American Sniper = Indian killer

Caution! 'American Sniper' Is a Dangerous Movie

By Mateo RomeroThis is a tense war movie that looks great. But just underneath the film’s sexy veneer is a shockingly racist ideology of hate and death that is advanced by the white male sniper Chris Kyle.

Kyle is the ideological descendant of Custer and the Seventh Cavalry. He belongs to an elite white male cadre of swinging dick meat eaters who will solve the problems of invaded brown people with a bullet. Iraqi and Syrian combatants are called “fuckin’ savages.” Direct statements of racism and death may or may not reflect the realities of the modern U.S. military. But they do give rise to false dichotomies that dehumanize the enemy and make it kinda fun, cool and necessary to kill them.

For the moment, Sniper is the fave mascot of the reactionary right wing of white America. Its visual beauty softens the harsh fact that the movie glorifies death, racism, hatred, religious prejudice, sexism, colonialism and moral corrosion. It presents some great ideas about caring for and protecting the people of your tribe. If you’re a white Christian American, that is. Women, minorities, kids, Muslims need not apply. They’re part of the bullet-to-the-head fix.

Why is this film so important in its depiction of outdated and corrosive white conservative male values? Because it is a time of great change and social movement in the world. The time of white American male rule and hegemony is coming to an end. And American wingnuts don’t like it one bit.Some of the problems in Kyle's book--from Debbie Reese's American Indians in Children's Literature blog:

"Injun" in Chris Kyle's AMERICAN SNIPERWhen American Sniper opened in theaters last week, I started to see reviews that pointed out Kyle's use of the word savage to describe Iraqis. That word has been used to describe American Indians. I wondered if Kyle made any connections between "savage" and American Indians in his book. The answer? Yes.

In his autobiography, Kyle uses "Injun" in two places. Here's what he said on page 267:Or we would bump out 500 yards, six or eight hundred yards, going deep into Injun territory to look and wait for the bad guys.And here's what he said on page 291:Our missions would last for an overnight or two in Injun country.See? He made connections between "savage" Iraqis and "savage" Indians.Kyle's attitude = American imperialism

Many people have written about the problems in American Sniper. Here's the main one:

“American Sniper’s” biggest lie: Clint Eastwood has a delusional Fox News problem

The insanities and fantasies at the heart of "American Sniper" explain everything about the state of the 2015 GOP

By Sophia A. McClennenLet’s start with the delusion. The film draws a direct link between the events of 9/11 and the war in Iraq, forgetting completely that the war in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Not one of the attackers that day was in any way connected to Iraq. Thus to connect 9/11 to Iraq is delusional. Not even the Bush administration made that overt a link—at the time they claimed they went to Iraq to keep the Iraqis from using weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

But that’s not the perceptions of many who watch Fox News. As the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland reported back in 2003: “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” In their poll they found that 80 percent of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related misperceptions, more than any other news consumers, especially those that consume NPR and PBS.

The point is that the 9/11-Iraq link is delusional, but it is also a common link in public perceptions of those on the right who watch Fox News and clearly it is one that makes sense to Eastwood and those that think like him.

The second problem is the culture of violence. While the film tries to show Kyle wrestling at some level with some of his kills, he still very clearly divides the world into categories. As his father puts it in the film, there are wolves (those that want to kill you), sheep and sheep dogs (who have to protect the sheep from the wolves). Not only are there just three categories of life, but these categories are also defined solely by a logic of violence and aggression. In the film, Iraqis are almost all depicted as wolves, even women and children. Kyle’s first two kills are a young boy and his mother. But they posed a threat and thus needed to be killed. As Kyle later explains, he has no remorse over any of his kills, just over the lives he wished he could have protected.

At no point does the film consider the fact that the war was based on false justifications. At no point does it imagine that those in Iraq might have seen the U.S. soldiers as invaders in their homeland. At no point does it imagine that the violence suffered by our own soldiers could have been avoided if we simply hadn’t started the war to begin with. The logic of war is completely unquestioned, making this the most simplistic war film we have seen nominated for an Oscar in decades.

Wyoming Republican uses "Injuns" slur

Wyoming lawmaker uses ‘Injuns’ slur to oppose Medicaid expansion for tribes: report

By David EdwardsA Wyoming newspaper is standing by its reporting that a state lawmaker used a racial slur to describe Native Americans while making a case against expanding Medicaid.

The Rock Springs Rocket-Miner reported on Wednesday that during Tuesday testimony in the Wyoming legislature about expanding the Medicaid program, state Rep. Allan Jaggi (R) was one of the few lawmaker to speak against the idea.

“They (tribal members) are covered under a federal deal,” Jaggi said, according to the paper. “The Injuns are going to be taken care of.”

On Thursday, the Rock Springs Rocket-Miner said that Jaggi had called, and “vehemently denied” using the slur.

“I surely did not say that. I did not say ‘Injuns,’” Jaggi insisted. “That is not in my vocabulary no more than I would call blacks the other word.”

But Rock Springs Rocket-Miner Managing Editor Deb Sutton said that the paper was standing by the quote.

Northern Arapaho Business Council member Richard Brannan told the paper that it felt like “we are still in the 18th century in Wyoming.”

“We are American Indians, not ‘Injuns,’” he pointed out.Comment:  For more on "Injuns," see Headline: Stop Your "Injuns" and Kincannon: Injuns Are Mad at Me.

Chief Zee = racist uncle

Chief Zee, the Redskins and the setting sun

By Mike WiseZema Williams is 72, a mere man next to the alter ego he created, who has missed just four home games (all because of funerals) since 1978, who still zips around FedEx Field in the motorized scooter that owner Daniel Snyder purchased for his team’s inarguable No. 1 fan.

“My job is to entertain the people,” Williams says. “A lot of them tell me, they say, ‘You know, my wife won’t even cook me dinner till she see you on TV and says, ‘There’s my Injun.’ The older people been watching me so long, they don’t even say ‘Indian.’ They say, ‘Injun. There’s my Injun.’ And it’s on.”

Injun.

In some ways, it’s as if Archie Bunker or Amos and Andy were hurled forward in time, not sure what to make of all these hypersensitive, politically correct folk who want them gone.

After all, no professional team in 2013 would begin letting an African-American man dress up in Native American regalia and wave a tomahawk, pay for his admission, his parking pass and let him shape animal balloons for children in the corporate suites on Sundays.

Yet like the nickname, Snyder and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell have grandfathered in Chief Zee, tone-deaf to the caricaturing of an ethnic minority, unable to see past a franchise’s symbolic touchstone.

Williams can’t see it, either, for that would mean giving up his identity. And he can’t have that. He’s been to too many games, showed up for too many charity events as that costumed Indian.

Trying to enlighten him is like trying to enlighten your half-cocked, old-head uncle who uses racial epithets at Thanksgiving dinner. At some point, you either let him eat or kick him out—and no one is kicking Williams out of his burgundy-and-gold bubble.Some reactions to Wise's column:

Should Redskins Mascot Chief Zee Know Better Because He's Black?On the ever-lively Washington Post comments section below the story, Zee's defenders are calling the article a racially-charged hit piece on a "sick old man" (Williams is undergoing cataract surgery) whose intention has always been to "make people smile." Zee's critics counter that one ethnic minority parodying another (Zee freely uses the word Injun) is old-timey minstrelsy times two.

We recommend reading the entire piece ("Chief Zee, the Redskins, and the Setting Sun"), which is well-written--is Wise cruelly mocking a 72-year-old man and even playing the race card? Or should Zema Williams know better than to put on the redface because he is black, and is his treatment by Wise turnabout and fair play?Comment:  I'm not sure growing up as a black man before the civil rights era gives Williams any special insight into the Washington Redskins situation. He should know better because he's a human being, but I don't expect an "Injun" lover to change his views at his age.

For more on the Washington Redskins, see Peter King Website Bans "Redskins" and Chief Zee's Successor?

Headline: "Stop Your Injuns"

Philthy: City of Brotherly Love Makes Offensive Name Worse, Much WorseReally, Philly? After the Philadelphia Phillies were clobbered by the Cleveland Indians yesterday, 14-2, the Philadelphia Daily News took to offensive puns today to sell copy.

The back page of today's Daily News read: "Gentlemen, Stop Your Injuns." It's unclear how this cleared the copy desk.

As the Cleveland baseball team has continued to incite the ire of those whose find their name and mascot, "Chief Wahoo," offensive, even racist, the Daily News has simply reached a new low.

Just as the pressure has increased on the Washington Redskins to change their derogatory name, this, perhaps, will give a boost to the effort to remove stereotypical, racist Native mascots, nicknames and logos from athletics.Comment:  This is an excellent example of why even the team name "Indians" is problematical. Each of these little "puns" and "jokes" contributes to the pervasive idea that Indians are something other than normal. Something to be opposed and stopped. I.e., savages, heathens, or killers.

Using the derogatory term "Injun" also contributes to this idea. Like "squaw" and "redskin," it sets up Indians as a class of inferior people. It implies they're all the same, uncivilized, and situated in the distant past.

For more on Indian mascots, see Nugent "Tomahawk Chops" Mascot Critics and Hundt: "Redskins" Is Indecent.

Indians are "whiners," not warriors?

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

From War Whoops to Whining

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commenters confirm the racism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mascots teach us Indians?

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

Kincannon: "Injuns are mad at me"

Here's a Facebook posting that got some attention May 9:

This is real. The status is public. Go let Todd Kincannon know how you feel about this. He's the former Republican Executive Director for South Carolina.Comment:  This is a typical conservative's attitude toward Indians. It's notable for its offensive attitude and use of stereotypes.

The posting received hundreds of comments, mostly negative. I don't know of Kincannon ever apologized or responded to the criticism.

For more on the subject, see Calling BS on Steele's "Injun" and "Injun" as Bad as N-Word?

Comanche Boy vs. Longacre

An upcoming boxing match, of all things, offers some pointers about Native stereotyping and identity.

Comanche Boy to Longacre:  “You wanted it. Now you’re gonna get it.”

By Coyote Duran“Let’s face it. White people can’t box. Black people box better. Puerto Ricans...even better. It seems the lower you go on the social ladder, the better the boxer. If there’s a Puerto Rican who is a good boxer, there’s a Native American waiting to kick his ass.”

--Chris Rock

Sure, it’s a funny quote but one has to wonder if this is why George Tahdooahnippah, 26-0-1 (20), is still waiting for his shot at a substantial opponent in the middleweight division. Instead, the Native American fighter known as “Comanche Boy” is stuck facing kickboxer Thomas Longacre, who’s making his professional boxing debut, on February 25, at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Although Tahdooahnippah is trying to make the best of the situation, it almost seems like he’s taking a detour off the highway he so desperately wants to bury the pedal on. Primarily, that frustration comes from a common perception of fighters in the Heartland, perhaps specifically, fighters he’s had to face thus far.
And:Although the potential storyline was riveting, “Comanche Boy” wasn’t amused. The conflict almost seemed like the script from a “Rocky” sequel.

“This Thomas Longacre, he came out of nowhere. I was doing a radio interview and someone was like, ‘Aw, this is the fight everybody wants to see. ‘Another Native American fighter!’ and I thought it was gonna be this other guy and then they said, ‘And that’s the fight between you and Thomas ‘Thunderkick’ Longacre!’” said Tahdooahnippah. “I was like, ‘Who?!’ (laughs) I said, ‘No disrespect but I never heard of him!’ They said, ‘You never heard of Thomas Longacre?!’ I said, ‘Naw, never!’ They said, ‘Thunderkick’, you never…?’ I said, ‘No! Is he a boxer?’ They said, ‘No, he’s a world champion kickboxer.’ (Imitating a disbelieving sputter) Pffth, there you go, right there! I’m a boxer! So I asked, ‘What tribe is he?’ And then, ‘Oh, I don’t…I don’t know…’ They didn’t even know what tribe he was. So I just blew it off and then, a little bit later, a YouTube video came out, an interview and [Longacre] was talking about how he could beat me and blah, blah, blah. You know, I just blew it off. It was nothing because he does nothing for my boxing career. He’s 0-0 as a professional boxer but he was clowning all the people I’ve fought. So what’s his record? He ain’t even a pro boxer! So, I’m gonna fight February 25th and I’m gonna fight a guy that’s gonna be a pro debuter and I’m gonna beat him and then it’s gonna look on my record 26-0 at the time, fight a guy who’s 0-0.”

It came off like a bad joke. Although Longacre claims to be half-Creek and Yuchi, adding a tribe vs. tribe subtext to the fight, it’s still a mixed-martial artist-type (who thinks all because he’s great at one combat sport, he’s just as great at another) with a chip on his shoulder vs. the boxer who can’t believe his eyes and ears that he’s having to squander a slot in his career for him.And:As impatient as Tahdooahnippah is with the situation and having to prepare for a fighter he can only study from kickboxing and MMA tape, he’s even more short with the fact that Longacre comes off as a true (ethnically) self-loathing, cracked-mirror, black hat in this fight, somewhat the comic-book villain study. With Tahdooahnippah serving as the Native American Captain Marvel figure, Longacre is definitely Black Adam. Apparently, Longacre’s promoter is Dr. Sivana and his camp and fans are the Monster Society.

“Yeah, that’s what he says,” said Tahdooahnippah, as if fatigued with the thought, when asked how he felt about Longacre’s claims of indigenous pride. “I’m a Native American fighter. The way I live my life, I wake up; I’m a Native American man first. You know, because there are not very many of us, I’ve gotta display the best Native American warrior that anyone’s ever gonna see. But I think that [Longacre] is a fighter that is part Native American and that’s the difference between us. I’ve got native pride and he doesn’t. It was all over our Facebook pages and his promoter, Dale Cook, he’s got his friends calling me…’Oh, they’re just a bunch of ‘injuns.’ All his fans are just a bunch of ‘injuns’ getting drunk off of firewater. That’s why the paleface took their land.’ And I said, ‘What kinda Indian is gonna let his friends talk about his race like that?’ So that right there lets you know how much pride he has for his race. I’m not saying he’s this much or that much. It just lets me know his pride.”Comment:  Interesting how the writer compared the two fighters to comic-book characters. It's sort of an acknowledgment that a real-life boxer "warrior" and a fictional superhero "warrior" aren't that far apart.

For more on Comanche Boy, see "Comanche Boy" Webisodes and Comanche Boxer Does War Dance.

Why not rewrite Twain's books?

Apparently the biggest objection to Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer is that black children are horrified and traumatized when they read the n-word. I haven't heard of white children being traumatized by this word, and it didn't traumatize me when I read Huck Finn in high school. Nor have I heard of black or white children being traumatized by the words "Injun" and "half-breed."

This suggests a better solution than simply sanitizing the books of every objectionable ethnic slur in them. The publisher could develop a black edition without the words offensive to blacks and an Indian edition without the words offensive to Indians. If the books have any words offensive to whites, a white edition could exclude them.

This is a silly solution, but it points to the silliness of the proposed solution. One silly solution deserves another.

Slurs out but racism remains

The real problem isn't that Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are great books except for the ethnic slurs. Rather, they're steeped in the racism of the era. If the publisher really wanted to address this problem, it would rewrite all the racist passages. Eliminate Jim's phony dialect and superstitious ignorance and Injun Joe's murderous savagery, among other things.

This is why critics have said replacing the slurs is a slippery slope. Where do you stop if you're really trying to protect the children? Why is it wrong to expose them to racist words but not to racist ideas?

Schools have a few ways to deal with Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer. The options include 1) teach kids to deal with the ugly truths in them, or 2) don't teach them until kids are mature enough to handle them. Either option seems better than using sanitized books.

For more on the subject, see Mark Twain, Indian Hater and Is Huck Finn Racist?

New Tom Sawyer eliminates "Injun" too

When people were talking about censoring Huckleberry Finn last week, I didn't realize they were planning to do the same to Tom Sawyer:

Upcoming NewSouth 'Huck Finn' Eliminates the 'N' Word

By Marc SchultzRather than see Twain's most important work succumb to that fate, Twain scholar Alan Gribben and NewSouth Books plan to release a version of Huckleberry Finn, in a single volume with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, that does away with the "n" word (as well as the "in" word, "Injun") by replacing it with the word "slave."

"This is not an effort to render Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn colorblind," said Gribben, speaking from his office at Auburn University at Montgomery, where he's spent most of the past 20 years heading the English department. "Race matters in these books. It's a matter of how you express that in the 21st century."Educator Debbie Reese examines the problems in Tom Sawyer:

An American Indian perspective on changing "Injun" to "Indian" in TOM SAWYERSummary: The first Indian that Twain introduces readers to is an unnamed figure in Tom's imagination. This takes place in chapter eight on page 74. Tom has been rebuffed by the girl he's sweet on (Becky) and runs off to the woods. There, Tom thinks about running away to "join the Indians" where he'll "hunt buffaloes and go on the warpath in the mountain ranges and the trackless great plains of the Far West." When he returns, he'll be with "a great Indian chief, bristling with feathers, hideous with paint." He'll go into Sunday-school "with a blood-curdling war-whoop."

Deb's comments: Tom's image reflects America's love/hate attitude towards American Indians. On one hand, we're admired and on the other, we're feared. Or--I should say--IMAGES of us are admired and feared. Tom wants to join Indians who (he imagines) are living the good life out west, hunting buffaloes. He is drawn to the warlike image, too, as he images going on the warpath with the Indians of his imagination. Tom dwells more on the aggressive warlike image of Indians in feathers and paint who utter sounds that terrorize courageous Christians and settlers.In the next chapter, Injun Joe is helping a doctor and his assistant dig up a body in a graveyard. Injun Joe tells the doctor he has a score to settle because: "The Injun blood ain't in me for nothing." The "half-breed" Indian circles the doctor--"creeping, catlike and stooping"--before stabbing him.Deb's comments: As developed by Twain, "Injun Joe" is a vengeful, lying murderer who moves like a cat. In framing "Injun Joe" as animal-like, Twain is not alone. Authors then and now do it. A recent example is seen in James Crowley's Blackfeet characters who gnaw on bones.

And, he's a half-breed whose Indian blood/identity is the reason he's a vengeful, lying murderer.(Excerpted from Debbie Reese's American Indians in Children's Literature, 1/10/11.)

Comment:  Reese goes through the whole book analyzing it in the same vein. She concludes that changing "Injun" to "Indian" and "half-breed" to "half-blood" won't make much difference. Injun Joe is still a one-dimensional savage killer regardless of the words used. The book doesn't belong in any curriculum except to study racism in literature.

For more on the subject, see New Huck Finn Eliminates "Injun" and Is Huck Finn Racist?

Steele's hypocrisy on racial slights

Steele demands and gets apology, while Natives await theirs

By Rob CapricciosoThe chairman of the Republican National Committee has demanded an apology for what he perceived to be a race-based slight, while failing to directly respond to a similar concern from Native Americans.

On Oct.5, during the first week of a new program on MSNBC, host Lawrence O’Donnell mentioned Michael Steele, the GOP leader, opining that he was “dancing as fast as he can” for his “master, the Republican National Committee.”

The parallels to slavery and racist overtones were apparent to many observers, and also apparent to Steele himself, who reportedly phoned O’Donnell the next day, requesting an apology.

O’Donnell took quick action, reporting to viewers Oct. 6 that he had received a call from Steele, who said the words “sort of stung.”

“I called him back immediately and apologized for using the word he found offensive,” O’Donnell said on his program. ”Those of us who are not descendants from slaves can never know the full impact of the word master in the ears of an African-American man.
But when the shoe was on the other foot:During a Jan. 4 appearance on the Sean Hannity Fox News program, Steele used the phrase “honest injun” to punctuate a point he was making about conservative ideals.

The words are widely seen as racist toward Indians, which many groups, including the Native American Journalists Association and congressional advocates, noted publicly at the time. And they demanded an apology.

But Steele was slow to offer amends, and his office did not return calls on the matter. When he ultimately responded, he parsed his own words, while calling on another politician to step down for using racially offensive words.

Fox News host Chris Wallace ended up asking Steele about the “honest injun” remark Jan. 10, noting that congressmen from both parties said that it is a racial slur.

“Well, if it is, I apologize for it,” Steele responded on the show. “It’s not an intent to be a racial slur. I wasn’t intending to say a racial slur at all.Conclusion:Steele’s conditional take on the phrase outraged some Native Americans, as they said he was qualifying his own racism, while hypocritically calling out someone for using a racist term.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Twain Invented "Injun"? and Calling BS on Steele's "Injun."

Cool Cat in Injun Trouble

Injun Trouble (1969 film)Injun Trouble is a 1969 animated cartoon short in the Merrie Melodies series, directed by Robert McKimson and featuring Cool Cat. It is noted for being the final cartoon produced by the original Warner Bros. cartoon studio, breaking a run which had lasted since 1930 (with the exception of the four years when the cartoons were produced by DePatie-Freleng Enterprises).

Owing to controversy over its stereotyping of Native Americans (and some racy jokes such as the "topless saloon"), the cartoon has never been shown by United States television broadcasters, or released on video. While bootleg versions are available (most commonly with a timecode on the print), the cartoon still proves very difficult to track down.A website summarizes the cartoon with screen images:

Cool Cat in Injun Trouble

Indians follow Cool Cat as he drives across a desolate landscape and warn him to leave.



An Indian painting pots puts a bucket over his head and says, "Look, me pail face!"



An Indian chasing Cool Cat slips and falls and ends up dangling from a ledge. "I need a hand," the Indian says to Cool Cat, and Cool Cat applauds.



A brave offers an Indian maiden to Cool Cat if he'll go away. When the maiden turns out to be fat, Cool Cat responds, "Indian giver!"



The rest of Injun Trouble takes place in the town of Hotfoot and doesn't involve Indians.

The problems in Cool Cat's Injun Trouble are similar to the ones in Lippy and Hardy's Injun Trouble. Check out that posting for some thoughts on these cartoons.

For more on the subject, see Native Videos and Cartoons.

Lippy and Hardy in Injun Trouble

Lippy the Lion & Hardy Har HarLippy the Lion & Hardy Har Har are a pair of anthropomorphic Hanna-Barbera cartoon characters, a lion in a tattered top hat and vest and a hyena in a hat and bow tie, respectively. The latter's name is ironic, as it's an onomatopoeia for laughter, and Hardy is an eternal pessimist; indeed, one short implies that expression of joy or happiness actually puts Hardy in pain.

Lippy and Hardy (voiced by Daws Butler and Mel Blanc respectively) first appeared in The Hanna-Barbera New Cartoon Series in 1962, along with Wally Gator and Touché Turtle and Dum Dum.

Their cartoons revolved around ever-hopeful Lippy's attempts to get rich quick, with reluctant Hardy serving as a foil. Whatever the consequences were to Lippy's schemes, Hardy would end up getting the worst of it—a fact he always seemed to realize ahead of time, with his moans of, "Oh me, oh my, oh dear." Although the intro shows them in a jungle setting proper for such beasts, most of the cartoons' stories took place in an urban setting.

Comment:  Injun Trouble begins at the 4:38 mark.

As with Wagon Heels, the stereotypes in this cartoon are obvious. Only a few points are worth mentioning:

The name Injun Trouble combines the unfriendly nickname "Injun" and the word "trouble" to imply Indians are the miscreants in this cartoon.

When the chief isn't throwing a tomahawk at Lippy and Hardy or chasing them, his demeanor is angry and aggressive. Everything about him suggests the Indian's violent and savage nature.

The medicine men is short, wears a devilish mask, and tries to sabotage Lippy and Hardy's efforts. This implies that Indian medicine (i.e., religion) is disreputable or downright evil.

The cartoon combines the teepees of the Northern Plains with the mesas and cacti of the Southwest. The implication is that Indians chose to live in the most barren and inhospitable places in the country.

That's the reason they're so strange and exotic to us. Not because they lived throughout the country until we killed them and forced them onto reservations. Rather, because their primitive way of life in the remote desert put them out of sight and out of mind.

The final sequence with the Indian maiden is both racist and sexist. The Chief has kidnapped Lippy and Hardy to make her attractive to men. The Indian "braves" reject her because she's too fat: Hollywood's idea of what makes a woman unappealing.

Lippy tightens her figure with belts and suddenly she's a sexy Indian princess. The men go ga-ga over her--not because she represents their ideal, but because she matches the classic Hollywood stereotype.

Finally the medicine man loosens the belts, but the plump-again maiden decides Hardy is the one she wants. She chases after him, implying she's desperate for a man and will settle for a loser like Hardy.

There's not much you can say about a cartoon like Injun Trouble. It's less stereotypical than Wagon Heels, but that's about it.

For more on the subject, see Native Videos and Cartoons.

Porky Pig in Wagon Heels

This Porky Pig cartoon was broadcast May 21, 1938, according to its YouTube posting.



Not content with the stereotypes in Injun Trouble, Bob Clampett remade the cartoon in color as Wagon Heels.

Wagon Heels is a 1945 Merrie Melodies short directed by Bob Clampett, a color remake of the 1938 Looney Tunes black-and-white short Injun Trouble. Because of its wildly stereotypical depiction of the Native American, it is seldom shown on television nowadays. All voices except narration are performed by Mel Blanc.Comment:  The Native stereotypes in these cartoons are patently obvious. Only a few points are worth noting:

In both versions, a sign clearly says:

Boundary Line
Palefaces keep off lawn.
Injun Joe

Porky Pig and his horse sneak across the line, which indicates he knows he's doing something wrong. Later the wagon train "choo-choos" across Indian territory. Although the cartoons portray the Indian as the aggressor, he's actually defending his land against enemy invasion.

Both cartoons show the smoldering remains of a previous wagon train. In the second version, Porky Pig calls it a "massacre."

The Indian is mightier than a mountain, a forest, and a bear. The implication is that he's a force of nature, not a human being with thoughts and feelings.

The Indian is completely alone. There's not even a stereotypical camp of teepees. The implication is that he has no family, no people, no culture. He's a lone rogue, troublemaker, or villain--not a representative of millions of people from thousands of cultures with their own languages and religions.

The Indian is a caricature in the first cartoon, but the second cartoon makes him even worse. For one thing, his nose is bigger and bright red, which suggests he's been drinking. For another, his eyes are now hidden by his hair. The effect is to make him look less human and more monstrous.

The second cartoon ends with the Indian plummeting into the earth and dragging "Injun Joe's Territory" (the rest of the continent beyond the original 13 colonies) into the hole after him. The "United States of America" replaces the former Indian territory. The narration--with patriotic music and a flag in the background--congratulates Porky for making progress possible.

Propaganda via cartoons

Despite the jokes, we can see several elements of the Manifest Destiny myth in these cartoons:

1) Indians were savages, killers, beasts--not civilized people with inalienable human rights.

2) Americans were interested only in the abstract notion of "progress," which involved going west but not invading foreign territory, breaking laws and treaties, or killing the land's inhabitants.

3) Americans somehow removed the Indians benignly (perhaps escorting them to reservations) or stood by as they mysteriously vanished. No Americans participated in the conquest, subjugation, or elimination of Indians (i.e., genocide).

Why do Americans believe what they believe about Indians? Because they grew up seeing the same message over and over in textbooks, Western movies, and cartoons such as these. If anything is more ubiquitous than a Warner Bros. cartoon in modern US history, I'm not sure what it is.

For more on the subject, see Native Videos and Cartoons.

Twain invented "Honest Injun"?

I checked the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) about the claim that Mark Twain invented the word "Injun." Not true. The first recorded use of "Injun" was by someone named J. Cocke in an August 1812 issue of the Salem Gazette.

But Twain's Tom Sawyer (1876) is the first recorded use of the phrase "Honest Injun." Someone named Talcott had written the words "Honest Indians" a couple of centuries earlier, but only in their literal sense. Twain may have been the first to use "Honest Injun" as an exclamation meaning, "No, really. I'm not kidding!"

Of course, being the first citation in the OED doesn't prove Twain invented the phrase. Twain may have seen or heard it somewhere the OED couldn't document. But Twain certainly gets credit for making the phrase popular.

For more on "Injun," see Calling BS on Steele's "Injun" and "Injun" as Bad as N-Word? For more on Mark Twain, see Mark Twain, Indian Hater.

Twain invented "Injun"?

Michael Steele, "Honest Injun," and, "Injun" in children's booksSteele says his use of the phrase was not intended as a racial slur. I imagine a lot of people were surprised to learn that "injun" is derogatory.

Surprised, because, it is, after all, quite common. You can find "Injun" and "Honest Injun" in older books that are widely read today, like:

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer--published in 1876, where "evil is embodied in the treacherous figure of Injun Joe" (pg. x of the intro to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, a Signet Classic book published in 2002), and in the oath used several times by characters.

Seems to me, in my cursory study of the phrase, that it may have been coined by Twain. In the entry on "Injun," the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) lists Twain as the first person to use "Injun." It also lists several other noted writers who used "Honest Injun." Some are George Bernard Shaw in 1896 and James Joyce (in Ulysses) in 1922.(Excerpted from Debbie Reese's American Indians in Children's Literature, 1/12/10.)

Comment:  I find it hard to believe that no one used "Injun" before Mark Twain in 1876. But I have no evidence that this claim is wrong.

For more on Steele, see Calling BS on Steele's "Injun" and Steele's Hypocrisy on Racial Slurs. For more on Twain, see Is Huck Finn Racist? and Mark Twain, Indian Hater.

Below:  Injun Joe.

Calling BS on Steele's "Injun"

Another reaction to GOP party chairman Michael Steele and his utterance "Honest Injun on that":

HollyAnna DeCoteau Pinkham:  Mr. Michael Steele & "Honest Injun"Who does Mr. Michael Steele think he is? I mean really, saying “honest injun” on national television, thinking nobody is going to care? Did you honestly believe not one single solitary Native American Indian was going to care? And then turn around and request one of his coworkers be fired for making a similar comment about blacks. Oh, it’s ok to degrade one race but not one you care about….

No, no, no, I don’t think so!!! as a matter of fact I say HELL NO! Then to claim “I didn’t know it was offensive!” please! You are an educated man! You can’t claim stupidity! “I don’t know” is not an acceptable excuse! I call Bull shit! Let me rephrase that, I call--BUUUUUUUUULL SHIIIIIIIIT! With some exclamation!

Then to have the gall, to NOT APOLOGIZE! If you didn’t honestly know, then why not apologize? What’s the harm in doing the right thing while also admitting you were wrong? However, because he will not apologize, claimed he didn’t know it was offensive & was told it is & still not apologize tells me, he knew it was WRONG & doesn’t want to admit it. I mean an honest to goodness real apology, not one of those under your breath because you have to apologies. Just my personal opinion….

WTF?! It is 2010 people!!! Some would say, sticks n stones! I say people still have memories & feelings! Some people are more sensitive than others. Some don’t care. I say if one Native American was offended, it is wrong.Comment:  Pinkham may have written this because I told her I could believe Steele was simply ignorant. I agree with her rejoinder: that if he was ignorant, he should've apologized sincerely for his mistake. He did offer the usual qualified apology, but it didn't seem sincere.

For more on the subject, see Steele's Hypocrisy on Racial Slurs and "Injun" as Bad as N-Word?

Steele's hypocrisy on racial slurs

GOP leader continues ‘honest injun’ controversy

MSNBC commentator uses ‘off the reservation’

By Rob CapricciosoAfter covering Steele’s distaste for Reid’s remark, host Chris Wallace asked the top GOP politico about his own “honest injun” remark, noting that congressmen from both parties said that it is a racial slur. Dictionaries agree, noting that the phrase is considered impolite and politically incorrect because “injun” is a slang term for American Indians.

“Well, if it is, I apologize for it,” Steele responded on the show. “It’s not an intent to be a racial slur. I wasn’t intending to say a racial slur at all.And:Steele’s conditional take on the phrase has outraged some Native Americans, as they say he is qualifying his own racism, while hypocritically calling for the resignation of a person who has said he was wrong--and apologized unconditionally--for using a racist term.

“It is astounding that his mind can separate himself from Sen. Reid when it comes to deciphering racist remarks,” said Ronnie Washines, president of the Native American Journalists Association.And:The Steele scenario has called increased attention to the complexities of racial language in America--and the sometimes divergent ways people think about Native Americans and racism, compared to African Americans and racism.

Michelle Bernard, a political commentator for MSNBC, hit that point home when discussing Reid’s words on-air Jan. 11.

Bernard, an African American, discussed the Reid situation, saying she didn’t think the words he used were completely “off the reservation.”

Ironically, many Native Americans have a problem with the “off the reservation” phrase, saying it’s disparaging and [implies] that Indians should be kept in line.Comment:  For more on the subject, see "Injun" as Bad as N-Word? and Steele:  "Honest Injun on That."

"Injun" as bad as n-word?

Michael Steele's 'honest injun' comment sparks backlash

By Dawn Turner TriceSusan Power, 85, the last living founding member of Chicago's American Indian Center, said she was offended by Steele's comment.

"I'm really disgusted with him," said Power, a longtime activist and member of the Dakota nation. "He's an intelligent man and I know he's probably kicking himself all over his office for saying it, but he should know better. It would hurt if he were white, but it hurts more because he's black. How can you be so stupid?"

She said that "injun" is one of two words--the other is "squaw"--that should never be used because they are throwbacks to a time when Native Americans were defined almost exclusively by negative stereotypes.

"Are we so unimportant that he couldn't have caught himself?" she said. "I would never use the N-word. I know not to. This man must know nothing about native people, that's what's so hard about this. Native Americans know everything about everybody else, but there's so little interest in knowing who we are."Comment:  So "injun" and "squaw" are the two words people shouldn't say? Does that mean it's okay to say "redskin"?

From what I've seen, most Indians would say "redskin" is worst, "squaw" is second worst, and "injun" is a distant third. By describing "injun" in mild terms, most dictionaries would agree.

Given that Steele didn't direct his comment at Indians or refer to actual Indians, I'd say his offense wasn't serious. If it were me, I wouldn't spend a lot of time pressuring him to apologize.

If you're not familiar with Michael Steele, here's more on him:

Michael Steele:  Should He Go Now...or Later?

By David Corn"Michael Steele is a...."

The Republican consultant I was talking with paused. In anger. In frustration. In exasperation.

"Fool?" I asked. "Buffoon?"

"You name it," he said.And:Steele is having another one of those banner stretches. In recent days, he's come under fire--from people inside and outside his own party. He has had to defend the practice of accepting big-dollar speaking fees. (Blogger Greg Sargent couldn't get a straight answer out of the Republican Party as to whether Steele is pocketing all the profits from his just-released book.) During a soft-ball interview with Sean Hannity earlier this week, Steele declared that his party was not going to win back Congress this November--and that Republicans weren't ready to run the House and Senate. What a vote of confidence!For more on the subject, see Steele:  "Honest Injun" on That." and R-Word = N-Word.

Steele: "Honest Injun on that"

Steele Calls GOP Platform "One Of The Best" Political Documents In 25 Years, "Honest Injun On That"

By Matt FinkelsteinOn Fox News last night, Sean Hannity hosted RNC Chairman Michael Steele to promote the release of Steele's new book, Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda. During the interview, Steele emphatically denied that the GOP needs "more modern" ideas, calling the party's platform "one of the best political documents" produced in the last quarter-century. "Honest Injun on that," he added.

HANNITY: There are those that are saying for the Republican Party to be successful, they've gotta quote be more modern.

STEELE: No, no! But that's what's gotten us into trouble, when we walked away from principle. Our platform is one of the best political documents that's been written in the last 25 years. Honest Injun on that.Native American Caucus head demands Steele apologize for 'racist' comment

By Michael O'BrienThe Co-Chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus demanded an apology from RNC Chairman Michael Steele for using a "racist" phrase on national television.

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), the Democratic co-chairman of the caucus, slammed the Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman for having used the phrase "honest Injun" during an appearance on Fox News.

"I am outraged and disgusted that the head of the National Republican Party would make such a derogatory and offensive statement about Native Americans on national television," Kildee said in a statement. "In an effort to cover up Michael Steele’s racist comment, Fox News altered the transcript online to read ‘honest engine’ instead of ‘honest Injun.’"

Steele has come under fire on Tuesday for that statement, as well as predicting that Republicans are unlikely to win back control of Congress this fall.Comment:  When I saw the first story, I posted it on Facebook with the heading "Republican sensitivity to minorities." I was going to leave it at that until Kildee demanded an apology. Then it became a story worth noting.

Some online sources suggest how bad the phrase is (or isn't):

honest injunThis phrase is considered to be impolite (not politically correct) because injun is a slang term for American Indians.honest injun(used to emphasize the truth of a statement; sometimes considered offensive)Here's what a couple of commenters said:Here is a Congressman whose state is the worst in the nation, rarely says 'boo', and what is he most upset about? Stimulus? No. Greater entitlements? No. An unfunded Health Care Bill? No. National security? No way. He is upset over the language someone used. Something Ahmadinejad said about the Holocaust? Nope. Al Qaeda's latest video threat? Still no. How about mischaracterizations of other Congressional members or the opposition party? Nope. He is outraged by Michael Steele's comment, and the 'ridiculous' comment about indians possibly being 'honest.' OR he is upset about Steele's mispronunciation of 'indian'. Now I am being a bit facetious, but come on! We hardly ever hear anything from the Congressman from Michigan and THIS is what he is barking about? Rep. Dale Kildee needs to start representing his failing state instead of pretending to 'crime-fight' as a 'language cop.'

BY MarkV on 01/05/2010 at 17:33

This is one Indian who sees no harm in this old expression. There are plenty of real slights and serious damages that have been done and are being done to American Indians. Ever hear of the IIM Accounts scandal? Why not focus your outrage on the real damages, the sticks and stones if you will, and let the harmless words blow away in the wind.

BY Cawoonache on 01/05/2010 at 17:34I wouldn't be as dismissive as these commenters were. I think the GOP doesn't care about minorities and this is more evidence of that. Republicans, even minority ones like Steele, approach problems and solutions from a white-privilege position.

But the commenters have a point. Most issues are more important than this one. As a mild slur, "injun" deserves attention only when it's used in a negative, disparaging way, as in Cowboys Catch an "Injun" and Limbaugh Calls Native Americans "Injuns"—for the 4th Time.

Injunuity showcases ingenuity

Embracing American Indian ingenuity

By Chris QuintanaIn timing with the Gathering of Nations Native American Powwow and UNM's KIVA Club Nizhoni Days celebration, Black Market Goods' exhibit, "Injunuity," opens today at 112 Morningside Drive N.E., showcasing contemporary paintings, photography and sculptures from American Indians. There will also be live music each day and a fashion show on Friday night.Examples of what's on display:"Right now, Albuquerque is filled with art, but a lot of it is Southwestern-style art," Jones said. "Really, if there's no market for your art, you have to create your own, and that's basically what we're doing now."

Jones will also feature the N.A.S.A. (Native American Space Association) series, which takes a look at an alternative reality with an American Indian focus.

"It's kind of like history re-imagined," he said. "It just has a bunch of sci-fi themes with native perspectives."

The show will also feature art from local graffiti artists Hok and Unek. Also, Darren Oliver, an artist out of Flagstaff, Ariz., will be present.Comment:  Alas, I can't say I see anything impressive in the photo. But I'd like to see the N.A.S.A. (Native American Space Association) series.

For more on science fiction and Indians, see No Natives in Science Fiction?

Below:  "Work featured in 'Injunuity' by Josh Jones at Black Market Goods at 112 Morningside Dr. on Wednesday." (Vanessa Sanchez/Daily Lobo)