Radmilla Cody nominated for Grammy

Native Artists Gain Ground With 2013 Grammy NominationsPrior to the 2012 Grammy Awards, the Recording Academy saw fit to discontinue the Best Native American Album and the Best Hawaiian Music Album categories. Music that would have qualified for those categories was grouped under the "Regional Roots Music" rubric with that from the also-discontinued genres of Cajun/Zydeco and polka.

Carlos Santana, a 10-time Grammy winner, led a charge of outrage at the decision, saying "I think they're racist. Period."

Under the new system, material from all these categories would not necessarily compete for the Regional Roots Music Album Grammy--submitted albums would compete for nominations, with no requirement that any from a genre be nominated at all. This selection process was not kind to Native artists for the 2012 Grammy Awards: Nominated were three Cajun/Zydeco albums, one polka album, one Hawaiian album, and zero Native American albums. The award was won by the New Orleans-based Rebirth Brass Band.

The 2013 nominees were announced yesterday, and Native artists stand a better shot at winning a trophy this time around. This year, the Regional Roots category features one album from the Native American genre, and two of Hawaiian music.

Radmilla Cody's album Shi Keyah: Songs for the People, made with her uncle Herman Cody and released on the Canyon Records label, received a nomination. Cody is a former Miss Navajo Nation (1997-98) whose life has been haunted by controversy; first, over her racial identity (she has an African American father, though she grew up on the Navajo Nation speaking the Navajo language) and then over her involvement in drug trafficking (she wired money to a boyfriend, a dealer, knowing that it would be used to buy drugs). For the latter, she ended up serving 21 months in jail.Comment:  For more on the Grammys, see No Grammys for Indians in 2012 and Cherokee Nominated for Grammy.

Disney's Native Hawaiian hotel

Disney breaks the mold with Aulani resort

New resort offers more than Mickey Mouse ears and Mai Tais

By Rob LovittOn Monday, Disney’s Aulani resort—its first resort in Hawaii—will open on Oahu’s Waianae coast, a built-from-scratch complex designed to provide a unique mix of mouse-inspired "imagineering" and Native Hawaiian culture. There’ll be “hidden Mickeys” in the bed quilts, carved menehune (traditional forest dwellers) around the grounds and enough Native art, amenities and activities to make a malihini (newcomer) feel like ohana (family).

Assuming, that is, that Aulani can overcome the inherent irony involved when the world’s leading purveyor of fantasy and fabricated experiences sets out to showcase a real place with its own culture and stories.

“We’re a storytelling company,” said Disney spokesman John McClintock, “and when we came to Hawaii, we didn’t come to tell our own stories. We came to tell the stories that already exist here.”

And that’s where things get complicated.And:According to cultural-resource specialists who talked with msnbc.com, Disney took a different tack than many of its predecessors, inviting Native Hawaiians into the planning process.

“Disney asked us to review the story they’d put together,” said Ramsay Taum, CEO of LEI of the Pacific LLC and a cultural consultant on the project. “They had their design in place, and we were asked to fit the story into the place. We said it doesn’t work that way—to try and shove the culture into a box does a disservice to the culture and to the box.”

The result was less emphasis on dancing tikis and torch-lighting ceremonies and more emphasis on Native art, the appropriate use of the Hawaiian language and staff training to ensure employees and managers—cast members in Disney parlance—were well-versed in the local culture.

Aulani, of course, will feature the usual array of resort amenities—a beach, pools, restaurants, spa services—but it will also offer activities and amenities that highlight Hawaiian customs and culture. Guests will be able to make poi in an on-site taro patch, participate in fire-pit storytelling sessions and brush up on their language skills in the interactive ‘Olelo Room.Comment:  For more on Native culture in hotels, see New Hopi Hotel to Open and Native Blessing at Disney World.

Below:  "Disney's Aulani, a new resort and spa in Oahu, is shown overlooking a white sand beach and a crystal blue lagoon."

Noho Hewa: The Wrongful Occupation of Hawai'i

'Noho Hewa: The Wrongful Occupation of Hawai'i'

By Brenda NorrellCensored News congratulates Native Hawaiian filmmaker Anne Keala Kelly for her documentary, Noho Hewa: The Wrongful Occupation of Hawai'i, exposing the United States' illegal occupation, colonization and ethnic cleansing on this island homeland of Native Hawaiians.

The film captured Best Documentary Award at the Hawaii International Film Festival, 2008 and is the winner of the Special Jury Prize at the Festival International du Film Documentaire de Oceanien, Tahiti, 2010.

Joleen Oshiro of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin said, "It conveys knowledge that resonates in the heart as well as the mind."

Albert Wendt, Maori artist and author of Sons for the Return Home, also praised the film. “Noho Hewa is a brilliant, incisive, and complex exposé of colonialism (American and other) and its devastating effects on Kanaka Maoli, the indigenous people of Hawaii, and their land," Wendt said.

"After you see this film you will never again believe the lies and myths perpetuated about Hawaii by successive American governments, non-Hawaiian historians, writers, filmmakers, the tourism industry, and others.”

Noho Hewa is the first Native Hawaiian produced film of the 21st century to document the Hawaiian resistance to the U.S. occupation of their country. Produced and directed by independent journalist and filmmaker, Anne Keala Kelly, it looks at desecration of sacred sites and burials, and how the U.S. policies, via the military, the GMO industry and tourism use desecration as a colonial tool of ethnic cleansing.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Hawaiian Sovereignty = Tribal Sovereignty and Are Hawaiians "Native Americans"?

Update on Hawaii Five-0's cousins

I was curious about the prevalence of cousins of different ethnicities (Chinese, Hawaiian, Japanese, Samoan) on Hawaii Five-0. Fortunately, I have someone to ask about it: my college roommate James from Hawaii. Here's what he said:Rob,

Pretty rare to have four different first cousins of those nationalities and full-blooded. More likely to have mixed ethnicity in first cousins (or one or two of the same ethnicities), than four different of full blood. Japanese don't usually marry outside of their race to Polynesians, although there are many Chinese-Hawaiians. Samoans also don't marry much outside their race.Comment:  In short, the cousin situation is possible but unlikely. Which is what I thought.

For more on the subject, see Asians in Hawaii Five-0 Remake and Review of Hawaii Five-0 Remake.

Iroquois and Hawaiians play lacrosse

Hawaii Lacrosse 20th Anniversary Tournament

By Jill ZangerThe Hawaii Lacrosse 20th Anniversary Invitational Tournament presented by Nike will take place at Kapiolani Park, in Waikiki, Friday, October 29 through Sunday, October 31. This is the first year Nike Lacrosse is sponsoring the event.

Highlighting the tournament this year is the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team, whose members will come together in competition for the first time since being unable to compete in the FIL Lacrosse World Championship last June in Manchester, England, due to visa complications. The Iroquois Nationals will also debut their new game day jersey, featuring the Nike N7 logo. Nike has partnered with the Iroquois Nationals since 2006.Lacrosse cultural

Iroquois and Hawaiians share views on sovereignty

By Cindy LuisA common heart. A common spirit. A common cause.

Yesterday's clinic here by the Iroquois National Lacrosse team was much more than a cultural exchange. For the students at Ke Kula Kaiapuni 'o Anuenue, the Hawaiian immersion school in Palolo Valley, it was an educational experience that linked the Hawaiian sovereignty issue to the recognition problems encountered by the visitors last summer.And:England's loss was Hawaii's gain. Since the team had unused plane tickets, the Iroquois Nationals opted to compete in this weekend's 20th Hawaii Invitational Tournament at Kapiolani Park as well as do a clinic for native Hawaiian youth.

"I am proud that they took a stand," 10th-grader Lopaka Keli'ikoa-Kapolo'i said. "That's what we should do as Hawaiians—stand for our culture, stand for our rights. It was good to see that they have gained recognition."Comment:  For more on the subject, see Iroquois Team Bows Out of Tournament and Iroquois Team Fights for Sovereignty.

Below:  "Before participating in the 20th anniversary of the Hawai'i Lacrosse Invitational Tournament, members of the Iroquois Nationals team instruct native Hawaiian students from Kula Kaiapuni o Anuenue in a lacrosse clinic. To start the clinic, the general manager of the Iroquois Nationals team, Ansley Jemison, gathers everyone together for a team cheer with their sticks raised."

Barbarian Princess plods

Kilcher elegant, but Hawaiian costume drama plods

TITLE ROLE:  Good actress is still waiting for the right movie to come along.

By Mike Dunham Kilcher's unique and exotic face (startlingly similar to the historical Ka'iulani, despite her German-born Swiss, Alaskan and Peruvian roots) is something one could stare at all day long, particularly when animated by her nuanced and lively expressions.

The character's emotional shifts are bare yet credible. One gets the impression that here is a good actress waiting for the right role.

"Barbarian Princess" might have been that role, but it isn't. Previous reviews have called the script "clunky."

I found it slow. How slow? Well, about 30 minutes into the thing I took a shower and left the DVD running. I returned after drying off and found the plot was right where I'd left it.Comment:  I wasn't impressed with the trailer, so I'm glad to hear the movie wasn't impressive either. It's good when a trailer accurately conveys a movie's essence.

Marc Forby has been working on this movie for years, but still he can't do better than "clunky"? Call me if you need a script doctor, people.

Of course, casting Kilcher as a Hawaiian and calling the movie Barbarian Princess are still unfortunate moves. I gather Kilcher's portrayal isn't a problem, but maybe a Hawaiian actress could've done even better.

For more on the subject, see Hawaiians Criticize "Barbarian" Movie and Q'orianka's Hawaiian Epic.

Hawaiians criticize "Barbarian" movie

'Princess' sparks heated debate

By Katherine Nichols and Gary ChunA question from filmmaker Vilsoni Hereniko, a director and professor of the Center for Pacific Islands Studies at the University of Hawaii, about why the word "barbarian" was included in the title sparked ardent responses from Kilcher and writer/director Marc Forby.

"The title was meant to bring in, and then challenge audiences from, say, middle America who might be expecting something like sexy dances at a luau," said Forby. "We wanted to draw attention to how Hawaiians were treated in the 1800s; this has never been about exploiting the Hawaiian people. I never knew it would get so heated. I thought the irony would be obvious." He also apologized for the controversy and any offense the title has caused.

Producer Nigel Thomas hundreds of possible titles were considered.

"It's very hard to come up with a title that doesn't sound like a cruise line," he said.

But it's a topic that continues to rankle some native Hawaiian leaders.

"We take serious issue with the title of the upcoming film 'Barbarian Princess,'" Abigail Kawananakoa said in a statement. "It is a perpetuation of the wrongs and hurtful aspersions cast upon our people for well over 200 years." Yet she went on to note that after viewing the movie, she will "neither condemn nor celebrate it."
Comment:  Translation of "The title was meant to bring in ... audiences": "We're pandering to people who think Native Hawaiians are half-naked savages in grass skirts."

The irony of the title--that indigenous people aren't really barbarians--should be obvious to people after they see the movie. But that's only one of several points worth considering. It's not clear to me that Thomas and Forby have thought about any of them.

"Barbarian" may sell tickets, but...

Where's the evidence that the "Barbarian" title will draw more viewers? How much research did Thomas and Forby do on the subject, if any?

Did the research go deeper than asking a focus group which title they liked? Because in the real world, people judge movies by the buzz, trailers, reviews, and word of mouth--not the title.

I don't know what titles they rejected, but "Princess Kaiulani" would've been a perfectly good title. It would've hinted at the "exotic" subject matter without hitting people over the head with the stereotypical word "Barbarian."

Thomas and Forby give the impression that they wanted a sensational and controversial title to draw attention to their movie. That they cared more about filling seats than the feelings of Native Hawaiians. If they don't like the resulting criticism, too bad. They should've consulted with Hawaiians before choosing a stereotypical title.

I wouldn't wager too much on audiences' ability to understand irony. I suspect many people who saw Dances with Wolves or Into the West thought, "These Indians sure were colorful and complex people, for savages." After all, these movies showed Indians in the past, not the present. Because they didn't have modern technology, one could call them "primitive."

Barbarian Princess presumably ends with the US taking over the islands and ending the Hawaiian monarchy. There's probably a hint that the Hawaiians weren't sophisticated enough to stand up to the Americans. In other words, that the most "civilized" people triumphed again. Therefore, I bet some people will leave Barbarian Princess thinking, "Those Hawaiians sure were barbarians, all right."

Non-viewers won't get irony

The real issue is that Thomas and Forby are thinking only of the few million people who will see the movie and get the so-called. Good for them, but hundreds of millions of people won't see Americans acting less civilized and more savage than Hawiians in the movie. They'll see only the title on marquees, advertisements, and websites. The only message they'll get is "Hawaiian = barbarian."

Thomas and Forby are already having to explain what their title means. For the next umpteen years, fans and reviewers will have to explain that "Barbarian" is ironic. They'll have to explain it because billions of people who see only the title will assume that Hawaiians are indeed barbarians.

I addressed this issue before in Princess Kaiulani Trailer. What I said still stands:Just because the press of the day used the phrase "Barbarian Princess" doesn't make it a good title. The press also called Indians things like "Heathen Savages," "Dirty Redskins" and "Murderous Devils," but I wouldn't choose those as titles for a Native-themed movie.

Many people won't get the irony or even see the movie, so they'll think "Hawaiians = barbarians." I suggest something that combats stereotypes--like "500 Nations" or "We Shall Remain"--not something that reinforces them.For more on the subject, see Q'orianka's Hawaiian Epic and Kaiulani Controversy Continues.

Below:  "The Honolulu Film Festival kicks off with the film 'The Barbarian Princess' already sold out." At the Iolani Palace, also the headquarters for Hawaii 5-0.

Hawaiian sovereignty = tribal sovereignty

Russell:  Got indigenous?If you are a Native Hawaiian, is your status more like American Indians or more like an ethnic minority? Addressing this question inevitably requires drawing conclusions about the legal status of American Indians, and this has not escaped the notice of people who oppose Hawaiian sovereignty. Indeed, they are often the same people who opposed Indian sovereignty on the ground that it is a racial special privilege that disadvantages white people.

Once more, the bill to recognize Native Hawaiians as having the same sovereign status as Indian nations is pending in Congress. In the world of right and wrong, the only opponents with a leg to stand on are the minority of Native Hawaiians who oppose the bill because they want their full sovereignty back. Should a majority of Native Hawaiians adopt that position, the bill should be opposed simply because the politics of the Hawaiian relationship with the United States is Hawaiian business.

As long as the argument of the status of Native Hawaiians persists in Congress or in the courts, Indians have a dog in the fight. If Native Hawaiians win, the legal sovereignty of American Indian tribes is more secure. David Yeagley, the rightwing Comanche activist, recognized this when he wrote an op-ed opposing the Hawaiians. Indians who think the current understanding of tribal sovereignty is not worth maintaining should oppose the Hawaiians just like the white people who consider tribal sovereignty to be “race privilege” that disadvantages them.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Are Hawaiians "Native Americans"? and Attacking Indians Via Hawaii.

Are Hawaiians "Native Americans"?

Correspondent Genevieve asks:[W]ould you consider Native Hawai'ians as "Native Americans"? From what I've read and heard, the US government doesn't see or treat them as such, and there has been controversy between continental US Native groups and Hawai'ian Native groups over whether or not they should receive this label (and the benefits--free tuition to schools, healthcare--associated with it).Answer:  When I refer to "Native Americans," it usually means American Indians and Alaska Natives. It rarely includes Canadian Aboriginals or Latin American Indians and almost never includes Native Hawaiians.

When I refer to "Natives," that's a little more ambiguous. I'd say that includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Canadian Aboriginals, Latin American Indians, and sometimes Native Hawaiians. It depends on the context.

As correspondent Melvin notes:Native Hawai'ians do not share the special trust relationship that all federally recognized U.S. tribes have that involve treaties -and it is these treaties that provide for the so-called "FREE" benefits (and I am so sick of hearing that these services are free!) that were made between the various tribes and the U.S. government in exchange for land.Right. So even if we grant Native Hawaiians a limited form of sovereignty, it won't be accompanied by any so-called government benefits. They'll have the right to rule themselves and that's it.

For more on the subject, see Attacking Indians Via Hawaii.

Visitor Center has 5 Native statues

As you may know, the National Statuary Hall Collection in Washington DC features statues of two people from each state. The Washington Post reports that the 23 most recently acquired ones are being put in the new $621 million Capitol Visitor Center. (A statue of Helen Keller will be added later.)

A Veritable 'Who's That?' of U.S. History

Statuary at New Capitol Center An Eclectic BunchThe visitor center--a three-level complex with fountains, spiral staircases, skylights and theaters--is expected to draw as many as 3 million people its first year. That's double the 1.5 million who visited the Capitol last year, a spokeswoman for the visitor center said. Diane K. Skvarla, Senate curator, said one goal of the move was to make the sculptures more accessible to the public.

The statues in the collection make up one of the oldest groups of public sculpture in the country, according to historian Lachin. She said they reflect the sensibilities of many eras in U.S. history.

The collection has been criticized in the past for lacking in its representation of women and minorities.

There is only one sculpture of a black person in the Capitol complex, the bust of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in the main rotunda, which is not part of the collection, according to the architect's office.

But the eclectic group being moved into the new limelight is diverse.

It includes dramatic bronzes of Nevada's Sarah Winnemucca, a 19th-century Paiute educator, translator and spokeswoman for Native Americans, and Chief Washakie, a renowned Shoshone warrior who was another powerful advocate for Native Americans.

Other striking statues are those of the famed Hawaiian king Kamehameha I, wearing a gilded cape and helmet, and New Mexico's seven-foot-tall pink marble image of Po'pay, a Pueblo Indian leader who directed an uprising against the Spanish in 1680.Comment:  With five of the 23 statues, American Indians and Native Hawaiians are well-represented in this group. And with these statues being placed in the prominent Visitor Center, it's a sign of respect for Native people.

As is often the case, though, there's less here than meets the eye. Let's take a closer look at the five:

Sacagawea--a classic good Indian who helped Lewis and Clark's mission of proto-imperialism.

Sarah Winnemucca--"[S]he spent much of her adult life in white society. ... Many Paiutes view her as a collaborator who helped the U.S. Army kill her people."

Washakie--"Washakie became an ally of white men, deciding early that warfare was pointless and a policy of adaptation and mutual assistance should be followed. He assisted U.S. Army operations, with military forces and advice, against hostile tribes, particularly the Sioux and Cheyenne. Washakie granted right-of-way through Shoshone land in western Wyoming to the Union Pacific Railroad, aiding the completion of a coast-to-coast rail line."

True rebels

Only the remaining two were truly opposed to Euro-American beliefs and values:

Po'pay.

Kamehameha I--"Although he ended human sacrifice, Kamehameha was to the last a follower of the Hawaiian religion and Hawaiian traditions (such as Lua). He believed so strongly in his religion and culture that he would execute his subjects for breaches of the kapu. Although he entertained Christians, he did not appear to take them seriously."

As noted here, some people weren't happy with the selection of Po'pay (Popé) to represent New Mexico. "[S]some state residents and lawmakers said they did not want to send a statue of Popé, who was from what is now San Juan Pueblo, to the U.S. Capitol, reasoning he was a murderer and responsible for the deaths of thousands of Spanish settlers." And since Po'pay fought only Spaniards, it's not as if he did anything anti-American.

The set of 23 statues also includes Eusebio F. Kino, a Catholic priest who "helped Christianize the indigenous Native American population in what is now Arizona." Overall, therefore, we see a bias toward Indians and others who helped Indians become civilized and assimilate into the mainstream. And against Indians who fought to maintain their independence and traditional cultures.

The rest of the statues

The 76 statues not in the Visitor Center include a smattering of famous Americans, but not as many as you'd think. There are only four US presidents, for instance. Neither Illinois nor Kentucky chose to represent Abraham Lincoln.

There are a couple more Natives and several people with a Native connection--usually a bad one. Again, the bias is toward Indians who tried to fit into the American paradigm of civilization. And toward non-Indians who belittled, dismissed, or hurt Indians.

The remaining statues include:

Sequoyah (Oklahoma)--helped civilize the Cherokee.

Will Rogers (Oklahoma)--entertained mainstream America.

And:

Father Junipero Serra (California)--Christianized Indians.

John Winthrop (Massachusetts)--considered Indians heathens.

Charles M. Russell (Montana)--painted romantic Indians.

Roger Williams (Rhode Island)--respected beliefs of Indians.

Andrew Jackson (Tennessee)--relocated and killed Indians.

Sam Houston (Texas)--advocated for Indians.

George Washington (Virginia)--ordered Indians massacred.

Brigham Young (Utah)--considered Indians a lost tribe.

Conclusion

We can't exactly criticize the government for giving us seven statues of Native Americans (including Native Hawaiians). Based on statistics, you'd expect only one or two of the statues to be Natives. But the most prominent Indians--Sitting Bull, Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Tecumseh--aren't represented. That's because it's still politically incorrect to say that Indians were right and America was wrong.

For more on the subject, see Best Indian Monuments to Topple.

Below:  "Die, white oppressors. And then raise a statue to me for overthrowing your oppression."