February 14, 2014

Native women honored on Valentine's Day

What's the flip side of marginalizing and trivializing Natives and women, as so much of our culture does? This:

Missing, murdered aboriginal women honoured in marches

Gladys Radek of Orillia among loved ones marking Valentine's with calls for justice for aboriginal women

By Angela Sterrit
The shock of losing her niece jolted Gladys Radek into action. She had been attending annual memorial marches for murdered and missing aboriginal women since 1994, to support friends and relatives who have lost loved ones. But in 2005, the fight for justice became personal.

"Here I am eight years later and there is still no sign of Tamara and there is still no sign of a lot of the other girls ... some have gone missing for decades. They are treated as they are disposable."

On Friday, Radek, of the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en First Nations, is hosting the first annual Memorial March for Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women in Orillia, one of 20 confirmed cities participating in this year's event.

The now national march started in 1991, after a woman was murdered on Powell Street, in Vancouver. Her name is not spoken today, to honour the wishes of her family.

The Women’s Memorial website says, “This woman’s murder in particular was the catalyst that moved women into action. Out of this sense of hopelessness and anger came an annual march on Valentine’s Day to express compassion, community, and caring for all women in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, Coast Salish Territories.”
Celebrate Valentine's Day: Stop Violence Against Indigenous Women

By Taté WalkerFor too many Indigenous women, love comes at a horrific price.

Bruises. Broken body parts. Broken souls. Rape. Fear. Missing. Murdered. All these words and more describe the violence many Native American and First Nations women experience every day, usually at the hands of someone they know. Nearly 40 percent are intimate partners, many of whom are non-Natives.

Happy Valentine’s Day.

Highly touted (and debated) laws and policies, such as the Violence Against Women Act, currently do little to combat the staggering rates of violence against Indigenous women, although many promise change is coming.

U.S. statistics show Native Americans experience violent crimes–including stalking, rape, and sexual assault–at rates more than double those of women of other races. One in three Native women report having been raped during her lifetime. The murder rate for Native women is 10 times the national average. Many experts agree these numbers are woefully underreported for several reasons, including distrust of a justice system that so often fails Native American people.

The situation isn’t any better for Canada’s Aboriginal women, who are three-to-five times more likely to experience violence than non-Aboriginal women ages 15 or older. According to Statistics Canada, in about half of all homicides the Aboriginal identity of the victim is reported by police as unknown. For instance, between 2005 and 2009, police reported 726 homicides where the victim was a woman aged 15 or older. Of these, the victim was identified as Aboriginal in 54 homicides, as non-Aboriginal in 292 homicides, and as Aboriginal identity unknown in 380 homicides.
The missing women you don’t hear about: How the media fails Indigenous communities

When indigenous women disappear, their cases often get little coverage—and their identities can be erased

By Lauren Chief Elk
The media routinely fail to inform the public accurately about the cases of missing indigenous women. As my partner Laura M. Madison states, “Indigenous women go missing twice: Once in real life and a second time in the news.” Missing white women, she explains, are humanized with extensive articles, photos and interviews with grieving families. If missing indigenous women get media coverage at all, they are usually presented as runaways, drug addicts or sex workers, or portrayed in other ways society sees as negative. As with Hanna Harris, many indigenous women are treated by law enforcement and media as undeserving of attention or care because they’re supposedly “party girls,” whether they were actually engaged in drinking and drugs or not.

And as we work on our data collecting and reading reports, we have noticed that some indigenous women are even going missing a third time—when their racial or tribal identities are ignored or misrepresented. Many news articles and missing people’s organization cite indigenous women as white or Latino. Even in death indigenous women are being erased.

We know from existing as indigenous people and doing this work that this triple disappearance is everywhere across this continent. As Andrea Smith has detailed, “violence against Indigenous women in a symptom of colonization.” The rate of violence, the lack of response, the structure that helps it continue: This is settler colonialism, the occupation of the land by imperial powers and people that stand on top of indigenous nations. Both Canada and the United States are settler states.

There’s a myth that we’re now just a multicultural society and that the structures of slavery and genocide no longer affect us—that indigenous people either died off completely or disappeared into whiteness. But we survived. We are still here. We are still speaking our languages, we are still practicing our traditional ways, and we are still dancing in powwow circles. And the structure of the United States as a settler state is still trying to get rid of the “Indian problem.” A friend once told me, “If we were killed off or killed each other off, that would make the government very happy. That would be doing them a big favor.” And actions of the state make this plain. We see it in their disregard of indigenous life, evidenced by the federal authorities’ refusal to take seriously the disappearance and murder of Hanna Harris and so many others.

All over the continent, indigenous women are resisting. Today is the day of the annual 23rd annual women’s memorial marches that started in the Downtown East Side of Vancouver, British Columbia. The marches began as grass-roots initiatives to search and demand justice for those who were missing and murdered. They now happen in at least nine major cities across Canada. As the mission statement on the women’s memorial march page states, “This event is organized and led by women in the DTES because women, especially Indigenous women, face physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual violence on a daily basis … We gather each year to mourn and remember our sisters by listening to their family members by taking over the streets, and through spiritual ceremonies.”
Comment:  For more on violence against women, see Christie's Bullying Shows American Mindset and V-Day Conflicts with Indigenous Women's March.

Below:  "Gladys Radek holds a photo of her niece, Tamara Chipman, who disappeared in 2005 along Highway 16, the so-called Highway of Tears, east of Prince Rupert in northern B.C." (Gladys Radek)

Developer: Tequesta site is "hokum"

Development vs. preservation is a decades-old issue, but here's an interesting case:

As Native American sites are unearthed, questions about preservation versus revitalization

By Christine ArmarioIn a vacant lot between gleaming hotels in downtown Miami, are a series of holes carved into the bedrock that form eight circles.

At first glance, the site seems like an eyesore, but it's here where archaeologists say they have uncovered a major prehistoric Native American village, one of the largest and earliest examples of urban planning ever uncovered in North America.

It's also where a movie theater, condos and 34-story hotel are expected to be built.

The discovery has pitted developers against archaeologists and historic preservationists. The dispute comes as an increasing number of Native American sites are being uncovered around the country with advances in technology and a greater understanding of the subtle markers left behind to look for. The discoveries pose difficult questions for cities such as Miami that must decide whether it is best to preserve the remains of an ancient society or, often times, destroy it in hopes of revitalizing a new one.

"Let's be honest with each other," said Eugene Stearns, the attorney representing MDM Development Group, which owns the property and is eager to move forward with construction. "Every great city is built on the shards of a former great city."

At its height, archaeologist Bob Carr estimated as many as 2,000 people lived in the Tequesta village, starting around 500 B.C. It likely extended a quarter mile along the Miami River and then wrapped around Biscayne Bay.

Much of the village consisted of thatched, hut-like buildings the Tequestas, one of South Florida's earliest tribes, built by digging holes with clam shells into the soft limestone, and then inserting pine logs to hold floors, walls and roofs.

Because of the materials used—straw, wood—the only remnants of the buildings are the postholes, today still forming 18 to 40-foot circles in the blackened bedrock.

MDM has proposed carving out a section of the limestone containing the circle formations and placing it on display in a public plaza.

Preservations, however, say removing a piece of architecture isn't like moving a painting from one museum to another.

"The idea that you would carve out a chunk and move it to some other place and put it into exhibition sounds strange to me and sad," said Mark Jarzombek, associate dean of the Massachusetts Institute for Technology's School of Architecture and Planning. "These places are very site specific. There's a reason why they made this village or town there which has to do with orientation, landscape, access to rivers."

MDM has spent $3 million conducting an archaeological review and is now anxious to continue construction. Stearn said all of the planned commercial space has been leased and half of the residential units have been sold.

"There are enormous financial obligations and commitments that have to be met," he said. "And they need to go forward."
The pressure to make a buck on the back of Indians explains Stearn's position:

Developer: Tequesta site in downtown Miami is “hokum”

By Andres ViglucciSharply changing tack, the owners of a downtown Miami lot where the remnants of a prehistoric Tequesta Indian village have been unearthed launched an attack Thursday on the archaeologists responsible, calling their conclusions about the site “hokum” and “a joke.”

In an interview Thursday, an attorney for MDM Development Group, which plans to build a hotel and commercial project on the site, dismissed archeologists’ conclusions that hundreds of postholes carved into the bedrock at the site mark the foundations of circular dwellings and other structures that once made up a portion of a 2,000-year-old settlement at the mouth of the Miami River.

“It’s just garbage,” said Eugene Stearns, a top Miami civil lawyer. “Hokum. Made up out of whole cloth.”

Stearns’ comments, which startled preservationists and archaeologists who have studied the site, came on the eve of a Friday meeting of the city’s historic preservation board that could help decide its fate.

The lead consulting archaeologist on the site, Bob Carr, who is being paid by MDM, said Thursday he stood by his conclusions that the site is historically significant and worth preserving.

“It’s hard to respond to something so ridiculous,” Carr said, referring to Stearns’ comments.
Comment:  Stearn denies the conclusions of the archaeologist he's paying for. Greed doesn't get much more blatant than that. "Your history is standing in the way of our profit, so move!"

He might as well say all Native history and culture is "hokum." That's what many Americans think and say. "Before we came, the savages were merely occupying America like animals. We took the wilderness and made it into something useful."

That Euro-Christian idea of supremacy is behind most of American history. Our country was built on the racist notion that white Western civilization knows best.

Zazzle removes offensive valentines

Zazzle Removes Offensive Valentine’s Day Products

By Vincent SchillingShortly after posting a list of Native-themed Valentine’s Day gifts, the artistic product website Zazzle has removed two of the products listed in the article and issued a response on Twitter.

When asked what people thought of the product, responses on Twitter and Facebook ranged from “racist” to “shameful,” among others.


10 Native-Themed Valentine’s Day Gifts to Avoid

By Vincent SchillingNothing says Valentine’s Day more than a naked baby shooting arrows into your heart. But what if the baby was Native? Now that would be an appropriate Native-themed Valentine’s Day! Before you romantics run out to grab chocolates, flowers and maybe a teddy bear—we thought you might like to reflect on some other possibilities… to avoid.

If your loved one happens to be Native American and you are considering any of these gifts, you should think about sticking to the chocolate and flowers. Otherwise cupid won’t be the only one shooting an arrow at you.
Comment:  Zazzle has been in the racist spotlight before. For more on the subject, see Zazzle's "Go Native Americans!" Mousepad and Zazzle Removes Offensive T-Shirts.

February 13, 2014

Fire Water sung on American Idol

Actor/activist Sonny Skyhawk brought this news to my attention:

Harry Connick Jr. takes The Wild Magnolias to 'American Idol' viewers

By Dave Walker“American Idol” averaged 11 million viewers nationally during its first hour Wednesday (Feb. 12), so Harry Connick Jr. likely delivered The Wild Magnolias their biggest one-time TV audience ever. It came when former judge Randy Jackson joined the episode via “spontaneous” walk-on a la Bob Hope on Johnny Carson’s “Tonight Show.” Connick and Keith Urban then “auditioned” for Jackson, for the purpose of being judged by the top dawg himself.

The song Connick picked: “(Big Chief Like Plenty of) Fire Water,” a 1975 recording by Bo Dollis’ The Wild Magnolias of a Mardi Gras Indians chant. The song is credited on the record, see photo, to The Wild Magnolias and Wilson “Willie Tee” Turbinton. According to Dan Phillips’ blog Home of the Groove, the song first appeared on the album “They Call Us Wild,” released only in Europe.
As Skyhawk put it on Facebook:Last night on "AMERICAN IDOL,"Harry Connick Jr. sang a song entitled "BIG CHIEF, PLENTY FIRE WATER." What is unfortunate, is that the song feeds into the stereotype of the American Indian people, it degrades and implies that it is ok to demean or make fun of our Native people. Being a resident of New Orleans and, experiencing Mardi Gras, I assume he thought nothing of the lyrics, because after all people do it during Mardi Gras, dress up as Natives, colored feathers and the lot. For the American Indian people of this land now called America, it is not ok or funny. Jennifer Lopez recognized the degradation and stated her disapproval, on stage. I would welcome an apology from Harry, but then that would be an assumption that he saw anything wrong with what the lyrics were about. Our people, our children, and others see and hear these things and assume it is ok, because after all, Harry Connick Jr. said it on television. Rest assured that the FOX NETWORK will hear from our organization.Comment:  For more on American Idol, see Pomo Singer on American Idol.

Shirley Temple supported Lummi rights

Lummi Elder Remembers Shirley Temple Black

By Tanya LeeWe were trying to create some economic development in the Lummi Tribe. We had nothing here. So we decided to exploit the tideland, which was just sitting there. All we had to do was create a pond. We were going for a 7-acre pond in the tidelands and raising clams and oysters and whatever else we could raise.

People opposed it. I think they would have opposed anything that Native Americans were doing here in the community.

Miss Black, Shirley Temple Black, heard about our plight, so she and Marlon Brando got here and voiced their opinions to the public that they supported us. She let people know she was supporting the Lummi tribe and the efforts they were taking to raise shellfish. And we built a farm, a hatchery, clam hatchery and oyster hatchery; the thing's still surviving.
Comment:  For more on Shirley Temple and Indians, see Susannah of the Mounties.

Below:  "Shirey Temple visits Lummi aquaculture in early 1970s."

Pomo singer on American Idol

Indian Country Today chronicled the adventures of Aranesa Turner, Pomo, as she contended for the American Idol crown:

A Native 'American Idol' Winner? Aranesa Turner Has a Shot

TONIGHT! Aranesa Turner, Pomo, Sings on 'American Idol'

Unseen, but Still in the Mix: Aranesa Survives on 'American Idol'

Native 'American Idol' Singer Aranesa Turner: 'Greatness Is in You'

Eliminated from 'American Idol', Aranesa Turner Keeps on Singing

For more on American Idol, see American Idol Funds Ho-Chunk Mobile Clinic.

February 12, 2014

Hollywood trails US demographics

Hollywood failing to keep up with rapidly increasing diversity, UCLA study warns

By UCLA NewsroomWhen it comes to influential positions in the entertainment industry, minorities and women are represented at rates far below what would be expected given their percentage of the general population, according to a new study done at UCLA's Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies.

In fact, the report shows, the proportion of female and minority actors, writers, directors and producers in films and TV ranges from just one-twelfth to one-half of their actual population percentage.

"The report paints a picture of an industry that is woefully out of touch with an emerging America, an America that's becoming more diverse by the day," said lead author Darnell Hunt, the center's director.

The underrepresentation is especially noteworthy because the study found that greater diversity in TV and film productions actually increases viewers, resulting in higher profits for studios and networks.

"Hollywood does pretty well financially right now, but it could do a lot better if it were better reflecting the diversity of America," said Hunt, who is also a professor of sociology in UCLA's College of Letters and Science.
Show Business Diversity Trailing U.S. Demographics, UCLA Report Shows

By Dave McNaryAmong the findings:

– Minority lead actors in film and TV were underrepresented by a factor of more than three-to-one—less than one-third the rate that would be expected based on their proportion of the population. In broadcast TV comedies and dramas, they were underrepresented by a factor of seven-to-one.

– Minority film directors were underrepresented by a factor of three-to-one; film writers and creators of comedies and dramas on cable TV, were underrepresented by a factor of five-to-one; in broadcast TV, minority creators of comedies and dramas were underrepresented by a factor of nine-to-one.

– Women achieved proportionate representation in broadcast TV, where they appeared as leading actors in 52% of comedies and dramas in 2011–12. But they were underrepresented by a factor of 12-to-one as film directors and by a factor of three-to-one in film writing.

The study also blasted the three top talent agencies—CAA, WME and UTA—as contributing little to promoting diversity as they represented more than two-thirds of the writers, directors and lead actors in the 172 leading films in 2011, with less than 10% of that talent being minority.
Comment:  For more on the subject, see Late-Night Hosts = White Men, Native Diversity 2010 Video, and Quotas Needed for TV Jobs?

Below:  Ana-Christina Ramon and Darnell Hunt.

"Native" Redskins supporters = wannabes?

As noted in Lawmakers Threaten NFL's Tax Exemption, the Washington team is fighting back with letters 200 "self-identified Native Americans." The posting below gives us three of them. I'd guess they're among the best ones and not just ones chosen at random.

Redskins received 7,000 letters in support of the name, 200 from Native Americans

This led to a brief discussion on Facebook:As you would expect, the team is very confused about who is Native. Of the hundreds of "Indians" who have written in to support the name, I suspect only about ten percent are tribal citizens. I think you're right. Look at this posting:

  • "part Cherokee and Blackfoot"

  • "an American Indian descendent" [sic]..."Algonquin" [not a tribe]

  • "ancestors who were Native American, of the Cherokee Nation"

  • So they have no present-day connection to any Native tribe or culture. And they're located in the DC region, so they're biased for the Redskins.

    It's like citing me as an expert on Hollywood because I live in the area and have vague connections to the industry. Pretty much completely invalid.

    In short, I suspect most of them are "Indians" like Elizabeth Warren, Johnny Depp, and Ward Churchill. They've heard family legends and they think they're supporting their "ancestors" by supporting the Redskins.

    Meanwhile, there's this:

    Fox News Declares Washington ‘Redskins’ Name A Fake Controversy

    By EllenMegyn Kelly and Lauren Ashburn engaged in some jaw-dropping whitesplaining about the Washington Redskins team name tonight. First, Ashburn insisted that Native Americans are not really offended by the term "Redskins," it’s all a (biased, liberal) media snow job. Then after Kelly suggested the Native American community should be focused on more important things, Ashburn announced that it would be better to take “Washington” out of the team name instead.As I tweeted in response:"Fake News Declares 'Redskins' Name a Fake Controversy." Fox airheads are clueless about ongoing Native opposition.

    February 11, 2014

    Arguments demolish "Redskins" poll

    A recent posting demolishes the Annenberg poll that the Washington Redskins rely on so heavily:

    11 Reasons to Ignore the 10-Year-Old Annenberg Survey About the Washington Football Team’s Offensive Name

    By Natasha Dhillon, Justin Hemmings, Maggie Scales, and William Stanley1. The Survey is Too Old to Matter

    [T]en years can change a lot, which is one reason why pollsters don’t take a Presidential opinion poll at inauguration, then pack things up, pat each other on the back and say “Let’s do this again sometime.”

    2. Context Matters

    If this really is the be-all and end-all of surveys on the offensive nature of the Redskins name, then it should have been the focus of the survey. Instead, a single question was asked as part of a series of unrelated questions covering a variety of topics.

    3. The Self-Identification Problem

    The survey asked people if they were Native American, but did not follow up the answer with any additional questions to discern tribal membership or level of heritage.

    4. Who Even Uses Landlines?!

    That’s right folks—in one of the more troubling and somewhat hilarious portions of the survey, the NAES only contacted people with a landline telephone.

    5. Didn’t the Question Wasn’t not but is was Confusing

    Did you get that? Probably not. From the NAES press release itself, the question posed was: “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”

    6. Social Progress is the True Measurement

    As public awareness grows, perceptions change. Not surprisingly then, some of today’s most widely-supported human rights movements have started out as “niche” issues with a modicum of support.

    7. Size Matters

    The Annenberg survey polled a mere 768 self-identifying Indians or Native Americans, and didn’t survey data from Hawaii or Alaska.

    8. People Tell Pollsters What They Think They Want to Hear

    All polling is subject to a phenomenon called “social desirability bias,” in which respondents tell pollsters what they think is the socially appropriate answer rather than giving their honest opinion.

    9. Should we be Okay Severely Offending 9% of a Populace?

    Let’s say we accept the Annenberg study as the gospel truth—a terrible idea by the way—do you really think it’s okay to severely offend people as long as the group offended is in the minority?

    10. What Can We Do to Fix it?

    One thing that could be done is to conduct some sort of new survey to gauge how people feel. Wait, what? This has been done? On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 the Oneida Nation released the results of a poll they conducted of residents in the Washington, D.C. Metro area.

    11. Does the Survey Even Matter?

    [U]pon his death, the infamous George Preston Marshall created a charitable foundation with but one non-negotiable condition—no money was to be used for “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.” If that’s honor and respect for other races, then I have some oceanfront property in Idaho to sell you.
    Let's highlight the portion of question 10 that describes what a poll should ask:To accurately get the collective pulse on this issue, a survey or a focus group consisting of Native Americans should ask:

  • Do you find “Redskins” as a team name to be disparaging or demeaning?

  • Does use of the word as a team name treat Native Americans with contempt?

  • Do you believe other Native Americans would find “Redskins” disparaging or contemptuous as a team name?

  • Would you call a Native American a “Redskin” to his or her face?

  • Do you believe that the federal government should protect the trademark of “Redskins”?

  • Do you know that the dictionary defines “Redskin” as an offensive term?

  • Do your answer to questions 1 through 5 change at all?

  • Do you believe that the federal government should protect disparaging trademarks?
  • Exactly. This echoes what I've said several times. Asking Americans about the name "Redskins" is about like asking them about evolution or climate change. They're ignorant of the subject and their initial opinions are worthless without a lot of probing.

    Susannah of the Mounties

    Shirley Temple Black died today at age 85, so it's a good time to look back at her career. Here's an encounter with Indians:

    Susannah of the Mounties (film)Susannah of the Mounties is a 1939 American drama film directed by Walter Lang and William A. Seiter and starring Shirley Temple, Randolph Scott, and Margaret Lockwood. Based on the 1936 novel Susannah of the Mounties by Muriel Denison, the film is about an orphaned survivor of an Indian attack in the Canadian West who is taken in by a Mountie and his girlfriend. Following additional Indian attacks, the Mountie is saved from the stake by the young girl's intervention with the Indian chief.

    Comment:  I haven't watched this movie, but it sounds stereotypical. Start with the threat of burning the white man at the stake. Has any movie tribe ever not tried to kill someone horrifically?

    Then there's the split into good Indians, who obey the rules and help the white man, and bad Indians, who perform dastardly deeds because they're evil. These bad apples are usually described as renegades or half-breeds, meaning they're bucking the system supported by both sides.

    Note that neither the good nor bad Indians ever criticize this "system"--meaning the government-backed history of broken treaties, land theft, and the resulting Indian wars. Indeed, if you go by the movies, there's no system to criticize. White people rule the land and Indians live under them. That's the way it is and always has been.

    Everything's perfect, with liberty and justice for all, unless greedy white men and savage Indians try to cause trouble. Then you see corrupt Indian agents who don't at all represent the federal government. And renegade warriors who don't at all represent their tribes. White men and Indians would live in peaceful harmony if it wasn't for these troublemakers.

    Then there's the whole Pocahontas vibe. In this case, a white girl plays the savior who brings peace to the warring factions. Unless it's a self-sacrificing "Indian princess" (chief's daughter), Native are almost never instrumental in forging their own destiny. Even if it's only a little white girl, white men know best.

    Below:  Martin Good Rider (Blackfeet) and Shirley Temple.



    "Shirley Temple on the 1939 Hollywood set of Susannah of the Mounties with seven Blackfeet chiefs of Montana and Canada."

    February 10, 2014

    Lawmakers threaten NFL's tax exemption

    Lawmakers Press N.F.L. on Name Change for Washington Redskins

    By Emmarie HuettemanTwo members of Congress plan to send a strongly worded letter to the commissioner of the National Football League on Monday urging him to support changing the name of the Washington Redskins because it offends Native Americans and others, with one lawmaker saying she might reconsider the league’s tax-exempt status if it does not comply.

    Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington State and chairwoman of the Indian Affairs Committee, said in an interview on Sunday that lawmakers would “definitely” examine the N.F.L.’s tax-exempt status and other ways to pressure the league.

    “You’re getting a tax break for educational purposes, but you’re still embracing a name that people see as a slur and encouraging it,” Ms. Cantwell said.

    In a copy of the letter released on Sunday, Ms. Cantwell and Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma and a member of the Native American Caucus, chided the N.F.L. commissioner, Roger Goodell, for his recent remark that the name of the team, based near Washington, D.C., “honored” Native Americans.

    “The N.F.L. can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” they said.
    Oneida Indian Nation, Washington Redskins escalate war of words

    By Mark Weiner[T]he football team fired back today, releasing a statement and letters of support from almost 200 "self-identified" Native Americans who don't want the team to change its name.

    "Over the past few months, we have received hundreds of letters, calls and emails from self-identified Native Americans in support of the name 'Washington Redskins.' Their comments make clear why our team name means so much to them and to so many in the Native American community," the team said in a statement.

    "It is essential for Redskins Nation to know what the majority of Native Americans really think--in their own words--and why it is so important that we listen to their voices on this issue," the statement said. "We should not turn our back on these Native Americans. Their voices deserve to be heard. We want Redskins Nation and the sports world to know what many Native Americans really think and why our name is their source of pride."
    Oneida Indian Nation, Redskins issue competing Monday morning press releases

    By Mike FlorioOn the heels of a new bipartisan letter from members of Congress to Commissioner Roger Goodell urging the league to change the name of the Washington Redskins, Oneida Indian Nation and the Redskins have issued a pair of competing press releases.

    “The NFL is a publicly subsidized $9 billion-a-year brand with global reach, and it is using those public resources and that brand to promote a dictionary defined racial slur,” Oneida Indian Nation representative Ray Halbritter said in response the team’s “Doesn’t Congress have anything better to do?” reaction to the letter. “While the Washington team somehow claims that Congress has better things to do than intervene in a serious issue that involves taxpayer dollars, it is the exact opposite: Congress has a responsibility to the American people to put an end to this kind of taxpayer-subsidized bigotry. We are thrilled to have these congressional leaders from both parties speaking out on behalf of the ‘Change the Mascot’ campaign and urge them to take immediate action to prevent the league from using any more public resources to promote hatred against Native Americans.”
    As for the so-called Native voices who support the Redskins:The team contends that, in response to owner Daniel Snyder’s October 2013 letter to fans defending the team name, the organization received more than 7,000 letters and emails of support, with nearly 200 coming from people who identified themselves as Native Americans or family members of Native Americans. The team claims that only seven letters were received from Native Americans who oppose the team name.

    It’s an entirely unscientific exercise, oozing with potential bias and lacking any evidence of vetting. It also ignores the organized effort against the name, and it also invites Native Americans and others to flood team headquarters with communications opposing the name.

    Most importantly, the team’s latest effort continues to confuse the question whether the name is offensive with the question of whether Native Americans are actually offended. Plenty of people aren’t offended by objectively offensive content.
    Comment:  Florio's last point is an important one. It goes to the credibility of the polls the team keeps citing.

    These questions:

  • Is the name offensive to Natives?
  • Does the name offend you personally?
  • Should the team change the name?
  • Would you change the name if you could?

  • are all different. I could imagine anyone, including a Native, offering any pattern of "yes" and "no" answers. For instance, "The name doesn't offend me, but if it offends anyone, the team should change it, although I wouldn't change it because I have more important things to do."

    Yet the bogus polls treat these questions as if they're interchangeable. To them, "No, the name doesn't offend me" means "No, the name isn't offensive to anyone." Which in turn means "No, I wouldn't change the name" and "No, the team shouldn't change the name." None of these conclusions is justified by the lack of personal offense.

    This alleged lack of personal offense is itself suspect. Respondents often make unwarranted distinctions between the team name and the same word used as an insult. Somehow, they decide "Redskins" and "redskins" are two different words.

    Really, the polls should ask:

  • Does the name offend you personally?
  • If I called you a "redskin," would it bother you?
  • If I called your parent or child a "redskin," would it bother you?
  • Would you call your Native friends and family members a "redskin"?

  • And a necessary follow-up: "Why not, if you don't consider the name offensive?"

    Needless to say, no poll has asked all these questions. Until they do, we should treat any pro-Redskins Native opinion as suspect at best.

    February 09, 2014

    Indians will vanish without Redskins?

    Someone on Twitter offered this stupid argument: If we eliminate ‪#‎Redskins‬, nothing will be left to remind us of Indians. Nothing except 566 tribes and 5.2 million people, that is.

    The same person who offered this "argument" also offered trite pro-mascot argument #1: Don't Indians have more important problems to worry about? Ho-hum.

    Never mind that a tweet or Facebook posting about the Redskins takes only a few seconds. That most mascot foes tackle a variety of issues via a process called "multitasking." That mascot lovers devote far more time and energy to supporting their fantasies than activists do in opposing them.

    Indeed, the gusts of hot air and river of tears from crybaby fans could power a city for years. Don't believe me? Count the number and length of pro-Redskins comments on any mascot-related article. These people apparently have nothing else to do but defend their beloved "redskins."

    Indians about to vanish?

    But let's examine the initial claim that the Washington Redskins are the only thing standing between Indians and oblivion.

    So Indians have many problems...but without mascots, Indians will vanish from our consciousness? Uh, slight contradiction there? Which is it?

    If all our attention should be on reservation-based poverty and crime, why do we need mascots? The problems are enough to remind us about Indians. Everyone from the government to the mainstream media to individual Americans should be talking about these real-world issues.

    Natives themselves--their governments, organizations, and media--certainly focus on the problems. You can find 50-100 Native stories every day of the year if you look for them. So whose fault is it if you're ignorant of Native issues, sports fans? How much time do you devote to the Washington Redskins and how much to real Indians?

    If you haven't figured it out yet, it's your fault. Your phony "love" of the "noble redman" extends only to your mascots. When real Indians show up, you scorn them because they don't look or act like two-dimensional cartoons. You hate them because they challenge your false and stereotypical notions of Indians.

    Mascots are unnecessary as an additional "reminder," bright boys. In fact, they remind us of the distant past, not the present-day problems. They distract us from these problems by giving us a romanticized picture of long-gone Indians. They're a barrier to real Indians and their problems, not a gateway.

    Pro-Redskins arguments are weak

    Poor dumb #Redskins supporters. They can't come up with a single argument that we haven't heard and answered a hundred times over the last half a century. How ignorant do you have to be to offer these ridiculous arguments as if they're fresh and challenging?

    Hey, maybe women will get hysterical if we let them vote. Maybe blacks don't have the necessary tools to be managers. Maybe mascots are the only thing keeping Indians in our thoughts. I'll take "Stupid Arguments That We Answered Decades Ago" for $600, Alex!

    Sadly, Indians sometimes offer the "people need mascots to remember us by" argument too. Really, you feel so worthless and invisible that even a mascot is better than nothing? How about declaring that your existence is enough of a reminder for ignorant Americans?

    If you don't think that's enough, do something memorable. Get a degree, start a business, or create beautiful art. You should be the proof that Indians still exist, not some cartoon character.

    The #NotYourMascot campaign sent a message along these lines. That, duh, Indians are people, not mascots. That thinking of Indians means thinking of Indians, not fictional characters that only vaguely resemble Indians. Duhhh.

    Whether they're Native or not, everyone should grasp this point. But if it's too hard for you, refresh your memory about what Indians are with some #NotYourMascot images:



    February 08, 2014

    Inside #NotYourMascot

    Inside the #NotYourMascot Super Bowl Twitter Storm

    By Jacqueline KeelerWe went back and forth on hashtags #changethemascot, #banRword, among others, but I kept coming back to #NotYourMascot. I liked the way it made it clear that the issue was not just the name itself, but the whole practice of Native mascotry, which includes fans wearing redface and the misuse of our cultures.

    As a Dakota, I am particularly offended by the wearing of chicken feather versions of our eagle feather headdresses and I blogged about it here: "Washington Redsk*ns, Indian Mascotry & Owl Man" and here "Why We Still Mourn Wounded Knee." My ancestor Owl Man had worn his headdress, given to him as a mark of honor by his own people, when he came to the White House in 1867. My family still tells the stories of how he worked to preserve the Dakota people through those terrible times. Our Dakota people did not fight to survive so drunken football fans could honor us by wearing our headdresses to their sporting events and hold up “scalp ‘em” signs as FSU Seminoles fans did at the Rose Bowl.

    After we decided on our new hashtag, we kept #NotYourMascot under wraps and shared it only within our social media circles through direct messaging and email. We wanted to make sure it was not co-opted by spammers, too.

    On Saturday night at 9pm Eastern we unveiled it to the world. This was the suggestion of Suey Park a social media activist and writer. She had great success with her hashtag #NotYourAsianSidekick and trended it to number one nationally earlier this year. Still, even with her help, I was doubtful our hashtag could gain traction during the Super Bowl, with more than 111 million viewers this year.

    I was particularly discouraged by a recent poll that indicated more than 90 percent of Americans claim to have never even met a Native American. They may have but just didn’t know it because the Native person they met was not decked out in feathers and buckskin. How could we hope to make an impact on social media, especially if so few Americans were even aware we still exist in the age of Twitter?

    Then, half an hour in, Suey Park sent me a screenshot of us trending nationally. I was amazed. We had allies in the Asian American and other people of color communities online. We had like-minded sports fans like the D.C.-based @Fans4NT and @ChangeRacism. We had determined Native people who were tweeting their hearts out to make sure they were heard.
    And the results:#NotYourMascot was tweeted over 18,000 times. Many of our tweets included links to the NCAI Proud to Be ad and helped to double its views to nearly one million on YouTube.'NotYourMascot' Trends on Twitter Over Super Bowl Weekend [37 Images]Both the Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos had their share of Native American fans rooting for an NFL championship season, but many American Indians who didn't have a dog in the Super Bowl hunt brought their A game on Twitter anyway with the hashtag #NotYourMascot. These were concerned folks who took advantage of the big weekend to speak out against demeaning Native mascots one last time before the 2013-14 NFL season became history.

    In so doing, they made a little history of their own. Activists ambushed Twitter with a "Twitter Storm" using the hashtag and managed to get their message into the "Trending Topics" list as the NFL was in full Super Bowl mode. That's no small feat: Not only was the big game all over Twitter, so were tweets of protest about the league's most controversial team name, the Washington Redskins.

    The substance of the tweets included not just words of support, but also--importantly, since the internet is a visual medium--meme images and graphics about the issue, as well as photos of regular Natives just being proud of who they are. We've collected a great deal of those in this gallery--it's a pretty stunning effort by some passionate and plugged-in people.
    Comment:  Once again, the power of protest scores a hit!



    "Crown Prince" of Powhatan Renape

    South Jersey tribe's Prince Alarming

    By Jason NarkIn fact, more than deer and dogs are afoot among the Powhatan Renape these days. A self-proclaimed leader with an impossibly long name and a confusing past says he's taking the reins and reclaiming the reservation, whether council members like it or not.

    "I am the heir to the Powhatan Empire," said Crown Prince Emperor El Bey Bigbay. "I don't deal with the council. The council is null and void."

    The Crown Prince--as he wishes to be called--is Trenton native William McRea, 40, known in the capital for the horses he keeps on his half of a duplex.

    According to news accounts, McRae has been charged with using fake diplomatic tags, driving without a license and failure to pay child support. He has claimed that U.S. laws don't apply to him because he's a member of the Abannaki Aboriginal Nation, which the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a "fringe black separatist group."
    Comment:  "Wannabe" may be too polite a term for this fellow. "Con artist" seems more appropriate.

    February 07, 2014

    Why no "White History Month"?

    The history white people need to learn

    Anyone who wants "white history month" should learn instead about how whiteness has been used to discriminate

    By Mary-Alice Daniel
    Invariably, around February of each year, coinciding with Black History Month, you’ll hear people asking, “Why isn’t there a white history month?”

    Do these people mean we should condense all the American history centering around white people to just one month and devote the other 11 to people of color? Of course not.

    It’s readily accepted that white history is taught, year-round, to the exclusion of minority histories. But the literal history of whiteness—how and when and why what it means to be white was formulated—is always neglected. The construction of the white identity is a brilliant piece of social engineering. Its origins and heritage should be examined in order to add a critical layer of complexity to a national conversation sorely lacking in nuance.

    I’m guessing that’s not what they mean, either.

    In conversations about race, I’ve frequently tried and failed to express the idea that whiteness is a social construct. So, here, in plain fact, is what I mean:

    The very notion of whiteness is relatively recent in our human history, linked to the rise of European colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade in the 17th century as a way to distinguish the master from the slave. From its inception, “white” was not simply a separate race, but the superior race. “White people,” in opposition to non-whites or “colored” people, have constituted a meaningful social category for only a few hundred years, and the conception of who is included in that category has changed repeatedly. If you went back to even just the beginning of the last century, you’d witness a completely different racial configuration of whites and non-whites. The original white Americans—those from England, certain areas of Western Europe, and the Nordic States—excluded other European immigrants from that category to deny them jobs, social standing, and legal privileges. It’s not widely known in the U.S. that several ethnic groups, such as Germans, Italians, Russians and the Irish, were excluded from whiteness and considered non-white as recently as the early 20th century.

    Members of these groups sometimes sued the state in order to be legally recognized as white, so they could access a variety of rights available only to whites—specifically American citizenship, which was then limited, by the U.S. Naturalization Law of 1790, to “free white persons” of “good character.” Attorney John Tehranian writes in the Yale Law Journal that petitioners could present a case based not on skin color, but on “religious practices, culture, education, intermarriage and [their] community’s role,” to try to secure their admission to this elite social group and its accompanying advantages.

    More than color, it was class that defined race. For whiteness to maintain its superiority, membership had to be strictly controlled. The “gift” of whiteness was bestowed on those who could afford it, or when it was politically expedient. In his book “How the Irish Became White,” Noel Ignatiev argues that Irish immigrants were incorporated into whiteness in order to suppress the economic competitiveness of free black workers and undermine efforts to unite low-wage black and Irish Americans into an economic bloc bent on unionizing labor. The aspiration to whiteness was exploited to politically and socially divide groups that had more similarities than differences. It was an apple dangled in front of working-class immigrant groups, often as a reward for subjugating other groups.

    A lack of awareness of these facts has lent credence to the erroneous belief that whiteness is inherent and has always existed, either as an actual biological difference or as a cohesive social grouping. Some still claim it is natural for whites to gravitate to their own and that humans are tribal and predisposed to congregate with their kind. It’s easy, simple and natural: White people have always been white people. Thinking about racial identity is for those other people.

    Those who identify as white should start thinking about their inheritance of this identity and understand its implications. When what counts as your “own kind” changes so frequently and is so susceptible to contemporaneous political schemes, it becomes impossible to argue an innate explanation for white exclusion. Whiteness was never about skin color or a natural inclination to stand with one’s own; it was designed to racialize power and conveniently dehumanize outsiders and the enslaved. It has always been a calculated game with very real economic motivations and benefits.
    Comment:  For more on the subject, see:

    Ethnic studies "is about rehumanization"
    Ethnic studies ban is political
    Ethnic studies "undermine sovereignty"?
    Ethnic history corrects white history
    Mainstream history = pro-white propaganda

    February 06, 2014

    Warring Indians in Phoenix New Times

    The Phoenix New Times recently published this article:

    Proposed West Valley Casino Is Pitting Valley Indian Tribes Against One Another

    Along with it came this image, which the New Times used on its cover:



    Wow...stereotypical much? A headdress, tomahawks, a tipi, feathers, warpaint, and arrows. The first three have nothing to do with Arizona's Indians and are thus false as well as stereotypical.

    And as Adrienne Keene tweeted:Not to mention the whole "angry warring Indian" vibe when it's an article abt a legislative disagreement. #stereotypesarerealyallExactly.

    To understand the problem, imagine a comparable image: Obama and Republican House members in cowboy gear shooting guns at each other. Such an image might exist, and might tell us something about legislative politics. It wouldn't necessarily be offensive.

    But most non-Native conflicts are not framed as murderous warfare with lethal weapons. And most Native conflicts are so framed. If you went solely by the images, you'd conclude that Indians are much more likely than non-Natives to resort to physical violence.

    This image contributes to the ongoing vilification of Indians as brutes and barbarians. It's not only stupidly stereotypical to (mis)use Indian motifs from other regions. It's stupidly racist to single out Indians for the "savage" treatment.

    February 05, 2014

    Indiana Jones in Saturday Night Live

    After much controversy, Saturday Night Live hired Sasheer Zamata, its first black woman in years. She made her first appearance January 18, 2014.

    Somewhat ironically, the same show featured a somewhat racist skit, described thusly:Audience member Rahat gets confused after being invited on stage for the Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular.

    Rahat was supposed to be some sort of ethnic person, probably Middle Eastern. She wasn't just "confused after being invited on stage." She was apparently confused by everything. She had no idea what an amusement park show was despite being at an amusement park.

    That alone is arguably racist. But then SNL inserted Rahat into the most racist aspects of the Indiana Jones movies.

    Drake played the tour guide who introduced the Indiana Jones scene. He described it as a "forbidden temple" with a "priceless ancient artifact." Okay so far.

    Then Kenan Thompson appeared in a grass skirt as a witch doctor or some other primitive savage. At least Drake called him a "native" rather than a "savage." And Rahat's reaction was to hug him and say "my friend." But still, SNL was repeating the worst stereotypes: Indians as lost races with hidden treasures that they'll protect with unholy violence. As if the problem is their defense of their religion and not the white man's destruction of it.

    It got worse when Drake tried to get Rahat to grab the artifact. Instead she bowed down and prayed to it. So she's so ignorant that she doesn't have her own religion and meekly adopts whatever's presented to her. And her idea of Native religion, which is also the show's idea, is nothing more than idol worship.

    Finally, two "evil temple guards" appear. They seem to be turbaned South Asian Indians from The Temple of Doom. No one informs us that these particular Indians were members of a death cult and thus extremely atypical. The message is that all "foreigners"--Rahat, the native, and the guards--are strange, exotic, and ignorant or evil.

    White men don't understand America

    An excellent quote from Ota Kte aka Chief Luther Standing Bear, Oglala Lakota:The white man does not understand the Indian for the same reason that he does not understand America. He is too far removed from its formative processes. The roots of the tree of his life have not yet grasped the rock and soil. The white man is still troubled with primitive fears; he still has in his consciousness the perils of this frontier continent, some of its vastnesses not yet having yielded to his questing footsteps and inquiring eyes. He shudders still with the memory of the loss of his forefathers upon its scorching deserts and forbidding mountain tops.

    The man from Europe is still a foreigner and an alien. And he still hates the man who questioned his path across the continent.

    But in the Indian the spirit of the land is still vested; it will be until other men are able to divine and meet its rhythm. Men must be born and reborn to belong. Their bodies must be formed of the dust and their forefather's bodies.

    February 04, 2014

    Bill O'Reilly's white privilege

    Another Super Bowl event, Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Obama, shows the same white privilege at work in the Coca-Cola ad controversy.

    Bill O’Reilly’s Obama interview showed a nation still divided

    By Dana Milbank[T]his time, O’Reilly gave only a passing pleasantry at the end (“I think your heart is in the right place”) and otherwise was hostile from the start. He leaned forward in his seat, waving his pen and pointing his finger at the president. He shook his head doubtfully at some of Obama’s answers. Here he was “asking” Obama about whether the Benghazi killings were a terrorist attack:

    Obama: “By definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound — ”

    O’Reilly: “Yes?”

    Obama: “ — that’s an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened. So the — so the question ends up being who, in fact, was attacking us?”

    O’Reilly: “But it’s more than that — ”

    Obama: “And that — ”

    O’Reilly: “ — though — ”

    Obama: “ — well, we — ”

    O’Reilly: “ — because of Susan Rice.”

    Obama: “No, it — ”

    O’Reilly: “It’s more than that, because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration . . . ”

    Obama: “Bill — ”

    O’Reilly: “ — off a videotape but your . . . ”

    Obama: “Bill . . . ”

    O’Reilly: “ — your commanders and the secretary of defense know it’s a terror attack . . . ”

    Obama: “Now, Bill . . . ”

    O’Reilly: “Just . . . ”

    Obama: “ — Bill . . . ”

    O’Reilly: “ — as an American . . . ”

    Obama: “ — Bill — Bill . . . ”

    O’Reilly: “ — I’m just confused.”

    Obama: “And I’m — and I’m trying to explain it to, if you want to listen.”

    O’Reilly did not want to listen. He wanted to inform Obama that “I’m paying Kathleen Sebelius’s salary and she screwed up, and you’re not holding her accountable.” He all but demanded that Obama confess that his “you can keep your health insurance” promise was the biggest mistake of his presidency.
    Bill O’Reilly’s toxic buffoonery: Fox News remains alive and well—and dangerous

    Ailes and O’Reilly channel the white backlash in a country trying to become a multiracial democracy. That’s scary

    By Joan Walsh
    Maybe the worst part was when O’Reilly asked a viewer’s question: “Why do you feel it’s necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity?” O’Reilly presumably got lots of suggestions from viewers, and I’m sure many were uglier than that. But what does it mean that that’s the question he chose?

    It means, again, that O’Reilly and Ailes and their viewers see this president as unqualified and ungrateful, an affirmative action baby who won’t thank us for all we’ve done for him and his cohort. The question was, of course, deeply condescending and borderline racist. Obama has been afforded “so much opportunity”? What about O’Reilly, who pretends he’s a working-class son of Levittown, Long Island, when he’s actually the kid of an accountant who grew up in Westbury and went to private high school and university?

    This notion that an older generation of white people worked hard for everything they achieved, while a younger generation of folks like Barack Obama had their success handed to them, is a staple of the white backlash that Ailes has been channeling since he helped elect Richard Nixon in 1968. Having just finished Gabriel Sherman’s Ailes biography, “The Loudest Voice in the Room,” I watched the O’Reilly interview with the sinking feeling that our nation, while fortunate in so many ways, has been uniquely challenged in this crucial time: As we make the transition to a fully multiracial democracy, our leading cable news network is headed by a man who has spent his entire career channeling his own paranoia and resentment and weird racial ideas. Oh, and sexism.

    Unbelievably, O’Reilly got his sit-down with Obama the same week that the RNC’s Reince Priebus threatened to boycott MSNBC over a mildly lame tweet tweaking “rightwingers” about that lovely Cheerios ad–and naturally, MSNBC apologized. That’s became MSNBC is a business, while Fox is a political machine that also happens to make a lot of money (because it serves the side of the aisle where most of the money is).

    Fox doesn’t apologize. Its hosts just scream “Benghazi!” louder. Obama’s insubordination inevitably became just more grist for Fox programming. The dolts on “Fox and Friends” are very, very angry that the president blamed their network for scandal-mongering. “Bill Clinton didn’t blame the New York Times for his scandal,” Brian Kilmeade told his sidekicks. “George Bush didn’t blame every media outlet for running down the war or for Katrina. Why attack the people who are asking you questions?”

    Thanks in large measure to Roger Ailes, we live in a country now where a carnival barker with an ugly comb-over can make the duly elected president show him his papers, and an angry mediocrity like O’Reilly can condescend to an accomplished black man who is in fact his moral and intellectual superior.
    Comment:  Look at how O'Reilly kept interrupting Obama. That has never happened and would never happen with a white male president.

    And "the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity"...wow. Like O'Reilly owns the country and Obama is merely visiting it. Like white America has given Obama a great gift by tolerating his presence.

    Never mind that Obama's white and black ancestors have lived here for centuries--as long as O'Reilly's have, if not much longer. In O'Reilly's mind, he's the second coming of the Founding Fathers. And Obama is little more than a newly freed slave.

    Obama could turn that question around and ask O'Reilly about all the benefits he's gotten from his white upbringing. But that's not how white privilege works. White men get to confront minorities, not the other way around.

    We saw an excellent example of this in Boastful Cornerback = Thug? When a black man, even a well-educated one, challenges the white orthodoxy, he gets slapped down.

    It doesn't matter if white athletes have said much worse. What matters is that blacks are supposed to know their place and not step over the line.

    This is the same white privilege we see in countless Native issues. From sovereignty and treaties to mascots and headdresses, white men get to tell Indians what's right and wrong.

    If white men get their way, they think it's the natural order of things. But if someone challenges them--by electing Obama, protesting mascots, speaking "foreign" languages--they cry like whiny babies.

    February 03, 2014

    Coke ad triggers conservative racism

    This week the right-wing's manufactured controversy was the Super Bowl Coke commercial:

    Coke commercial angers Twitter racists: ‘Speak American’ because ‘your in America’

    By Travis GettysA Coca Cola advertisement that celebrated the United States’ cultural diversity inspired a Twitter hashtag urging others to #SpeakAmerican and #BoycottCoke.

    The one-minute ad that aired during the Super Bowl featured a multiracial cast as voices sang “America The Beautiful” in a variety of languages.

    That outraged many viewers, who suggested that English was the country’s official language.


    Coca-Cola’s ‘America the Beautiful’ Super Bowl Ad Causes StirToward the end of the first half of yesterday’s Super Bowl, Coca-Cola premiered an ad called “It’s Beautiful” featuring “America the Beautiful” sung in seven different languages. The ad immediately caused outrage on Twitter, hash tags like #SpeakAmerican instantly were trending and people’s ignorance about this country’s true history became glaringly evident.

    Many Twitter users think that “America the Beautiful” is this country’s National Anthem and that English is this country’s national language. Neither of which is true. The “Star Spangled Banner” is in fact the National Anthem.

    According to USA.gov, “There is no ‘official’ language for the United States, although some individual states list English as their official language.”
    Coca-Cola's Multicultural Super Bowl Ad Really Angered Conservatives

    By Tom KludtFormer tea party congressman Allen West even took time to write a blog post during the game to voice his displeasure. For West, the ad started out strong enough.

    "Then the words went from English to languages I didn’t recognize," a troubled West wrote, calling it "a truly disturbing commercial."

    "If we cannot be proud enough as a country to sing 'American (sic) the Beautiful' in English in a commercial during the Super Bowl, by a company as American as they come—doggone we are on the road to perdition," he wrote.

    Michael Patrick Leahy over at Breitbart was offended, too.

    Not only did Coke use "a deeply Christian patriotic anthem whose theme is unity–in several foreign languages," but Leahy noted that the "ad also prominently features a gay couple."


    The Not-Racist Butt strikes again! "I'm not racist but, This is America! We speak English!"

    Why don't these people make it easy for everyone and just wear "I'm a racist" buttons? Proclaim it proudly, bigots--you know you want to!

    Given that every anthem-like song is sung in English 99.99% of the time, what possible reason could you have for objecting to a one-time foreign-language version? It's not a ballot you have to pay for. It's not a button you have to press on a phone. The song literally has no effect whatsoever on your life. So what exactly is the basis for your complaint?

    How is complaining about an Asian, African, European, or indigenous language any different from complaining about an Asian, African, European, or indigenous appearance? Both are different from the "norm," but neither one affects you. It's the epitome of prejudice to say, "I hate that because it's different." To say, "America is white/Christian/English and anything else is foreign."

    Beck is right!

    Glenn Beck: Coca-Cola Was Trying To 'Divide People' With Super Bowl Ad

    Hey, Beck is right! He said:It's in your face, and if you don't like it, if you're offended by it, you're a racist. If you do like it, you're for immigration. You're for progress. That's all this is: To divide people.Like a broken clock, Beck is correct for once. The commercial does a good job of identifying who's a racist.

    And separating the racists (i.e., conservatives) from non-racists (everyone else), so we can marginalize and shun the bigots, is a problem...why? I must be missing something because I'm not seeing it.

    Beck seems to be saying it's inherently bad to "divide" people. Why, because we should embrace racists? Invite them over, give them a hug, and listen raptly as they spew their hate? No thanks.

    If Beck wants a better country, I think he'd be glad for a clearcut test that identifies racists for further shaming and shunning. The Coca-Cola song test is as good as any. Maybe we should make it a mandatory component of citizenship.



    Conservatives are racists

    The following posting agrees with me:

    I’ve Got a Few Words for Those Offended By Coca-Cola’s Super Bowl Commercial

    By Allen CliftonIt wasn’t, as Glenn Beck tried to say, a statement to “divide” people. He tried to perpetuate this idea that this was an “in your face” statement where, as Beck said, “…if you’re offended by it, you’re a racist. If you do like it, you’re for immigration. You’re for progress. That’s all this is: to divide people.”

    You know who’s offended by this commercial? Ignorant bigots. Yes, if you’re offended that an American song might be sung by an American in a different language, you are a racist and a bigot.

    Why would it offend you if you weren’t? A fact doesn’t suddenly become opinion just because some conservatives don’t like the fact that it exposed the total ignorance of the average conservative voter.

    You know how a commercial like the one Coca-Cola aired might not divide people? When people stop acting like bigots who wished every “American” was a straight, white Christian who speaks English.
    As we've noted many times before, these conservative outbursts of racism don't just happen at random. Rather, the Republican Party has cultivated and promoted this racism for at least 45 years.

    The GOP's Coke Freak-Out

    By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann ProgramSensible conservatives try to say that people like Gohmert and Stockman are just a few bad apples, but those conservatives are ignoring their party's own history.

    The real agenda of the Republican Party is to serve billionaires and transnational corporations, but because that group represents such a small number of voters--they need to expand the tent.

    They have done this by aggressively courting bigots and racists, along with the religious fringe, misogynistic men, and people who fetishize guns.

    It started when Richard Nixon manipulated white people angry about the Civil Rights Movement in his 1968 presidential campaign, the so-called "Southern Strategy."

    It was perfected when Ronald Reagan gave the first speech of his 1980 campaign for President of the United States in Philadelphia, Mississippi--the place where three civil rights activists were killed in the 1960s--and told people at a county fair that he "believed in states' rights."

    Last March, RNC chairman Reince Preibus promised that his party would try to make itself more appealing to women and minorities, but a year of scandals and politically incorrect freakouts--the most recent over a Coca Cola ad of all things--shows that the Republican Party still embracing their Southern Strategy.


    Conservatives fear multiculturalism

    Some postings talk about how conservatives fear the changing face of America.

    Coke ad’s ugly, demented moral: Exposing the right’s zero-sum culture war

    For “English first” nativists, the simple act of recognizing other heritages detracts from their own

    By Simon Maloy
    Coca-Cola’s ad was a nod to a long-standing truth about America: A country of such broad ethnic diversity is going to have whole communities that speak languages other than English. From the barrios of Los Angeles to the tenement blocks of turn-of-the-century New York to the Gullah region of the antebellum South, there have always been American communities where standard English wasn’t spoken at home. In my own family it’s not uncommon to hear conversations in English, Spanish, Russian and Portuguese. This isn’t a threat to American culture. It is American culture.

    But for the conservative pundits and “English first” nativists, the simple act of recognizing other heritages somehow detracts from their own. This is the culture war, and it’s a zero-sum fight. In the eyes of the critics, Coke’s acknowledgment that English does not command 100 percent of the linguistic market was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. It’s a blatant and nasty appeal to cultural resentment and xenophobia.

    This same zero-sum dynamic animates so much of the cultural discussion. We’re about to resume the debate over immigration reform, which is always colored by conservative complaints about immigrants receiving “special privileges.” The embarrassing annual spectacle of the “War on Christmas” assumes that anyone who has the temerity to say “Happy Holidays” isn’t giving Christianity its due as the true American faith. The fight over same-sex marriage is replete with conservatives arguing that recognizing the union of two men or two women will fatally undermine “traditional” marriage.

    They allow no possibility for mutual benefit–if the Spanish speakers or the Kwanzaa celebrators or the gay couple down the street are winning, then English-speaking, Christmas-observing, heterosexual “real” America must be losing. There’s no real sense to it, but it’s a good way to exploit anxiety over demographic changes and stir up outrage.


    The Coke ad got it right: America is beautiful, in any language

    By Paul WhitefieldNow, you could see the most recent backlash as an example of the ugly anti-immigrant undercurrent in America sparked by the millions of folks living here without documents. Yes, many of those folks speak Spanish. Yes, there are more of them—legal or otherwise—living here than ever. And no, that is not going to change.

    In other words, it isn’t a white man’s America anymore.

    And apparently, some people can’t handle that. Or perhaps, by the time the Coke ad ran—in the second half of the game—the Bud Light was flowing more freely. Either way, the Ugly Americans beat up the Beautiful Americans about as badly as the Seahawks beat the Broncos.

    Frankly, I’m getting more than a little tired of hearing from angry America. I’m also less than fond of knee-jerk America. And when you combine the two with the Internet, you too often get stupid America, which is really annoying.

    Face facts, folks: A lot of people came here not speaking English. We like to think that they all quickly learned it. Some did; many didn’t. But, their kids did. And their kids speak English; many probably couldn’t speak the grandparents’ native language if they wanted to.

    So get a grip: We’re not being overrun by hordes of Spanish speakers. Just like always, we’re growing a new crop of Americans. They are enriching the country. They are working hard, paying taxes. And they will create future Nobel Prize winners and future presidents and future titans of industry.

    In short, they will make America beautiful.
    Coca-Cola's multilingual "America" ad didn't hit any wrong notesThere are, according to statistics cited in a Huffington Post article here, http://huff.to/1nJc0Sn, 381 languages spoken in these United States. That is a potent passel of patois in which we Americans freely engage. One of those used in the commercial, Keres Pueblo, is a Native American tongue that was used in this nation before there was a hint of a nation.

    We can't fathom that the argument should gather much traction here in the Lebanon Valley, steeped as we are in our Pennsylvania German traditions. Yes, our forebears learned English, but PA Dutch still gets trotted out for occasional use in church services and when watching stuffed groundhogs predict winter weather, as happened just this weekend.

    There is nothing wrong with multilingualism. If anything, we don't spend nearly enough time learning at least a second language. That is both an American-centric and educational failure.

    The first thing the commercial proved is that the song sounds pretty good regardless of the language in which it is sung. The second thing it proved is that there are individuals who believe in the words even if the language in which it was originally written is not the one that came first for them.

    Yes, we believe those living in the United States should learn English. It is not the official language but it has been, since the nation's inception, the accepted common tongue, and it will continue to be. Our inclusive society requires some desire on the part of others to be included. Learning English is a part of that inclusivity.

    But it does not mean that we are forced to unlearn those things that defined us before we came to be Americans. We can be just as patriotic, and we can act just as freely, if we sing those words in English or in any of the languages listed above and any of the others that were not.

    In the final analysis, for Coca-Cola, this was money well spent. Here we are, still talking about that ad.
    For more on conservative racism, see:

    White men lose to demographic change
    Racists hate and fear minority babies
    Whites feel like a minority