that it has no legitimate title to the land—or the gold, water, oil and geothermal energy beneath it.

Because the Dann sisters refused to leave their land, the government once again began seizing large numbers of their livestock in 2003, claiming the horses and cattle were grazing at the public’s expense. BLM officials even deputized local cowboys to assist with the livestock seizure. At which point, the sisters were forced to remove over 400 remaining horses from the disputed range, many of them pregnant mares, but they lost track of many in the forced move.

And a comment to go with this photo:This is how the BLM and Dept of Interior handled elderly unarmed Shoshones refusing to cede their treaty rights to ancestral lands. The Dann sisters were attacked and detained numerous times over several decades sometimes with police and sometimes by mob and constantly monitored. Their horses and cattle were driven off to die of starvation. The Danns were not millionaires like the Bundys.No crackdown on whites

Other postings confirm that white conservatives like the Bundys get special treatment:

Yes, the armed Oregon occupiers would be raided if they weren’t white—same goes if they were leftists

The U.S. gov't is fundamentally right wing, and supports many of the things the Bundys & militants are calling for

By Ben NortonIn response, social media and Op-Ed pages of newspapers were inundated with condemnations of white privilege and arguments that the far-right militants would have been violently removed if they were people of color.

There is a crucial point missing from many of the liberal hot takes on the Oregon paramilitary occupation, however. In their hyper-emphasis on white privilege, many are depoliticizing the situation.

To be clear, these articles are absolutely correct. If the extremists occupying the federal building were not white, they would be attacked.

But if they were leftists, even if they were still white, countless historical examples show they would be attacked, too.Unarmed black protesters were ‘forcibly removed’ and jailed after they tried to occupy a wildlife refuge in 1979

By Travis GettysBut that’s not what happened nearly 37 years ago in Georgia.

Federal authorities secured a court order to remove the “squatters” one day after they set up camp at Harris Neck—but four of the unarmed protesters refused to leave.

They were “forcibly removed” May 2, 1979—just three days after they arrived on the land where their parents and grandparents had farmed, hunted and fished.

The four men were each sentenced to a month in jail for trespassing, and courts have ruled that the land belongs to the U.S. government—and not to the slaves’ descendants.

If you wondered if the Danns' treatment was based on racism, wonder no longer. Now we have evidence. White people get treated differently in similar circumstances. That's privilege and prejudice in action.

Final word

A couple of days later, another comment on the disparate treatment of whites and Natives:

With Militants Occupying Ancestral Land, Native Tribe Is 'Very Offended'Rodrique says she's frustrated that the federal government hasn't forced the occupiers out, and compares how law enforcement treats the anti-federalists with how the U.S. historically treated native tribes. She says the occupiers are allowed to go into town to buy groceries and gas, then return to their armed occupation.

"They did disconnect their utilities and things like that, but it's not really forcing them out," Rodrique says. "You know, in our history, that was how the military got us. They basically starved us into submission. And you could do the same thing with these occupiers."

Rodrique would like the FBI to remove the armed men, and she thinks the FBI's inaction is a double standard.

"If I, as a native person, a person of color, were to go down there and do the same thing, they would have hit me on the forehead with a baton" and dragged her out, she says. But "because they're white people, I feel that they're being treated differently."For more on Cliven Bundy, see Bundy Bunch Occupies Paiute Land and Gun Nuts' Hypocrisy on Government Power.

Bundy bunch occupies Paiute land

The Bundy bunch--the offspring of Cliven Bundy and their followers--are back with another protest based on racist conservative beliefs. They think the government owes them a handout--free grazing on public land--because they're white.

At first their protest was notable because of how the government was treating them with kid gloves. Unlike, say, every protest by people of color. But then the Native connection came to the fore.

Oregon “Militia” Says Feds Stole Their Land–Turns Out It Was Stolen from Paiute Tribe

By John Paul BrammerAccording to Steve Russell at Indian Country Today Media Network, President Grant established the Malheur Indian Reservation in 1872, and it wasn’t until the Bannock War of 1878 that the Bannocks and the Paiute were removed from the reservation. Since then, the wildlife refuge has existed as an alternative use of federal land.

In other words, the only reason the militiamen feel they have a leg to stand on when it comes sovereignty over this land is because of the federal government they are attacking.

When you consider the plight of the Paiute, it makes Ammon Bundy’s Facebook post on December 30th—in which he complained about the federal government stealing land—look deeply ironic:

“Simply put, the federal government has adversely stolen the lands and resources from the people, destroyed thousands of jobs, and the economy of an entire county. Now anyone who has enough guts to stand against them, they annihilate through their own court systems…”These Aren't the First Armed Whites to Take Over That Oregon Land: Just Ask the Native Paiute PeopleJACQUELINE KEELER: Yes. Well, I’d like to start off saying that today, in January, this is the 137th anniversary of when 500 Paiutes were loaded onto wagons and walked, under heavy armed guard, from their—from the lands where the Bundys are right now holding it and to the Yakama Reservation in Washington state, some 300 miles, knee-deep in snow. And they were forced to march, shackled two by two. And so, that’s some of the background there.

AMY GOODMAN: And then, continue. Take us through to today. What happened to this land? How did it change hands?

JACQUELINE KEELER: Well, the area called the—now called the Malheur, it was called the Malheur Reservation, and it actually constituted nearly 1.7 million acres of land. But with incursions from white settlers, they basically pressured the federal government to open it up to settlement. And so, in 1876, President Grant did that. And then, after there was an uprising with the Bannock Indian War in 1878, due to issues of starvation and deprivation in the middle of winter again, the Bannock and the Paiute rose up, and then that’s when they were force-marched out of the area and lost most of the land.Bundy Militia Claims Indigenous Paiute Land as Oregon Land



Whose land is it?

Oregon native tribe bewildered by gun-toting ‘glory hounds’: That land belongs to the Paiute

By ReutersThe reservation is not far from the wildlife reserve and the tribe has been living off the arid western Oregon mountains since long before Europeans arrived in North America.

“There was never an agreement that we were giving up this land. We were dragged out of here,” Rodrique said.

The tribe’s approach has typically been less provocative than the protesters who picked up guns to further their anti-government cause.

“I’m, like, hold on a minute, if you want to get technical about it … the land belongs to the Paiute here,” said Selena Sam, a member of the tribe’s council who waitresses at a local diner.Native American Tribe Has Witty Quip for Oregon Protesters

Educating the Oregon Militia on The Northern Paiute’s ‘Trail of Tears’

By Jacqueline KeelerBurns Tribal chairperson Charlotte Roderique at a press conference yesterday, had a stern rebuke of Bundy’s occupation of her homeland, “Yesterday, the Burns Paiute Tribe joined other community leaders calling for an end to armed protestors at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Armed protestors do not belong to here. They are endangering our sacred sites and our children. Malheur Wildlife Refuge was a wintering gathering ground before the settlers come here.”

And tribal councilman Jarvis Kennedy had even stronger words, “What would happen to Indians who did this? We, as Harney County residents don’t need some clown to stand up for us, we are hard-working people…we survived without them. We need them to get the hell out of here. They are jeopardizing and scaring our people.”

Despite this, Bundy’s actions have brought national media coverage of the January of 1879 forced march of 500 Paiutes from the Malheur Indian Reservation some 350 miles in knee-deep snow, many shackled two by two, to the Yakama Indian Reservation in Washington State—the Northern Paiutes’ “Trail of Tears.” One group that was force-marched by the U.S. army simply disappeared. No one knows what happened to them. Still more died and when a few Paiute returned to Burns, Oregon, they were considered outlaws, many were landless as their reservation had been opened completely to settlers and large California ranching corporations.

“The one thing I’m really proud of is the tenacity of our people.” Roderique noted, “420 people are descendants of people who were able to get back here from Yakama. I wouldn’t drop my children off from Yakama and tell my children to walk back. They wouldn’t know what to eat, what river to follow.”Comment:  For more on Cliven Bundy, see Gun Nuts' Hypocrisy on Government Power and ATV Rally Threatens Native Sites.

Slants vs. Redskins

A court recently ruled that the government couldn't deny a trademark to The Slants, an Asian band. As many have noted, this ruling has obvious consequences for the Washington Redskins' trademark appeal.

The Slants’ Simon Tam: ‘Courts Hijacked My Case’

By Jacqueline Keeler“Major labels will not work with an artist if you can’t protect your creative works and licensing,” said the self-described “racial and social justice” advocate. “We got a rejection letter from USPTO because our name was disparaging to people of Asian descent.”And:Tam and his attorney addressed the USPTO’s logic based on the argument that the band’s use of the term “slants” amounted to re-appropriation of an offensive term by the Asian American community. However, despite this the USPTO rejected it again.And:However, when they took the case to the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, Tam said, “The judge [Kimberly Moore] said we don’t want to talk about those arguments but about free speech.” ... “And so, at that point our case got hijacked to become this case about free speech,” Tam claimed.Finally:This time The Slants won. “It's no secret,” Tam noted, “that the lead judge in these hearings both in the panel hearing which restricted our arguments as well as the one who wrote the opinions, Judge Kimberly Moore, is a huge Redskins fan.Comment:  Tam's "reappropriation" argument is a little disingenuous. He could've guessed that others would use a variation of his argument. For instance, Dan Snyder could say, "Even if it's a slur, we've made it into something honorable."

Expecting the courts to say only an ethnic group can "reappropriate" a word is naive. It would be flat-out racist to rule that a Native team could trademark "Redskins" but the Washington team can't. Under the law, it has to be both or neither.

Fighting for "Slants" is basically fighting for all slurs to be trademarked and used without restrictions. Even banning all slurs is questionable, as the recent court ruling shows. The courts certainly will not pick and choose between "good" and bad slurs.

And the case "hijacking" aspect, while not necessarily predictable, does happen sometimes. Again, fighting for "Slants" opened the courts to rule however they wanted. They could easily ignore the "minority can reappropriate its own slur" argument and declare it a free-speech issue. I.e., the government can't restrict slurs, period.

Not over yet

With the Slants decision, it's beginning to look as if the Redskins will win their trademark appeal. Most commentators seem to think so, anyway. But the following analysis says the battle isn't over yet.

Washington Redskins Haven’t Won Yet: Why Constitutionality of Section 2(a) is Not Yet Final

By Susan Neuberger Weller and Serge SubachWhat do Washington D.C.’s NFL team, the Redskins, and Mr. Tam’s rock band, The Slants, have in common? Both have enjoyed unexpected victories recently and both have been called “disparaging” by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). However, while the Washington Redskins have been winning on the football field, many legal and business news websites have also been counting Mr. Tam’s recent success at the Federal Circuit as a major win for the football team. In reality, that issue is far from settled.For more on the Washington Redskins, see "Tolteca Aztec Indian" Supports Redskins and More Boycotts of the Washington Redskins.

Hopis protest Koshare Dancers

Hopis say Boy Scout performances make mockery of tradition, religion

By Anne ConstableFor decades, Boy Scouts from Southern Colorado have been performing Indian dances during the holiday season at the Koshare Indian Museum in La Junta, Colo.

The Koshare Dancers, named for a Pueblo Indian clown society representing ancestral spirits, have visited 47 states and three different countries, attended Pueblo powwows and feast days, and even traveled to the White House and Madison Square Garden in New York. According to their website, they have been “recognized and accepted by the Native American community—the highest honor bestowed on a non-Indian group.”

But when Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, the director of the Hopi Office of Cultural Preservation in Kykotsmovi, Ariz., learned recently about the program and saw video online of some of the performances, he was disturbed. The performers, he said, were “mimicking our dances, but they were insensitive, as far as I’m concerned.”

Many other members of the tribe agreed with him, some of them posting their views on Facebook. “They’re making a mockery of our native religion,” one person said on the group’s Facebook page, while another wrote, “I can’t believe this Boy Scout troop thinks this is ok.”

Kuwanwisiwma wrote to the board of the museum asking for the dances to cease, and he followed up with phone calls. He called the Boy Scout performances “commercial exploitation” and said they were “mimicking the Hopi butterfly, buffalo and Tewa ceremonial clowns.”

Kuwanwisiwma said he got no response. But when he went to the Koshare Indian Museum’s website, he saw an announcement that the 2015 Winter Night Dances, scheduled to begin Dec. 19, had been canceled “for this year out of respect for our Native American friends and until there has been an opportunity to discuss the Hopi’s concerns in a timely manner.”Comment:  Just looking at the photos, you can see several problems. The white boys are wearing powwow-style regalia associated with Plains tribes, not pueblos. A drum circle is also associated with Plains tribes. As is the boy dressed as a chief. One of the dancers has faux war paint, which I don't think is part of the powwow dance regalia.

All this is happening under the Koshare name. The koshares belong to a Pueblo clown society whose members don't dress up in regalia to dance. It's like a group of "Greek" dancers doing a Scottish number in kilts--inappropriate and inauthentic. I.e., stereotypical.

There's no word on exactly who in the "Native American community" approved the dances, if anyone. There are hundreds of Native communities, of course--not just one. But only some of them are relevant. Unless the dancers got wide-ranging approval from the two dozen Pueblo communities in Arizona and New Mexico, I wouldn't brag about it.

In these cases, "approval" often came decades ago from someone who didn't know any better. That's not close to being good enough. If present-day Pueblo leaders have approved these dances, please...let us know who they are.

For more on the subject, see Boy Scout "Indian Dance Teams."

Demon spirits in Totem Topple

A description of the new Totem Topple game for Nintendo:Build your totem pole up into the sky and stars beyond in Totem Topple, a fresh twist on the tower defence genre!

Wolves, bears, deer and more--stack different totem heads on your tower, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Add protective wings and arrow-firing bird beaks to fend off the demon spirits trying to knock your totem pole down!And a review:

Totem Topple Review

By Alex SeedhouseThe publisher over promises in saying that Totem Topple presents “a fresh twist on the tower defence genre,” falling way short of achieving such admirable ambition. Players are tasked with defending a totem pole from demon spirits hell bent on knocking it down, which is certainly a concept that most won’t have come across before. But the underlying game mechanics lack refinement, resulting in an experience that overwhelms in the challenge hidden by its otherwise simplistic facade.

The structure is easy enough to understand, with players left to steadily construct their totem pole by selecting from beak, wing and head components. These fire arrows, grant protection and increase your totem’s height respectively, and managing your resources to create them becomes a focal challenge. Supplies are earned through defeating demon spirits, and the cycle completes in which you either strengthen your defences or rapidly move to replace anything that has been destroyed.

Comment:  The reviewer doesn't mention any problems with basing a game on a totem pole, but I will.

1) The game treats the totem pole as a decorative object, an accessory, not as important part of Native culture and religion. I don't know if Natives would consider poles sacred or not, but they may be akin to Christian icons or paintings. You generally wouldn't turn those into angry games.

2) The nasty faces, sharp beaks, and black color of the totem pole suggest that Native culture is dark and violent. Actually, the totems on a pole represent clan stories and origins. They aren't meant to scare people.

3) I guess the "demon spirits" are the little round objects with eight spikes. Those actually look like sun symbols. In any case, they reinforce the idea that Native religion is demonic and evil, with deadly forces lurking in every shadow. Actually, Native religions are no worse than Christianity, with Satan influencing every decision. They're probably a lot better, on average.

For more on totem poles, see Miss Canada in a Totem-Pole Loincloth and Cultural Appropriation of Totem Poles.

Below:  I'm not sure what this human pterodactyl has to do with Totem Topple. Is it supposed to be a thunderbird? Whatever it is, it's scary!

Appaloosa Horse Club in Rose Parade

Another Rose Parade, another stereotypical display of "Indians."



Apparently the Calizona Appaloosa Horse Club dressed as (their idea of) Nez Perce Indians to honor the Nez Perce history with Appaloosas. A Facebook video shows a 15-second snippet of their ride. Here are some photos taken from the video.
And an album of photos from an Old Spanish Days ride on August 7 of last year. Which may have been a precursor to the Rose Parade ride.

According to those who contacted the club, none of the riders were Native. Most dressed as stereotypical chiefs and maidens in "leathers and feathers," although a few women wore Nez Perce-style hats.



A behind-the-scenes photo makes it clearer that these people are dressing in wigs and makeup--i.e., redface. As someone wrote to the Tournament of Roses:We HATED the disgusting display of the fake Indian "performers" put on by the Calizona Appaloosa Horse Club during the Rose Parade yesterday. In 2016 you would think that educated people would know better than to make a mockery of a sacred culture by donning ridiculous wigs, face paint and fake sacred regalia. This was such an ugly insult to Native Americans. It's most disturbing and disappointing that an organization such as the Rose Parade would actually INVITE these buffoons to prance around in their caricature costumes and expect Native American people to feel "honored" by that. Please issue an apology and omit this ignorant group of people from the 2017 Rose Parade roster. Otherwise, it will be evident that the Tournament of Roses is run by supporters of racism and ignorance. Thank you.

Finally, the Nez Perce denied they gave the horse club any sort of permission or approval:

Nez Perce Did Not Give Horse Club Blessing to Play Indian at Rose Parade, Tribe Says

Oops. For more on stereotypical parades, see Debating an "Arab" Parade Float and Columnist Defends Mummers Parade.