Three paragraphs of European history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Native aspects of Deep Shadow

Deep Shadow (Doc Ford)From Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. At the start of bestseller White's outstanding 17th Doc Ford thriller (after Dead Silence), two low-life ex-cons, King and Perry, are on the lam after killing a family of five in a burglary. They end up in Doc's neck of the woods, or rather his neck of the swamp, in central Florida. Doc; his boat-bum hipster pal, Tomlinson; troubled Indian teen Will Chaser, who played a key role in Dead Silence; and Arlis Futch, a crusty old fisherman, have arrived at a small lake, which they intend to search for Batista's treasure plane, which disappeared in 1958 while flying the ex-dictator's looted booty out of Cuba during the Castro takeover. King and Perry, who are as bad as they come, quickly take control of the others, forcing Doc and friends to continue diving in the lake, after which the pair plan to kill them all. Throw in a giant, mysterious swamp creature with an appetite for cattle, horses, and divers, and you've got a nail-biter that's virtually impossible to put down.

Surprisingly Disappointing
By Gregory K. Brill on June 12, 2010

Having been a fan of the Doc Ford series for years, I was excited to get my hands on the latest installment. I was greatly disappointed by the time I was four chapters in, and the disappointment continues throughout the book. The vast majority of the story takes place along the shore or beneath the surface of a sink hole lake somewhere near Orlando. Unfortunately, this book lacks the character development of both antagonists and protagonists that one has come to expect from Randy Wayne White. White, who is known for his vivid and captivating descriptions of the Florida lifestyle, culture, and locations, simply falls flat in this book. Well over two-thirds of the book take place along a linear timeline in and around the lake. What is even more surprising is that White spends a tedious amount of time trying to establish the dire straits that his friends Tomlinson and Will are in when trapped by an underwater landslide and then seems to forget that sense of urgency (they only have 15 minutes worth of air lefft )over the next several CHAPTERS). The book lacks the character development, story line, or use of the qualities of Doc Ford that once made these books a "first buy." Bottom line for this story...this book does not fit into the Doc Ford series, and if you are a fan...wait for this one to come out on the sale rack!!Book review: 'Deep Shadow' by Randy Wayne White

By Shawna SeedDeep Shadow is the 17th Doc Ford book, and a long-running series poses certain challenges. Too much back story bores longtime readers; too little renders a book inaccessible to new ones.

White sketches out Ford and Tomlinson economically--he's had plenty of practice. The exposition gets clunky for Chaser, a carryover character from the last novel. If he reappears a third time, perhaps White will have him down pat. After being buried alive in Dead Silence and trapped underwater in Deep Shadow, however, Chaser may want to skip the next installment.

The least dynamic characters are the ex-cons. The hero astutely assesses their personalities and plays the two crooks against each other, but readers may find the pair indistinguishable. The swamp creature, however--now there's an interesting and surprisingly plausible villain.

In the end, White's strength is not the nuanced development of each character but his ability to ratchet up the action to keep readers turning the pages. And readers will keep turning the pages, if only to find out the answer to the novel's burning question: What is that thing?Comment:  Deep Shadow has a couple of Native aspects:

1) Will Chaser, the Cherokee youth from a troubled home. At first he's surly and uncommunicative, but he loosens up when Ford lets him scuba-dive. When he and Tomlinson are trapped underwater, he takes charge while Tomlinson drifts off in a New Age cloud.

Chaser isn't particularly stereotypical, but he isn't well-drawn either. He's kind of an average character all around.

He does have some bizarre ability to sense things (vibrations? lifeforces?) in the land around him. I think this ability appears in a flashback and doesn't play a role in the present-day story. It's odd to give him a pseudo-superpower and it's odd that he never uses it.

2) The creature's lair is a small underground cavern connected to the lake. A pre-Columbian Indian is buried there along with some of his artifacts or "treasure." Chaser and Tomlinson have to pass through this cavern before they escape, so the book gives us a bit of Florida Native lore.

Anyway, I agree with the negative review above. Deep Shadow was no page-turner. It's the sort of potboiler you might read in an airport if you had nothing better to do, but no more. Rob's rating: 7.0 of 10.

"Redskins" dying by paper cuts

A blizzard of news this week suggests how much trouble the "Redskins" name faces. Whether Dan Snyder realizes it or not, the name is on its way out.

Loss of income

Redskins gear stiff-armed by fansThe furor has had an impact. Sales of Redskins items plunged 35% in the most recent quarter, despite a 3% rise in sales of NFL merchandise overall, according to SportsSourceOne, a service that tracks licensed merchandise sales nationwide.Washington has everything to lose

By keeping his team's nickname, Daniel Snyder is pouring money down the drain[As Snyder] fights to maintain that identity, his team keeps falling further from the financial performance and connection with fans that you'd expect from an NFL team with monopoly rights to the nation's capital.Potential lawsuit

Redskins group infringes on NARF trademark Legal counsel representing NARF have sent cease-and-desist letters demanding a halt to this infringement on a website misappropriating its “NARF” trademark, and reserving NARF’s rights to take legal action.Pressure on advertisers

New Anti-Redskins Video Says FedEx ‘Embraces Racism’Native Voice Network (NVN), a coalition of more than 25 Native American organizations, commissioned 1491s' Ryan Redcorn to write and produce the clip aptly titled, “FedEx Fail.”FedEx Still Hasn’t Stopped Sponsoring Washington’s Football Team. This Smart Ad Takes Them to Task.In an ad commissioned by the Native Voice Network called "FedEx Fail," a would-be FedEx customer is turned away when trying to ship a variety of items while wearing several different offensive costumes. But when he returns in [Redacted] gear and a cheap headdress, things change. "You are in luck," the Native American clerk tells the customer. "We at FedEx are Washington Redskins corporate sponsors! We embrace this sort of racism!"Money talks in Redskins debate

Corporate sponsor pressure might alter Daniel Snyder's stance on mascot nameThere is one untapped sector, one outlet that speaks the language of everyone in a decision-making position on this issue. If so moved, corporate sponsors of the league and team could threaten a direct outcome unmatched by legal avenues or political pressure: Lost revenue.

Pressure on broadcasters

Change the Mascot & Coalition of More Than 100 Groups Urge Radio and TV Broadcasters to Cease Use of Washington Team’s Disparaging R-word Name on AirwavesThe letter, co-signed by over 100 leading Native American, religious and civil rights organizations, is going out to reporters at national news networks, as well as thousands of reporters who cover sports in cities which have NFL teams.ADL joins plea to broadcasters to abjure ‘Redskins’“Every time the slur is promoted on the public airwaves even in a non-critical way by a journalist, it is an endorsement of the continued use of this slur.”Major newspapers ban name

Sack the name

The Daily News will no longer refer to the Washington professional football team by its unacceptable nicknameHenceforth, in The News’ sports coverage, the team that has been known as the Redskins since 1933 will simply be called Washington.N.Y. Daily News disavows ‘Redskins’—and the team’s logo, to bootIn an editorial with the headline, “Sack the name,” The Daily News said that the Redskins’ logo “depicting a feathered Native American has been replaced with an image that uses the team’s maroon and yellow colors to key readers to stories, columns and statistics relating to Washington.”Washington Post editorial board stops using the word ‘Redskins’The Washington Post editorial board said Friday that it will stop using the word “Redskins” when referring to Washington’s football team, joining a growing list of commentators who have renounced the term because they believe it disparages Native Americans.Broadcast license challenged

Dan Snyder's Broadcast License Challenged Over Redskins; Faces FCC FilingA formal legal opposition has been filed with the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] opposing the renewal of the broadcast license of station WWXX-FM, serving the greater D.C. metro area from Buckland, Virginia, and owned through Red Zebra Broadcasting by Dan Snyder, who is also the owner of D.C.'s NFL football team, the Washington "Redskins.""Redskins" License Challenge at FCC Raises Novel IssuesThe formal legal petition to the FCC, opposing the renewal of the broadcast license of Snyder-owned station WWXX-FM because of its on-air use of the "racial slur" "Redskins," poses a number of novel legal challenges, and the manner in which they are presented may finally force the agency to address at least some of them, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.Declining public support

Redskins poll: Most favor name; dissent growsNearly a quarter (23 percent) of Americans surveyed now think the name should be changed, up from 8 percent in 1992 and up 9 percentage points in the past year alone.Other

All that is in addition to the usual commentaries from editorials and columnists. For instance:

Redskins face ever-increasing pressure over name as NFL season beginsOne of the biggest stories of the NFL off-season doesn't appear to be going away now that the real games are finally starting.As well as politicians, coaches and players, and others denouncing the name:

NFL Greats Visit Reservations; Speak Out Against ‘Redskins’[T]wo former NFL players are coming at the debate from a position of respect, and their visits to Native reservations helped guide their perspective on the issue.And announcers refusing to say it on the air:

Report: ESPN’s Lisa Salters will not say ‘Redskins’ this seasonAdd ESPN’s Lisa Salters to the growing number of media members who will not be using the term “Redskins” this NFL season.Clearly, Dan Snyder is dying by dint of a thousand paper cuts. How long till he realizes that changing the name is the only way out?

"Tribal Council" on Dance Moms

Confuse 'Em While They're Young: 'Dance Moms' Puts Headdress on 13-Year-OldThe Lifetime TV series Dance Moms did a full-on parody of Native culture on Tuesday night when five girls in the Abby Lee Dance Company competed for their instructor's approval in a number called "Tribal Council." According to the recap at Glamorosi,

The group will do a Native American-inspired jazz routine called "Tribal Council"--Abby got the idea for the number after seeing Cher in concert.

Fast-forward to the actual performance, in which a 13-year-old girl named Nia gets the lead role. As described by Glamorosi:

The group competes first with their "Tribal Council" routine; they wear two-piece costumes that are red with gold trim, except for Nia, who wears gold with red trim. They all wear face paint and headpieces; Nia wears a full headdress, and they all take turns dancing on a large drum. This is, of course, culturally inappropriate, and I'm surprised it got by the producers, but I do not fault the girls.

Here's a clip of the dance number from Lifetime's YouTube channel:On the show's Facebook page, the issue of cultural appropriation has been brought up by a number of viewers. Here's one comment:

As a native woman I think it's disrespectful. And frankly I always complain when famous people try to make our culture a fashion choice. Learn real ways to respect a native. The headdress is stupid, the face paint is stupid.Comment:  So Abby Lee got the idea of stereotyping Indians from Cher's stereotyping of Indians? Wow, that's brilliant...not.

Next time you want to imitate a minstrel performance, maybe you should think twice about it. Duhhh.

"Built on an Indian burial ground"

One house built on an Indian burial ground is a mistake. 130 million houses built on Indian burial grounds is a nation.

"Redskins" = Pan-Indian romanticism

Some thought pieces identify various problems with the Redskins name:

Why the ‘Redskins’ is a Racist Name

By Darren R. ReidWe should remember that there is a phenomenal amount of variety in the physical form and that many Native Americans do not fit the stereotypical portrait that is often used to depict them. Like the use of the phrase ‘Redskins’, [the logo] helps to impose upon a broad and varied group a type of physical ideal which, for a variety of reasons, can be damaging to those who do not match it. That might sound like a comparatively trivial point but consider that the logo fits into a broader pattern of non-Indians defining what it is to be an Indian, both in physical and cultural terms. That logo is a stereotype, an outsider’s imaginary idealisation of the physical attributes that came to mind when they were tasked with its creation. By perpetuating that logo, those ideas are being disseminated, passed on to others in such a way as they become an ingrained part of our cultural dialogue. It is not that the designer of that logo was responsible for the creation of the stereotype, but they did help to perpetuate it. The logo must be seen in the context of those fans who wear a sort of approximation of Plains Indian dress when they support their team. That dress, even if accurate, is not a toy for non-Indians to play with. Native Americans should use or not use that type of clothing as they see fit; they should define themselves, or not define themselves, through dress as they deem appropriate. It is not up to non-Indians to define an idealised image of what it is to a Native American. When Ted Nugent said that he was ‘more Indian than most Indians’ he was telling us much, much more about how some non-Indians view Native Americans than what it is to actually be a Native American. He was measuring himself against an imaginary yardstick, defined and perpetuated by outsiders for outsiders. Hunting with a bow and arrow does not make one more or less Indian, but by declaring that to be a relevant measure he was saying that, in his view, the idealised Indian is one who can be characterised by male hunters from centuries past, not, say, female activists concerned about how modern racial and gendered imagery impacts their lives and the prospects of their children. We should remember that race is not really about skin colour. It’s about power and the one thing that the ‘Redskins’ controversy has shown is that Native Americans have little of it compared to those people who would impose their view of what it is to be an Indian upon the world. Many Native Americans have protested vehemently against the name in the past few years but they cannot force a change on those people who are unwilling to let the name go.The Offensive Line

By KHLWe’re having the wrong conversation.

You may be forgiven for thinking that discourse surrounding the Washington DC football team is about mascots, but it isn’t. Not solely. This is not merely about a team’s name or its owner’s right to trademark it. It’s not about cherry-picked “facts”, outdated linguistic research, ego-driven pronouncements, or even Original American blood money. This is about structural violence. This is about racism and inequality, forced assimilation and cultural appropriation. This is about how images and words function as weapons of degradation within the real lives of Native people. This is about the ability to claim one’s own identity without it being negated and invalidated at every turn. This about staring down the barrel of genocide and surviving.

Ultimately, this is about a very complex system of events coalescing around loss. Loss of land and of language, loss of kinship and culture, loss of agency and sense of self. Loss of the right to say who we are and who we are destined to be. For successive generations, depictions not unlike those found at the center of the mascot debate have defined our people to the non-Indian world. We are continuously re-imagined by forces over which we not only lack control but over which we are denied control. And every diminution and act of microaggression, whether by lampoon or cultural theft, exacerbates the experience of historic trauma. They are daily papercuts that over time become gaping wounds whose flow of blood is slow to stem. And in terms of the health and wellness of our people, we are hemorrhaging.

No, this goes way beyond offense. The contumacy and hubris of Snyder, the NFL, and team supporters continues an historical pattern of sublimating the indigenous voice and its priorities. These entities assume an incontrovertible authority to tell Native people what should or should not define us, what we should or should not hold sacred, and that we must accept their slurs as honor not because they say it is so. Ultimately, they take from us the sovereign right to identify ourselves and our human potential, commodifying our images, our cultures, and our personhood. (And profiting nicely, too.) With all respect, it is not for non-Natives to tell us what we should think about these things. That is for us to determine. Genocide and the deep scars of colonization are not something you “get over.”No, no, it’s Cooley.

By Gregg DealIdentity: Through reiteration in media, film, and pop culture, the identity of indigenous people does not belong to indigenous people, it belongs to those who have the power to create and shape it. The immediately recognizable stereotype has a specific look and feel (i.e. skin color, nose shape, stoic face, headdress) because this is what has been peddled to the American Masses since first contact. The need for a monolithic Pan-Indian feeds into the fetishization of Native Americans, specifically as it pertains to Romantic Nationalism. It neatly places all 566 tribes (there are and have been way more than that in this country’s history, by the way) into a single immutable image. The problem is, that’s not reality. And it is for this reason indigenous people are often met with statements like “You don’t look indian” and “do you live in a tipi” or a simple raising of the hand with the simple statement of “how”. While you may read that last statement as an exaggeration, I assure you it is not. Every Native person has heard this many times, and will likely continue to hear it, which takes me to the next point.

Institutionalized racism: Because of the aforementioned Pan-Indian and romanticism of Indigenous people, there has been a constant and ingrained slight towards Native people from the very beginning. Starting with the Mayflower, colonial settlers saw the Indians as inferior. That notion, fueled by thoughts of racial superiority, initiated years of genocide, decimation of cultures, and land theft. Under the banner of Manifest Destiny, Native people have been framed as impediments at best and subhuman at worst. Fast forward 500 years, it’s not hard to understand why the average American is so dismissive towards Native peoples. There has never been any reconciliation of this war of cultural imperialism. The history and culture of Native people is virtually unknown by most and is generally not taught or thought of as American history. Instead, we’re offered an ‘us and them’ proposition, isolating indigenous people from the rest of America. In discussing the civil rights movement of the 60’s and 70’s, there is little to no mention of the massive efforts and significant movements of Native people. Most think we simply disappeared or were absorbed into the American national fabric. When information is available, it is usually based on stereotypes, and presented with a dismissiveness and nostalgia rooted in romantic nationalism. America; land of the free, home of the brave! Not surprisingly, people are legitimately shocked when they hear that Indians are offended by the term ‘Redskins’.Interchangeable Indians: Consent, Context, and the Contested ImageAmerican Indians simply don’t control the ownership and use of their own images as ridiculous as this sounds (and as it is). Any expression of Indianness that falls outside of the accepted stereotype is immediately subject to invalidation and critique. It is also the case that non-Natives reserve for themselves the right to adjudicate what and who is sufficiently Native and who is not. America feels that we must accept their words simply because they say them, never mind our realities.

Consider the debate about the Washington DC football team. Every opinion is considered valid except for the opinion of the people the issue directly concerns. Don’t like what they say? These days you can purchase the dignity of entire tribes with just a few dollars of Original American blood money and use them (as the team did in its propaganda video, “Redskin is a Powerful Word”) to justify a billionaire’s unjustifiable recalcitrance. Exploiting poor people. Sounds legit, right? In fact, should you express any opinion as a Native person that counters the expectation that’s been forced upon you, understand that the first line of critique will be an attack not on the validity of your complaint but rather an assault on your identity. Expect questions like, “how much Indian you are” or considerations of whether or not you are a “real” Indian, that then restrict the authority of your dissent. Native people don’t get to choose the barometer for any of those things; non-Natives do.

America likes its savages to be noble and stoic. Talking back subverts that paradigm and it makes people uncomfortable.“Redskins” and the Power of Privileged Words

By Drew DixonIn a recent interview with Bill Moyers, Native American novelist and poet, Sherman Alexie said, “at least half the country thinks the mascot issue is insignificant. But I think it’s indicative of the ways in which Indians have no cultural power. We’re still placed in the past.” Calling for terms like “redskin” to fall from modern parlance and advocating for Native Americans are not two separate endeavors, in fact the former is critical to the latter. As long as we refuse to recognize how our words have served to silence the stories of the marginalized, we will continue to abuse them.

"Lazy" cultural stereotypes in Totem

Janet McAllister: Let down by 'lazy stereotypes'When she went to Cirque du Soleil's Totem last week, artist and curator Melissa Laing was impressed by the acts' "phenomenal" technical brilliance. But that's not her overwhelming memory of the show. Instead, she says "the performers were profoundly let down by the artistic director."

Onstage, the Native American woman on roller skates appears almost naked. The Scientist and all the "normal" people in contemporary costumes are white. Laing was appalled by this "lazy" use of cultural and gender stereotypes.

Overseas reviews agree (including a couple from audience members on Cirque's official website). "The show's treatment of world cultures is alarming," says the online news site Huffington Post, noting performers are costumed "like the singing dolls at Disneyland's It's a Small World" ride. Canada's The Globe and Mail points out that Cirque has a history of such cringe, wondering if James Cameron's noble savage in Avatar was inspired by a Cirque show.

Poor Robert Lepage. Totem's director may have thought he had circumvented such criticism this time: reportedly, Cirque consulted with "numerous First Nations elders," and principal singer and Huron-Wendat lyricist Christian Laveau has said the show was careful not to include sacred elements.

Costumes aside, such measures seem to have at least helped. Although otherwise scathing, the Portland Monthly reviewer expressed surprise and delight "that the act I expected to find most offensive from the press photos turned out to feel like the most authentic part"--that is, the Native American hoop dancing by Eric Hernandez, already a 12-year veteran at age 22.

But the problem is that such enlightening moments are packaged into a broader arc that pits us vs them, white vs exotic, "spectacularising a cultural other," as Laing puts it. Sometimes "attempts to celebrate a culture can actually add to the harm done to that culture," if those attempts are unconsciously patronising or simply clueless. Non-Western cultures are often presented as historically frozen "add-ons" to the dynamic Western default setting.

Comment:  I posted about Totem in Native Performers in Cirque du Soleil. I've seen pictures of Hernandez performing. I didn't say anything else about the show because I didn't have any more information.

But the outfits seen above--presumably worn by Shandien Larance (Hopi) and Eric Hernandez (Hopi)--are questionable. The hoop dancers I've seen don't perform as half-naked savages. They don't have strange checkered patterns on their arms, or a slash of paint across their faces. I'd say Cirque du Soleil is doing exactly what writer McAllister said: "spectacularising a cultural other."

If they performed in powwow-style regalia, they'd be less like the primitive people of countless old Westerns. The effect would be less "othering."

Normal vs. exotic

Here are some "characters" from Totem:

The Amerindian Dancer

The young Amerindian dancer takes us into a magical world, tracing the history of the evolution of species with his rings.



The Tracker

Environmentally conscious, a friend of the animals, he guides and assists the Scientist in his explorations. Angered by the thoughtless, polluting actions of a clown, he transforms before our eyes into a Toreador.



The Scientist

A Darwinesque Explorer who visits the different worlds of the show. In his advanced laboratory, aided by his assistants and a monkey, he dazzles us with his amazing physics experiments.



Clown Misha

Misha, a practical man, is wary of fuss and extravagance. He finds a silver lining (or a steel pot) for every situation life throws his way.



Hmm. Two white guys wearing more-or-less normal clothes. Two brown guys in exotic "tribal" costumes. Even if the Western guys are causing the problems and the non-Western guys are solving them, that's stereotypical.

Does Totem understand that Natives are on the leading edge of environmental issues: politically, legally, economically, culturally, and scientifically? They aren't just dancing to confront climate change and related issues. Because they're modern people, hey're conducting studies, filing legal briefs, and developing strategies on the Internet--just like everyone else.

In any show, if the characters from Africa, Asia, and other non-Western places wear colorful costumes and do colorful dances, that's a problem. There's no reason the Western characters should look and act modern while the others wear "ethnic" costumes and perform "tribal" rituals.

Indeed, you could make a whole show out of oddball Americans from a Coachella music fest, a Sturgis bike rally, or a Tea Party protest. These would be as representative as the usual stereotypical world characters: sombrero-wearing Mexicans, Hindu snake-charmers, Japanese geishas, et al.

'Trail of Tears" GameDay sign

OSU to students: Trail of Tears sign not OKOklahoma State University officials say students' sign referencing the Trail of Tears at an ESPN event prior to the game against the Florida State Seminoles crossed the line.

Oklahoma news outlets report the sign, held Saturday at ESPN's College GameDay event, read: "Send 'em home #Trail_of_Tears #GoPokes."

OSU spokesman Gary Shutt says it is insensitive and the university does not condone it. The school's Twitter account says OSU "requested that it be removed." The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

The Trail of Tears refers to the relocation of Native Americans from the southeastern U.S. in the 19th century, including members of the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw and Choctaw nations now based in Oklahoma.

Swift reactions

Cherokee Chief Responds To OSU Student 'Trail Of Tears' Game Day SignThe incident took place on the Cherokee National Holiday where tribal members celebrate the signing of their constitution and commemorate the 175th anniversary of the Trail of Tears, the forced march from the Southeast to Oklahoma that killed thousands of Native Americans.

Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Bill John Baker told News On 6 he'd seen the sign, but knows that their "good partners" at OSU will do their best to explain to students "how hurtful" the sign is in light of the tribe's heritage and history.

"It's not going to ruin our holiday," he said. "We're trying to at least educate our state and other states as well so they truly understand, and we've got more work to do."

He said, "It's particularly disappointing this unfortunate display happened the same weekend as Cherokee National Holiday, when we celebrate our resilience and ability to adapt and survive unimaginable circumstances. For months, we've also commemorated the 175th anniversary of the conclusion of the Trail of Tears. Since these students clearly don't understand the gravity of these events, this should be viewed as a teaching moment for these young people. We wish them well and hope they seek a more enlightened perspective."Oklahoma State Fans Hold 'Trail of Tears' Banner for College GameDayInfluential sports blog Deadspin.com called it "one of the dumbest GameDay signs you'll ever see."

The sign is concerning on a few levels. The Trail of Tears refers to the consequence of the Indian Removal Act of 1830: The forced relocation of American Indians from the southeastern United States to Indian Territory, a region which would later be known as Oklahoma. Between 1830 and 1837, some 46,000 Indians were removed, and many thousands died on the journey west. It's odd, to put it mildly, that Oklahoma State football fans in particular could create a sign (and it's not a small sign) that so casually treated a tragedy that is an integral part of their own state's history. According to 2010 statistics, Oklahoma State graduated the most Native American students of any college in the country, and its student body was 9.2% American Indian or Alaska Native.

There's also something ignorant about a sign that references the Trail of Tears and also says "Send 'Em Home." The Trail of Tears wasn't about sending anybody home--it was about driving Native people from their homes. And in a larger sense, the entire continent was Natives' "home" until certain uninvited guests showed up, beginning in 1492.OSU Native American students respond to 'Trail of Tears' GameDay sign

By Amelia Henderson“I am disappointed in the actions of these OSU students, even if these actions were unintentional, it is still a serious issue that must be addressed," said Larod Snyder, vice president of Phi Sigma Nu, a Native American fraternity at OSU.

Snyder said it's important for students to understand the significance of the Trail of Tears and the cultural genocide of the Native American people.

"I feel this is a prime example of why Native American mascots should not be used for sports entertainment,” he said.Cowboys and Indians: OSU fans carry deplorable signs at College GameDay

By Catherine SweeneyIs this still funny?

Maybe if you are completely ignorant of the past. But guess what? These fans are students. In Oklahoma, American history is required in elementary school, in middle school, in high school and in college.

Oklahoma State’s American history classes are packed with hundreds of students at a time. Professors lift the veil and let students know how despicably Americans treated the Indians.

These people, smiling and holding up their pistols, don’t get to claim ignorance. No students at this school get to claim ignorance.

They are knowingly making fun of victims of genocide. Who is laughing?Student apologizes

OSU student apologizes for 'Trail of Tears' College GameDay banner

By Erik Horne“My name is Austin Buchanan. I am a junior at Oklahoma State University, having transferred last spring. Today was my first football game as an OSU Cowboy, so I am obviously new to OSU’s game-day traditions. In my zeal to support the OSU Cowboys in their season opener against the Florida State Seminoles in Dallas today, my friends and I made a banner. I appeared in a picture with that banner, which I shared via my Twitter account. Included on our banner was a hashtag insensitively referencing the Trail of Tears. The Twitter post and picture were retweeted and shared by many, eventually going viral.

“Though we did not set out to hurt or offend anyone when we made our banner, I see that it did just that. Referencing the Trail of Tears in such a flippant and disrespectful manner was insensitive and wrong, and I make no defense for our having had such a lapse in judgment. I apologize for our mistake. I am truly sorry.

“To all Native Americans: I hope you can and will forgive me for diminishing a part of your history that should never be made light of. I pledge that I will invest diligent study reacquainting myself with the horrors of Trail of Tears so I don’t repeat the mistake I made today.

“To the entire OSU family of administrators, students, student athletes, alumni, and fans: I embarrassed us today. I am sorry, and I hope you, as well, can forgive me. I love OSU. I want to contribute to, rather than take from, OSU’s positive image in the world. Today I failed in that effort. I promise to do better in the future. While I can’t promise I won’t make more mistakes, I commit to learn from them, hopefully becoming a better person in the process.”But some people aren't buying it:

Trail of Tears’ sign on ESPN’S College GameDay Show sparks Faux-pology

By Johnnie Jae“In many ways, after dealing with Mary Fallin inviting herself to the Choctaw Labor Day celebration in order to con votes out of Natives these past few days, waking up to that image of smiling white faces proudly holding up a banner that reduces a death-march, a massacre, that members of my family, including children, died on, was the final straw, says Louis Fowler, writer for the Red Dirt Report. “It is obvious whites are waging a war on Natives and will do anything to denigrate us especially now that we are fighting back. I will not get over it. I will not accept apologies. I will not accept the ignorance argument anymore. I will not accept the whole ’they need to be educated’ argument. It is not the jobs of minorities–Native or otherwise–to educate whites on how to be better people. They should want to do that anyway and seek that education out themselves if it truly means that much to them.”

He adds, “OSU needs to publicly identify each one of these students and deal with them in a harsh manner to send a message. Until they do, these kids are representatives of the school and its beliefs. To make a mockery of the Trail of Tears–especially on the anniversary of this genocide–is nothing but pure evil and an evil that must be extinguished.”And:Many natives across social media, but especially here in Oklahoma, believe that the only way to quell these acts of willful ignorance is for the offenders to be held responsible for their actions. An apology is not enough and is the reason that these kind of acts continue to happen. You can willfully engage in cultural appropriation and blatantly racist behavior towards Native American people and as long as you issue a faux-pology all is forgiven. There are no real consequences and there should be, especially in this case.And:I commend Oklahoma State University for their quick response to this issue and for recognizing the damaging nature of these students’ actions. I commend the student who issued the apology, although I cannot accept it. Until all the students involved are not only held accountable for their actions by the university, but are willing to accept and face the consequences of their actions…apologies are meaningless.Comment:  Buchanan didn't claim ignorance of Trail of Tears or its significance. He said he was disrespectful, insensitive, and wrong.

So the Natives saying Buchanan can't use ignorance as an excuse aren't quite hitting the mark. They're addressing a typical "faux-pology," not his actual apology.

In any case, I'd say his apology was sufficient. He didn't use the usual weasel words to excuse himself from blame. He took responsibility like he was supposed to.

Nobody says exactly what "consequences" the students should face. Maybe name the six or seven students holding the sign and publicly shame them? Give them or the entire student body a class on Native history. Send them to the Cherokee National Holiday at the school's expense?

I wouldn't do anything more severe. I generally favor giving offenders a second chance. If they do something like this again, then you can punish them harshly.

For more on the Trail of Tears, see Opponents Taunted with "Trail of Tears" Sign and Trail of Tears Basketball Tweet.

Superior powers don't change society

A Facebook discussion began with a bit on Superman. Specifically, in the Peace on Earth graphic novel:

Superman learns there's hunger in the world--duh!--so he decides to end it singlehandedly. He starts delivering food everywhere, but a couple of Third World forces oppose him--because it's to their advantage to keep their people hungry.

Does Superman take out those forces? Or simply avoid those countries while he continues helping people elsewhere? No, he gives up. Because comic books can't handle the idea that god-like beings would change the world in fundamental ways.Weird.He ends up teaching kids one by one how to grow food using his childhood farming skills. Following the old "teach a person to fish" idea. This teaching project is never mentioned again.

It obviously was a half-hearted attempt to deal with the social issues comics normally avoid. There's no good solution to this storytelling problem. Either superheroes transform the world beyond recognition, or comics remain unrealistic fairy tales for kids.It's just weird that they wouldn't go with option #2 and just blame the idea's failings on human vice. To have Superman "give up" and do nothing just seems fundamentally flawed.

But you see the same thing in sci-fi where revolutionary new technologies are invented or discovered and then essentially have no effect on life anywhere.I think the in-story explanation for Superman's resignation was that "human vice" made the project untenable. I.e., that too many people would undermine his noble efforts for selfish reasons.

Which might be a realistic outcome if he'd fought world hunger for 10-20 years and found he wasn't getting anywhere. But to literally encounter two minor setbacks and give up on saving millions of lives? No.

Federation = paradise?

Speaking of sci-fi and revolutionary technologies:

Yeah, Star Trek's magic food-and-object replicator should've changed the Federation beyond recognition. No farming communities, no Quark's bar, no illegal gun-running, etc. Why bother when you can make your own food, drink, or weapons in the privacy of your home?

Every Federation world that embraces technology should be a paradise. Which probably explains why we don't see much of Earth in Trek stories. No one dares to portray a world without poverty, hunger, or conflict.They did show Earth in a number of episodes and it IS a paradise where people, it would seem, largely do whatever they feel like doing without needing to have occupations or obligations.Outside of Enterprise, the Academy, and time-travel stories, I'd say they didn't show much of Earth. Certainly not in the 23rd and 24th centuries.

Yeah, Earth is supposed to be a paradise. So...can people have an unlimited number of children, or what? What prevents a large number of obligation-free people from engaging in constant sex, drugs, and virtual realities? There's presumably a world government with a president...so what political issues do they fight over during elections?

Where are all the other paradise worlds and empires, since they all have the same technology? How does the ability to replicate an infinite amount of resources affect the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, et al.? Why were they fighting over quadrotriticale when the Federation could whip up as much of it as anyone could eat?

None of the shows address any of this. And the same applies to energy (antimatter power generation) and transportation (teleportation). These technologies should cause radical transformations in every known civilization.

Trading without money?

Let's see...there's no money, although characters have talked about saving credits and doubling salaries. No money means no real economy. So how do countries and planets engage in trade? If they need a limited resource such as dilithium, how does it get allocated to interested parties?

Earth's government undertakes huge projects such as building and running Starfleet. Does it still tax people, and what do they pay with? If not, how do resources flow to the government? Do billions of people each donate 10% of their nonexistent money to the government voluntarily, or what?

As I said, no one involved in Trek has even begun to describe how this so-called paradise would work. They can't because it would mean declaring capitalism is bad and unlimited sex and drugs are good. Hence my previous comment: "No one dares to portray a world without poverty, hunger, or conflict."Yes, because that would be [gasp] COMMUNISM!

Which I gather is what The Federation essentially is. If you have 100% renewable energy and replicators that can make anything you need, why do you need an economy OR taxes?I assume replicators just rearrange molecules. If they can actually change lead into gold--or gold latinum--that's another whole problem. So there should still be scarce resources. Dilithium and other minerals are the usual example.

And that means trade, which is a constant factor in the Trek stories. But trade of what? Is everything done on a barter basis? That's unworkable for any group larger than a few hundred people, but I'd love to see it explained on a planetary scale.

An enterprise such as Starfleet requires millions of people to plan, design, build, and maintain things, even if you can replicate the raw materials. It requires ditch diggers, gardeners, plumbers, electricians, and many other jobs that aren't that popular without money. Who's doing all this dirty work?

Are people literally choosing these careers out of love, with no remuneration other than a pat on the back? Because so many people prefer physical labor to unlimited sex and drugs? And does the number of workers needed magically equal the number of people seeking work? Yeah, right...tell me another fairy tale.

Communism? I don't think communism has ever worked on a large scale. So again, tell me how it functions in the Federation. Show it to me on screen or in a novel and then I'll believe it.

For more on Star Trek, see Colonialism Inspired Science Fiction and Star Trek vs. Star Wars.

Indigenous Comix Month at Ad Astra

Here's a posting from April that I just came across:

April Is Indigenous Comix Month!That means a long-awaited feature here at Ad Astra Comix… taking a look at the vast expanse of the category of “Indigenous Comics.” That is: comics by, for, and/or about Indigenous people, history, culture, and politics. We understand that we have a lot of ground to cover this month… so let’s get started!

Perhaps the first point of note is that Indigenous people have never lacked for sheer presence in comics, per se. As can be seen in our feature banner, stereotypical depictions of a mythical–indeed magical–“noble savage” have graced many a pulpy page for decades. Just as popular are protagonists who are in fact white, who have adopted a “native way of life,” insofar as the white creators were able to perceive what that even is. This month, we’ll be looking at that history, and how the example of Indigenous representation in comics can perhaps demonstrate how the question of diversity in the comics community is a little trickier than simply “diversifying” the characters…The page links to seven features:

Rebranding Canada with Comics: Sean Carlton looks at the new "War of 1812: Forged in Fire" and the Continuing Co-optation of Tecumseh

"Arctic Dreams & Nightmares"--Into the Art of Alootook Ipellie

We interviewed James Waley, comics creator and editor of the ONE TRIBE comics anthology helping to fundraise for First Nations schools!

"Extraction! Comix Reportage" Investigates the Canadian Mining Industry's Impact on Indigenous communities at Home and Abroad

An Interview with Lee IV of the Indigenous Narratives Collective!

Taking a Critical Look at the Vertigo Series "Scalped"

DC Comics Releases New Superhero Inspired by Indigenous Youth Activist Shannen Koostachin

Comment:  I wouldn't say any of these articles are must-reads. But they show some of the diversity in today's Native comics. Especially in Canadian comics, which don't have much visibility here in the US.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Comics.

Trelise Cooper's models in headdresses

Fashion Week: Feathers flying

By Morgan TaitThe inclusion of an Indian-style headdresses in designer Trelise Cooper's fashion show last night has ruffled feathers and brought accusations of racism.

Dame Trelise's show, as part of New Zealand Fashion Week, featured "70s bohemian vibes" with models wearing native-American and Canadian First Nations' feathered headdresses.

The garments--which have deep cultural significance--quickly drew a backlash from show guests and online.

New Zealand film director Taika Waititi was amongst those offended by the move.

"I think I understand what Trelise means by "70s vibes"--a time when it was cool to be culturally insensitive and racism was super awesome. Nice throw back to better times, babe, we native people celebrate with you," he wrote on a photo of a headdress wearing model posted to the Trelise Cooper Facebook page.

Melbourne-based lawyer and journalist Di White took to Twitter to express her thoughts.

"Hey @trelisecooper, Indian headdresses are not yours to wear. This is cultural appropriation & super offensive," she wrote.

The message was re-tweeted more than 50 times.

Also on Twitter, Kiwi comedian Jeremy Elwood--who hails from Canada--made his distaste about the items known.

"@trelisecooper Actually I think you'll find those are racist, plagiarized, white trash hipster vibes. You should be ashamed."

What does a Native American headdress have to do with fashion in New Zealand? Kiwi designer forced to apologise after including Indian accessory in her show

Dame Trelise Cooper has caused an uproar by featuring Indian feather headdresses in her show at New Zealand fashion week

By Richard Shears and Leesa SmithA leading New Zealand fashion designer has sent critics and fans on the warpath after staging a show featuring American Indian feather headdresses.

Dame Trelise Cooper has now issued a grovelling apology for featuring the spectacular headdresses in her show as part of New Zealand fashion week, admitting it was a mistake due to her ignorance.

Critics took to social media to pan the headdress feature as culturally obnoxious, one asking if it would now be in order to bind Dame Trelise's feet like the Chinese used to do to women in times gone by.

In an apology she posted on Facebook, the fashion guru said today that she genuinely respected and honoured all cultures, races and religions.

'It was never my intention to disrespect another culture.

'It is my hope that through my mistake and ignorance, like me, people now know and are aware of the sacredness of the head dress to Native Americans,' she wrote.

'To those who I have offended, I sincerely apologise.'

The designer's Facebook page has exploded with comments opposed to the Indian theme.

'This is appallingly offensive cultural appropriation. I see you're deleting comments about this too.

'Would love to see some accountability for this--you put it on the runway, you have to defend your poor choices,' Morgan Ashworth posted after Cooper's apology.

Designer apologises for using headdressA Maori United Nations advocate and a board member of a native American organisation, Carl Hutchby of Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, said ignorance was not an excuse in this day and age.

He said he was offended for his First Nation brothers and sisters that it happened in Aotearoa, and said Maori felt the pain of other indigenous people when their culture was used inappropriately.

Mr Hutchby said he had spoken to a Cherokee elder, Mashu White Feather, who was disgusted with the use of the ceremonial headdress. He said as far as he understood, it was not appropriate for women to wear them.Trelise Cooper’s apology labelled ‘disingenuous’But Dr Peter Shand is questioning her apology, saying that there's been plenty of fashion events overseas that have recently made headlines for the misuse of 'war bonnets'.

"lf she's going to claim ignorance of what's gone on overseas that means she's not in touch with international fashion, for one of the leading fashion designers in New Zealand, that would seem highly unlikely."

Auckland Mayor Len Brown, who was sitting in front row of the show yesterday, says he believes "her apology is an absolute indication of her integrity.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Natives Protest Nugest in Sturgis, Vogue Editor in a Headdress, and Mayonnaise Manager Dresses as "Indian."

Republican: Only good Indian is dead

Hagedorn apologizes for old posts about Indians, women, gays

By Heather J. CarlsonFirst District Republican candidate Jim Hagedorn is apologizing for old blog posts that targeted Indians, gays and women.

On his Facebook page, Hagedorn wrote that he had written political satire years ago and "even though most of my writing were composed more than 10 years ago, national and DFL liberals are determined to attack me personally, mostly by exhibiting snippets of out-dated, misunderstood or out-of-context material and calling me derogatory names."

Nonetheless, Hagedorn wrote that "I do acknowledge that some of my hard-hitting and tongue-in-cheek commentary was less than artfully constructed or included language that could lead to hurt feelings. I offer a sincere and heartfelt apology."

Hagedorn won an upset victory in the Aug. 12 Republican primary over the party-endorsed candidate Aaron Miller, of Byron. The Blue Earth Republican will take on 1st District DFL Rep. Tim Walz in November.

Hagedorn wrote the posts between 2002 and 2008 on a blog called Mr. Conservative. Among the posts was one that referred to alleged voter fraud in the 2002 South Dakota election involving American Indians. He wrote that "Many of the votes registered for absentee ballots were found to be chiefs and squaws who returned to the spirit world many moons ago." He went on to write, "Leave it to liberals to ruin John Wayne's wisdom of the only good Indian being a dead Indian." Another referred to two Washington senators as "bimbos in tennis shoes."Comment:  The only thing "out-dated" about Hagedorn's comments are the racism and sexism he evinces.

"Misunderstood" or "out-of-context"? There's no context that makes his racism towards Natives acceptable. Certainly not "tongue-in-cheek commentary" or "satire." He wasn't satirizing someone else's beliefs, he was expressing his own. This is what he thinks about Natives, and it's racist.

The only question is how racist Hagedorn is, not whether he's racist.

His first comment about Natives merely shows his ignorant and stereotypical thinking. It's not overtly hateful, although consigning Natives to the past is a belittling and dismissive act.

His second comment is overtly hateful. He's basically wishing Natives dead. There's no excuse, none, for this hate speech.

This is the type of person who exemplifies conservative Americans. Judging by the comments in mascot debates, many people would agree with Hagedorn's remarks. Natives are "chiefs and squaws" who should've disappeared long ago. Who have no business telling white people what to do with their beloved Native fantasies.

Origin of "savage"

Los Indios, Indians, Savage, Noble Savage, Native American

By ESC"Seventeenth-century Frenchmen, Italians, and Englishmen generally employed a variant of the Latin 'silvaticus,' meaning a forest inhabitant or man of the woods, for the Indian as the earlier spellings of 'saulvage,' 'salvaticho,' and 'salvage' show so well in each of the respective languages. English usage switched from 'savage' to 'Indian' as the general term for Native Americans in the seventeenth century, but the French continued to use 'sauvage' as the preferred word into the nineteenth century. The original image behind this terminology probably derives from the ancient one associated with the 'wild man,' or 'wilder Mann' in Germany."An online dictionary confirms this:

savage1250-1300; Middle English savage, sauvage (adj.) < Middle French sauvage, salvage < Medieval Latin salvāticus, for Latin silvāticus, equivalent to silv (a) woods + -āticus adj. suffixComment:  So "savage" the adjective came from the same root as "sylvan" and meant "of the woods." Interesting.

For more on the subject, see Savage Indians.

Cultural appropriation of totem poles

Appropriation (?) of the Month: First Nation Totem Poles

By Robin R. R. Gray[T]he appropriation of totem poles in the market economy occurred at the same time that government agents and others who were eager to exploit Indigenous vulnerability were confiscating First Nations cultural heritage. Between 1884 and 1951, the Potlatch Ban in Canada created the conditions to support the mass expropriation of First Nations cultural heritage, and this is how many totem poles became displaced from their origins and confined in places like museums across the world. This is the first major appropriation of totem poles—taking the creations of the ancestors out of their contexts to be sold and scattered across the landscape in museums, in parks, in world fairs and in major tourist areas in spite of Indigenous peoples basic human rights. In fact, there was a rush to acquire as many tangible Indigenous artifacts because racist theories of human development suggested that somehow our people were destined to disappear into extinction. Thus, totem poles came to be associated with primitive and universal Indigeneity.

Meanwhile, in true paradoxical fashion, the image of the totem pole was being appropriated by the state as a signifier of Canadian-ness and the task of achieving this level of image making was accomplished mainly through the mass-production of miniature totem poles for the tourist art market. Thus, while Northwest Coast First Nations were being penalized for practicing their so-called “backward” cultures, non-Indigenous peoples were commodifying their cultural heritage, like the totem pole, for monetary gain. In so doing, the totem pole has been taken out of context through displacement, through the Western curatorial practice of preservation and through the misrepresentation of its image as a symbol of primitive and universal Indigeneity or as an icon of Canadian identity. When anything is taken out of context, misrepresentation is bound to occur. No people know this more than Indigenous peoples."Low man on totem pole"

What about the phrase "low man on the totem pole"?Over the past half century, the phrase, "low man on the/a totem pole," has been used in an attempt to communicate a sense of disempowerment and hierarchy (image at left). This phrase is especially prevalent in corporate culture, but occurs in everyday talk between friends and peers, and circulates via various media like print, radio, television and online forums. I hear the phrase being used, uncritically, from students and teachers to characters on popular TV shows like Grey's Anatomy or NCIS, for example. In this seemingly innocent everyday utterance, the totem pole has been appropriated to convey information that is unassociated with its origin, meaning or utility. Yet those who use this phrase imply that they “know” totem poles to be vertical columns that organize images in a linear hierarchy. Essentially, non-Indigenous ways of knowing and being have been superimposed upon the totem pole through discourse, thereby redefining totem poles on non-Indigenous terms, and robbing them of their Indigenous meaning and context.

In fact, in one online forum a commenter asks whether it is appropriate or not to use the phrase. Multiple responses arose but they all utilized a linear model for explanation. For example, to avoid being labeled discriminatory many of the anonymous online forum participants simply inverted the linear hierarchy to state that they “heard” that the lowest figure is actually most revered since it is “closest to the land.” Therefore, the commentators insisted, they are actually being “respectful” to a monolithic “Native American culture,” so it is okay to use the phrase, “low man on the/a totem pole.” Yet, following this logic, people would then start saying “high man on the totem pole,” in order to convey what they intended: hierarchy and disempowerment. One must ask, why won’t “lowest rung on the ladder” suffice? Doesn’t this make more sense? Ladders you actually climb, totem poles you don’t.Comment:  For more on totem poles, see Big Heap Herman in The Munsters and Jeremy Scott's Yellow-Crotch Designs.

Run of the Arrow

I haven't seen the movie Run of the Arrow, but I saw this comment about it somewhere:For Run of the Arrow (1957), Fuller boldly cast real Native Americans. "It was the first picture where the Indians won."Curious, I checked it out and found these reviews:

Run of the Arrow (1957)

By Bosley CrowtherSeveral film historians, notably the late William K. Everson, have noted the striking resemblances between Run of the Arrow and the 1990 Oscar-winner Dances with Wolves. Rod Steiger stars as O'Meara, an Irish-brogued Confederate soldier with an intense dislike for Yankees. Unable to accept the South's defeat, O'Meara heads westward after the Civil War, to start life anew amongst the Sioux Indians. Surving a ritual rite of passage called the Run of the Arrow, O'Meara is accepted into the tribe, and shortly afterward marries Sioux woman Yellow Moccasin (played by Spanish actress Sarita Montiel, whose voice was dubbed by Angie Dickinson). The true test of O'Meara's fidelity to the Sioux comes when his adopted people come into conflict with a Cavalry troop, headed by Northerner Captain Clark (Brian Keith).Run of the Arrow (1957)

August 3, 1957
Screen: 'Run of the Arrow'; Steiger 'Stars in New Film at the Palace

By Bosley CrowtherTHE Sioux Indians and the United States Cavalry are mixing it up again in Samuel Fuller's "Run of the Arrow," which came to the Palace yesterday with a new stage bill. The blood and warpaint look good in color. The plot looks pretty much as it always has.

That is to say, a Confederate soldier, embittered after the Civil War, goes to the West, joins a Sioux tribe and takes unto himself a beautiful Indian maid as squaw. When the cavalry comes into the region to build itself a fort, this naturalized Sioux, still sore at the Yankees, is attached to accompany it as scout.

Then along comes a renegade Indian—there's always one in every decent, respectable tribe—and starts shooting arrows at the soldiers. As usual, this means war! The cavalry goes after the Indians, the Indians retaliate. The first thing you know, tents are burning and everybody is having a high old time.

Meanwhile, what's with our turncoat? Well, the cavalry blame him at first, and that damyankee he all but killed at Appomattox is all for stringing him up. But then the Indians arrive, take over and are skinning the damyankee alive, which so horrifies our ex-Confederate that he—guess what!

Don't expect "Fort Apache." This is just an ordinary cavalry-Indian film, conspicuous for a lot of raw blood-letting and the appearance of Rod Steiger in the leading role. Mr. Steiger, familiar as a sullen tough guy in a number of gangster films, slightly overworks the Actors Studio method out there on the dusty frontier.A Man Without a Country:  Sam Fuller's Run of the Arrow

By William JonesRun of the Arrow is notably similar to—and notably better than—Kevin Costner's Dances With Wolves. Both films are about a Civil War soldier who joins the Sioux nation, but the lengthy, slow-going Costner vehicle suffers from all sorts of excessiveness and look-at-me self-consciousness—traits that are (admirably) absent from Fuller's film.

There's a huge chasm that separates these two similar-on-the-surface but stylistically different movies and the great film critic Manny Farber really nailed it (for me anyway) in a famous essay written many years ago entitled "White Elephant Art vs. Termite Art."

Here, Costner's is the lumbering, overly praised and prized (it won the Academy Award for Best Picture) prestige film while Run of the Arrow is the modest but fast-paced, low-budget yet laudable "B" picture. You'd be wise to pass on the former (Costner's white elephant) and seek out the later (Fuller's industrious termite).Run of the ArrowKarl Wielgus 12/3/08
Cliches about the Civil War, about the "frontier," about "Indians" about the simplicity of the human character," about the ways we can characterize people into simple codes of good and evil--all are exploded. Before "Broken Arrow," before "Dances with Wolves" this movie shows more than we have seen in westerns or movies in general. Even the "villain" (Ralph Meeker) is not a cardboard cutout. People act because they have made themselves into a certain way of seeing the world--this brings out conflicts and there are no simple villains. The very act that begins the story and the drama, also ends it--but the meaning changes. A great piece of work!

Goetan 4/29/14
An ugly, off-beat Western from director Fuller. Steiger, with a thick accent and a intense performances, is a rouge Southerner who can't accept his loss in the Civil War and joins a Sioux tribe; Monteil was dubbed by Angie Dickinson. Fuller's examinations of civilization, ethnic identity is weak and doesn't have the same impact as his later films. Fine, but dull. I give it a 3/5.Comment:  I don't see any Native names in the cast, so I question whether Fuller "boldly cast real Native Americans." Even if he did, it wouldn't have been that bold, since Natives have appeared in movies since the early 1900s.

Also, Broken Arrow (1950) preceded Run of the Arrow by seven years.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

The Last Wave

The Last WaveThe Last Wave or Black Rain (US title) is an Australian film from 1977, directed by Peter Weir. It is about a white solicitor in Sydney whose seemingly normal life is disrupted after he takes on a murder case and discovers that he shares a strange, mystical connection with the small group of local Australian Aborigines accused of the crime.

Plagued by bizarre dreams, Burton begins to sense an otherworldly connection to one of the accused (David Gulpilil). He also feels connected to the increasingly strange weather phenomena besetting the city. His dreams intensify along with his obsession with the murder case, which he comes to believe is an Aboriginal tribal killing by curse, in which the victim believed. Learning more about Aboriginal practices and the concept of Dreamtime as a parallel world of existence, Burton comes to believe the strange weather bodes of a coming apocalypse.

The film climaxes in a confrontation between the lawyer and the tribe's shaman in a subterranean sacred site.The Last WaveThe Last Wave shared similar mystical and occult elements with Weir's previous film but also explored the cultural disconnect between white urban society and the laws and legends of aboriginal tribal people. More importantly, the film moves ominously back and forth between a dream world and a natural one in which frogs fall from the sky, water pours out of car radios and hailstorms suddenly erupt without warning in the dusty, arid Outback. While the film could be read as an early warning of the global warming effects to come, the underlaying tension and power of this quietly menacing thriller comes from Weir's use of symbols and mythology to question Australia's identity and its future.

Pauline Kael of The New Yorker wrote, "The plot of this Australian film is a throwback to the B-movies of the 30s and early 40s, and the dialogue...is vintage RKO and Universal..But it's hokum without the fun of hokum; despite all the scare-movie apparatus, this film fairly aches to be called profound." Vincent Canby of The New York Times was more positive, calling the film, "a movingly moody shock-film, composed entirely of the kind of variations on mundane behavior and events that are most scary and disorienting because they so closely parallel the normal." The film's reputation has grown since then thanks to a DVD release on the esteemed Criterion Collection label and is essential viewing for anyone interested in Peter Weir's development as a director. The Last Wave is also worth a look alone for Russell Boyd's ravishing and magical cinematography which depicts an exotic but unsettling side of Sydney and the Australian Outback rarely seen in movies.The Last Wave (The Criterion Collection)"A dream is a shadow...of something real"
By Wing J. Flanagan on July 28, 2001

Peter Weir's The Last Wave has very much the texture of a beautiful, disturbing dream. Before going Hollywood and losing his artistic teeth, he made evocative little gems like this one--full of unformed dread and pregnant with the possibility of mythic revelation.

Eerie, evocative, and haunting
By Stephen Chakwin on August 18, 1999

Our modern, rational culture floats like a small boat on a huge, dark ocean of unguessable depth. Richard Chamberlain, in perhaps his best role ever, is a lawyer specializing in the arid technicalities of corporate taxation who is, by chance [well no, not really, as it turns out] drawn into the Shamanic world of the tribal aborigines who, unknown to most people, still inhabit Sydney, Australia.

Shocking, haunting, evocative
By Kali on November 1, 2000

This is a thinking-person's film. It is slow moving but suspenseful and the plot is sometimes complicated but never confusing. Well worth adding to your video collection if you want something excitingly different and intellectually stimulating.Rob's comments

Besides its indigenous (Australian) themes, The Last Wave has a few connections to Native America:

The Aborigines indicate their ancestors came from South America. Which would make them all or part Native. But no serious anthropologist believes that happened.

Some of the cave paintings look Latin American or Egyptian.

Chamberlain is supposedly part Native. According to Weir, his looks made him right for the role.

My take is that The Last Wave was entertaining but not gripping or compelling. I give it a 7.5 of 10.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.

Why your intentions don't matter

Intent vs Impact: Why Your Intentions Don’t Really Matter

When you’ve hurt someone, whether you meant to or not, what matters is how you repair the situation.

By Everyday FeminismImagine for a moment that you’re standing with your friends in a park, enjoying a nice summer day.

You don’t know me, but I walk right up to you holding a Frisbee.

I wind up–and throw the disc right into your face.

Understandably, you are indignant.

Through a bloody nose, you use a few choice words to ask me what the hell I thought I was doing.

And my response?

“Oh, I didn’t mean to hit you! That was never my intent! I was simply trying to throw the Frisbee to my friend over there!”

Visibly upset, you demand an apology.

But I refuse. Or worse, I offer an apology that sounds like “I’m sorry your face got in the way of my Frisbee! I never intended to hit you.”

Sound absurd? Sound infuriating enough to give me a well-deserved Frisbee upside the head?

Yeah.

So why is this same thing happening all of the time when it comes to the intersection of our identities and oppressions or privileges?

Intent v. Impact

From Paula Deen to Alec Baldwin to your annoying, bigoted uncle or friend, we hear it over and over again: “I never meant any harm…” “It was never my intent…” “I am not a racist…” “I am not a homophobe…” “I’m not a sexist…”

I cannot tell you how often I’ve seen people attempt to deflect criticism about their oppressive language or actions by making the conversation about their intent.

At what point does the “intent” conversation stop mattering so that we can step back and look at impact?

After all, in the end, what does the intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the marginalization or oppression of those around us?

In some ways, this is a simple lesson of relationships.

If I say something that hurts my partner, it doesn’t much matter whether I intended the statement to mean something else–because my partner is hurting.

I need to listen to how my language hurt my partner. I need to apologize.

And then I need to reflect and empathize to the best of my ability so I don’t do it again.

But when we’re dealing with the ways in which our identities intersect with those around us–and, in turn, the ways our privileges and our experiences of marginalization and oppression intersect–this lesson becomes something much larger and more profound.

This becomes a lesson of justice.

What we need to realize is that when it comes to people’s lives and identities, the impact of our actions can be profound and wide-reaching.

And that’s far more important than the question of our intent.

We need to ask ourselves what might be or might have been the impact of our actions or words.

And we need to step back and listen when we are being told that the impact of our actions is out of step with our intents or our perceptions of self.Comment:  For more on the subject, see The Magical Power of Intent.

Tea Party = Confederate Party

Not a Tea Party, a Confederate Party

Tea Partiers say you don’t understand them because you don’t understand American history. That’s probably true, but not in the way they want you to think.

By Doug Muder[T]he enduring Confederate influence on American politics goes far beyond a few rhetorical tropes. The essence of the Confederate worldview is that the democratic process cannot legitimately change the established social order, and so all forms of legal and illegal resistance are justified when it tries.

That worldview is alive and well. During last fall’s government shutdown and threatened debt-ceiling crisis, historian Garry Wills wrote about our present-day Tea Partiers: “The presiding spirit of this neo-secessionism is a resistance to majority rule.”

The Confederate sees a divinely ordained way things are supposed to be, and defends it at all costs. No process, no matter how orderly or democratic, can justify fundamental change.

When in the majority, Confederates protect the established order through democracy. If they are not in the majority, but have power, they protect it through the authority of law. If the law is against them, but they have social standing, they create shams of law, which are kept in place through the power of social disapproval. If disapproval is not enough, they keep the wrong people from claiming their legal rights by the threat of ostracism and economic retribution. If that is not intimidating enough, there are physical threats, then beatings and fires, and, if that fails, murder.

That was the victory plan of Reconstruction. Black equality under the law was guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. But in the Confederate mind, no democratic process could legitimate such a change in the social order. It simply could not be allowed to stand, and it did not stand.

In the 20th century, the Confederate pattern of resistance was repeated against the Civil Rights movement. And though we like to claim that Martin Luther King won, in many ways he did not. School desegregation, for example, was never viewed as legitimate, and was resisted at every level. And it has been overcome. By most measures, schools are as segregated as ever, and the opportunities in white schools still far exceed the opportunities in non-white schools.

Today, ObamaCare cannot be accepted. No matter that it was passed by Congress, signed by the President, found constitutional by the Supreme Court, and ratified by the people when they re-elected President Obama. It cannot be allowed to stand, and so the tactics for destroying it get ever more extreme. The point of violence has not yet been reached, but the resistance is still young.

Violence is a key component of the present-day strategy against abortion rights, as Judge Myron Thompson’s recent ruling makes clear. Legal, political, social, economic, and violent methods of resistance mesh seamlessly. The Alabama legislature cannot ban abortion clinics directly, so it creates reasonable-sounding regulations the clinics cannot satisfy, like the requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Why can’t they fulfill that requirement? Because hospitals impose the reasonable-sounding rule that their doctors live and practice nearby, while many Alabama abortionists live out of state. The clinics can’t replace them with local doctors, because protesters will harass the those doctors’ non-abortion patients and drive the doctors out of any business but abortion. A doctor who chooses that path will face threats to his/her home and family. And doctors who ignore such threats have been murdered.

Legislators, of course, express horror at the murder of doctors, just as the pillars of 1960s Mississippi society expressed horror at the Mississippi Burning murders, and the planter aristocrats shook their heads sadly at the brutality of the KKK and the White Leagues. But the strategy is all of a piece and always has been. Change cannot stand, no matter what documents it is based on or who votes for them. If violence is necessary, so be it.‘Hatriots’ in Action: Conservatives Push for Armed Rebellion if Obama is Not Impeached

By Josh KilburnIt’s easy to prove that the political right-wing hates the United States; every action that they’ve taken has been the antithesis of what they’ve claimed. They may swear by democracy, and claim loyalty to the Constitution with one breath, while with the other, despise the very foundation of this country, the Constitution, and the multiculturalism that makes this country so strong.

Remember that in 2012, a Virginia Republican Committee newsletter openly called for armed rebellion if President Obama was re-elected. This is not how you support democracy. Over the last week, the Republicans have been pushing hard to impeach or sue Obama for doing his job when the Republicans in congress refused to do theirs—this is not how you support democracy.

Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman, warned that if “Republicans are too afraid to challenge presumptuous dictatorial behavior, then the war is already lost and we should stock up our ammunition shelves and join a militia.”

Last month, one such right-winger, Mike Vanderbogh, stood before a crowd of fellow terrorist militia members and declared “This administration, this regime, seems to operate ever more increasingly as a lawless gang than not on the rule of law but rather on the rule of men—which is to say the law of the jungle, enforced by the iron fist of government power,” and that “We will vote with our guns.” It’s gotten so bad that there is almost no way to tell the difference between the right wingers and the jihadists in the Middle East.Comment:  or more on conservative racism, see Right-Wing Terrorism Worse Than Jihadism and Conservatives Want a Race War.

Announcers say no to "Redskins"

Simms, Dungy likely not to use ‘Redskins’ on TV

By Associated PressTwo influential NFL voices—including CBS lead analyst Phil Simms, who will handle Washington’s Week 4 game—said Monday they likely won’t use the term “Redskins” when discussing the franchise.

“My very first thought is it will be Washington the whole game,” Simms told The Associated Press on Monday.

Simms will work the Thursday night package the network acquired this season and will have Giants-Redskins on Sept. 25. He isn’t taking sides in the debate over whether Washington’s nickname is offensive or racist. But he says he is sensitive to the complaints about the name, and his instincts now are to not use Redskins in his announcing.

“I never really thought about it, and then it came up and it made me think about it,” Simms added. “There are a lot of things that can come up in a broadcast, and I am sensitive to this.”

His broadcast partner, Jim Nantz, says it is “not my job to take a stance.”

NBC’s Tony Dungy, one of the most prominent voices in the league as a Super Bowl-winning coach and now as a studio commentator, plans to take the same route as Simms.

“I will personally try not to use Redskins and refer to them as Washington,” Dungy said in an email. “Personal opinion for me, not the network.”Greg Gumbel also won't say 'Redskins' on air; Michael Irvin: I usually say 'Washington'

By Dom CosentinoActually, Greg Gumbel said, he hasn't uttered the nickname of Washington's NFL franchise on the air for some time now.

"I told our PR department this summer: I haven't used that nickname on the air in three years," said Gumbel, the No. 2 NFL play-by-play voice for CBS Sports. "It's just a personal choice; I just didn't feel like I needed to call a news conference and announce it to everybody."

Both CBS and Fox, the networks that carry the NFL's Sunday afternoon games, have left it up to their on-air talent to decide whether to use Washington's nickname during telecasts. Gumbel only admitted he's refrained from using the name because NJ.com asked him about it.

It is not known how many of Washington's games, if any, Gumbel has worked the last three years. CBS's Sunday afternoon package includes games involving AFC teams, plus interconference when the AFC team is on the road. Gumbel avoided using the nickname even once during his brief interview with NJ.com.

Conservatives, Klan agree about Ferguson

Poll: Blacks Twice As Likely To Say Ferguson Raises Issues About Race

By Caitlin MacNealEighty percent of blacks said that the shooting raises issues about race, while only 37 percent of whites believe so.

And 47 percent of whites think that the situation in Ferguson is getting too much attention, while only 18 percent of African-Americans believe that to be the case, according to Pew.

Responses to the police reaction were divided along racial lines as well. Sixty-five percent of blacks said that the police have gone to far in their response to protests following the shooting, and 33 percent of whites said police went too far.

Reactions were also divided along party lines, according to Pew. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats believe the shooting raises concerns about race, while only 22 percent of Republicans said so.Confirming the poll results, white people express their racist disdain for black people:

White St. Louis Has Some Awful Things to Say About Ferguson

By Julia IoffeHere in Olivette, the people I spoke to showed little sympathy for Michael Brown, or the protesters.

"It's bullshit," said one woman, who declined to give her name. When I asked her to clarify what, specifically, was bullshit, she said, "All of it. I don't even know what they're fighting for."

"It's just a lot of misplaced anger," said one teenage boy, echoing his parents. He wasn't sure where the anger should be, just that there should be no anger at all, and definitely no stealing.

"Our opinion," said the talkative one in a group of six women in their sixties sitting outside the Starbucks, "is the media should just stay out of it because they're riling themselves up even more."

"The protesters like seeing themselves on TV," her friend added.

"It's just a small group of people making trouble," said another.

"The kid wasn't really innocent," chimed in a woman at the other end of the table (they all declined to give their names). "He was struggling with the cop, and he's got a rap sheet already, so he's not that innocent." (While the first point is in dispute, the second isn't: The police have said that Michael Brown had no criminal record.)

If anything, the people here were disdainful and, mostly, scared—of the protesters, and, implicitly, of black people.

"I don't think it's about justice for Michael Brown's family," said the teenage boy. "It's just an excuse for people to do whatever they want to do."And of course conservatives have begun to demonize Michael Brown the unarmed youth. Just as they did with Trayvon Martin. Just as they do with every brown victim so they can feel good about their bigotry.

Far Right Says Michael Brown's Raps Show He Was 'A Criminal And A Thug'

By Dylan ScottFrontPage magazine, the online home of David Horowitz, whose self-described mission is to battle the radical left, labeled Brown "a criminal and a thug" in its summary of his character, which featured the rap lyrics.

"The fact that Brown liked performing thug music obviously doesn’t by itself make him a thug, but it does provide insight into his state of mind," the site said. "The same can be said for the photographs that have surfaced of Brown posing like a tough guy, making gestures with his hands that some say are gang signs."

FrontPage magazine, and others, connected Brown's rap lyrics with the police report released Friday that said he was the "primary suspect" in a convenience store robbery that occurred minutes before he was shot. That report's release, which was reportedly opposed by the Justice Department, has been criticized by Brown's family and public officials as an attempt to paint a negative public image of Brown.

"Well, this kind of destroys the ‘gentle giant’ narrative spun in the media," ClashDaily, the website of Doug Giles, who occasionally writes for the more well-known TownHall.com, said in its summary of Brown's songs.

The conspiratorial website World Net Daily connected Brown's professed marijuana smoking in the songs with his alleged robbery of some cigarillos--which are "widely known to be used by marijuana smokers, who roll their own blunts by replacing the cigarillos’ tobacco with pot"--on the day of the shooting.Have you heard conservatives express sympathy for a brown victim of crime? I don't think I have. Predictably, they take the side of any white person who kills a brown person.

Of course, even if Brown was a murderer, there's no excuse for shooting an unarmed man. So this demonization isn't a legitimate excuse for Darren Wilson the killer cop. It's an illegitimate excuse for whites to vent their racist beliefs about blacks.



White Tea Party Republicans Stage Rally Supporting Cop Who Killed Michael Brown

By Josh KilburnA different type of protest occurred on Sunday outside of Ferguson, where police officer Darren Wilson murdered unarmed teenager Michael Brown. Around 150 people gathered for the afternoon demonstration in St. Louis, 12 miles southeast of Ferguson, to complain that the officer, Darren Wilson, was being victimized and to show their support for the St. Louis PD.

No, you read that right. They showed up to support the police officer who murdered an unarmed teenager.

At this point, it should go without saying that most of these protesters were white. But not only were they White, they were too scared to actually go into Ferguson proper with their signs, so they protested in St. Louis, instead. Way to stand for those beliefs.

The pro-police demonstrators said that they were looking to “draw a contrast” with what they called “the other side”—that is, the people calling out for justice after the murder. The organizers told the attendees in an online message before that “we will be the example of what peaceful means. No offensive signs, we are for support. If the other side should show up, we will not argue or fight.”

In keeping with their “high road” approach, they concocted all sorts of excuses to explain why a white police officer might gun down an unarmed black teenager. One said that”an officer doesn’t have xray vision,” while another said that Wilson “did what he had to do,” and added that “no officer is going to go further than they need to.” Many members of the group even doubt the veracity of the version of events offered by the people who witnessed the shooting, planting the seeds for yet more Alex Jones-style conspiracy theories.Ku Klux Klan agrees

“He is a hero”: Why the KKK is raising money for Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown

Desperate for publicity and any opportunity to spread hate, the KKK said more white cops should follow suit

By Don TerryThe Southern Poverty Law Center The one thing the racially charged and besieged city of Ferguson, Mo. does not need or want to add to the combustible mix of rubber bullets, snarling police dogs and clouds of tear gas that have filled its streets for three days is the Ku Klux Klan.

But the Klan––desperate for publicity and any opportunity to spread hate and terror––is climbing atop the powder keg that Ferguson has become following the police killing of an unarmed college-bound black teenager last Saturday.

The South Carolina-based New Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan says its Missouri chapter is raising money for the still unidentified white police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, 18, who was scheduled to begin college classes this week.

“We are setting up a reward/fund for the police officer who shot this thug,” the Klan group said in an email. “He is a hero! We need more white cops who are anti-Zog and willing to put Jewish controlled black thugs in their place. Most cops are cowards and do nothing while 90% of interracial crime is black (and non-white) on white.”Tea Partiers Join KKK in Raising Blood Money for Michael Brown’s Killer

The KKK is Headed to Ferguson to Back Shooting of ‘N*gger Criminal’ and ‘Protect White Businesses’

By John PragerOn Friday, the KKK announced plans to hold a fundraiser to raise “reward” money for Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot “typical low-IQ negro” Michael Brown.

“With the police state in Ferguson, we will be holding our fundraiser in Sullivan City, MO,” the Klantastic announcement read. “Donations of $10 and up. All money will go to the cop who did his job against the negro criminal.”

New Empire Knights Imperial Wizard Charles Murray said in the comment section of the announcement that “we have guns (and more).” He kept the Klan’s current location close to his chest, but said the Klan is already in Sullivan in preparation for the fundraising efforts. When asked for his location, he responded, “We don’t want n*gger lovers like yourself around. You may have aids.” Asked to clarify the Klan’s plans, Murray responded, “Plan? We are raising money for a cop who shot a n*gger criminal.”