The May 21 episode of SNL featured another of its comedic classroom experiences. This time, some terrible white actors performed a terrible "educational" skit about Lewis and Clark:
Comment: In the phony historical "lesson," Lewis and Clark are mostly interested in sleeping with Sacagawea. She isn't opposed to this and at one point does a sexy dance.
The skit within the sketch is definitely racist, with Sacagawea as nothing but a sex object who speaks Tonto talk. The sketch itself is borderline racist as well.
On the one hand, the actors are supposed to be buffonish, so you're not supposed to take them seriously. On the other hand, the teacher encourages them and is moved to tears by their performance. Other than Sasheer Zamata's frowns, no one is really rejecting the lesson.
This leaves viewers unclear about how accurate the lesson is. Obviously Lewis and Clark didn't want to have a ménage à trois with anyone. But was Sacagawea a sexy and savage Indian princess? No, she was a teenage girl with a husband and a baby.
Call it another example of hipster racism. The sketch kind of mocks anti-Indian racism, but also kind of supports it. If you didn't know better, you might swallow some of its points.
Not funny
For fans of SNL, the sketch also was completely unfunny. Whether it was racist or not, it should've been axed for that reason alone.
It's a good bet Fred Armisen had something to do with its creation. He may be SNL's leading purveyor of racist stereotypes in the last decade.
How do stupid things like this sketch get on the air? Because ignorant white people, many of them liberals, control the airwaves.
For more on Saturday Night Live, see Anchor Babies in Saturday Night Live and Peyote, "Firewater" in Saturday Night Live
Showing posts with label Sacagawea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sacagawea. Show all posts
May 22, 2016
March 05, 2014
Assimilation in 1950s movies
I watched three old 1950s Westerns recently. As usual, they had some authentic elements but were mostly inauthentic.
Together they spun a clear message of assimilation. America's "Indian problem" would go away if only the Indians joined the mainstream and became good white Christians.
The Far HorizonsPlot
An ambitious, historic attempt to explore and document an untamed American frontier unfolds in this rousing adventure drama. In 1803, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, with President Thomas Jefferson's blessing, embarked on the government-sponsored Lewis & Clark Expedition–an attempt to discover a water route connecting St. Louis, Missouri, with the Pacific Ocean. Their trek takes them through the magnificent, danger-filled territory of the Pacific Northwest, with guidance from the Shoshone maiden Sacagawea.
Reception
In 2011, Time Magazine rated The Far Horizons as one of the top ten most historically misleading films, in part due to its casting of Caucasian Donna Reed as Native American Sacagawea, and the creation of a romantic subplot between her character and William Clark despite the fact that Sacagawea's husband, French-Canadian trader Toussaint Charbonneau, was in real life also a member of the expedition.
The explorers' first encounter with a tribe is reasonably accurate. The white man approach the Indians in full dress uniforms, present them with medals and other trinkets, and declare they're now subjects of the Great Father in Washington. The Indians pretend to go along, but after the white men leave, the chief throws down his medals and declares his opposition. No one can own the land, he says.
So far, so good...but then the angry Indians stalk the explorers and try to kill them. Uh, no. Lewis and Clark encountered several friendly tribes and stayed with them for a couple of winters. No one made a concerted effort to kill them.
The unavoidable message is white men good, Indians bad. The noble explorers are just innocently surveying the land. The evil savages can't stand the idea of sharing the country, so they go into a murderous rage. They don't plan intelligent counteroffensives like Tecumseh's confederation of tribes, which happened only a few years later. They lash out like wild beasts threatened with captivity.
The whole love subplot is ridiculous too. And it contributes to the overall message. Sacagawea journeys to Washington DC with Clark, but she can't fit into white society, so she leaves. Although you could take that as advocating separatism, I didn't. I took it to mean Indians can't be part of the mainstream unless they eliminate what makes them unique and become plain-vanilla Americans.
Walk the Proud LandPlot
This is the true story of Indian agent John Philip Clum (Audie Murphy) as told by Clum's son in the 1936 biography Apache Agent. The film begins in 1874, as Clum, an Eastern government representative, arrives in San Carlos, Arizona. He is sent to try a new approach to peace with Apaches based on respect for autonomy rather than submission to Army. He faces suspicions from the white settlers, the Army and the Indians, especially Geronimo.
Reception
The film was not a success at the box office, something attributed to the fact that Murphy played a pacifist rather than an action hero. This ended Murphy's plans to make his dream project, a biopic of painter Charles Marion Russell.
I saw only the final half of this, but I think I got the idea.
Clum plays the usual role of the white savior who knows what's best for the Indians. His "new approach" is to tell them to stop fighting and settle down as farmers. Many of the Apache agree, but Geronimo (Jay Silverheels!) and his renegades say they'll never give up their independence.
Needless to say, this isn't exactly a pro-Indian message. It's "pacifist" only in the sense that Clum isn't the one hold a gun to the Apaches' heads. But an implied threat is there. If the Indians don't do it Clum's way, the Army will enforce it their way.
Clum manages to trick Geronimo into submission. He approaches Geronimo with a small number of men and puts them in Geronimo's hands. But other men in the hills fire their guns, and the echoes make it seem as if Geronimo is outnumbered and surrounded. He finally surrenders.
So it's not Clum's pacifist message that carries the day. It's more of the white man's deception. The "bad" Indians are forced to accept the white man's way as the best and only possible existence.
ApacheApache was based on Paul I. Wellman's novel Broncho Apache, which in turn was inspired by a true story. Burt Lancaster plays Massai, a lieutenant of the great Apache warrior Geronimo (here depicted as an old man, played by Monte Blue). Though his tribe has signed surrender terms with the conquering whites, Massai refuses to do so. He escapes from a prison train and conducts a one-man war against the white intruders-and against some of his own people. Along the way, he claims Nalinle (Jean Peters), whom he previously regarded as a traitor to his cause, as his wife.
John McIntire plays famed Indian scout Al Sieber, who-in this film, if not in real life-is sympathetic to the Indians' plight and Massai's single-purposed cause. The real-life counterpart to Massai was killed by Sieber's minions after agreeing to call off the hostilities; United Artists objected to this, forcing producer/star Burt Lancaster to shoot an unconvincingly happy ending. --Hal Erickson, Rovi
Lancaster looks silly as an Indian, and initially sounds silly too. I guess he eventually grows into the role. But that's neither here nor there.
Apache shows what happened to Geronimo and his men when they surrendered to "pacifist" white men. They were sent to a prison camp in Florida and never saw their homeland again. So much for peace and reconciliation.
Massai escapes and, on the way home, meets a Cherokee farmer who touts the value of settling down and growing corn. Massai is scornful, but the man insists he hasn't given up his Cherokee identity. Massai takes some corn with him when he leaves.
When he reaches his own people, the weak-willed appeaser of a chief turns him in to the white men. He escapes and begins his one-man battle to remain free. Nalinle tries to help him and eventually they hole up in a remote cabin, where he angrily tosses the corn away.
The next spring, he's surprised to find a corn crop growing near the cabin. The white men track him down, and he and Sieber play a silly cat-and-mouse game in the corn patch while the others surround it. The white men have scorned the idea that wild savages could become tame farmers, but Sieber sees the corn patch as proof that they can. Amazingly, he lets Massai return to his cabin and live as a newly minted man of the soil.
Conclusion
So the implied assimilationist message of The Far Horizons becomes explicit in Apache. Become a farmer or go to prison and die. Even the boldest and most independent warrior must bend to this inevitable outcome. There's no place for Indians in America unless they give up their old ways and become good Christian workers.
True, these movies didn't come out in this order. But in different ways, white filmmakers were trying to present the same message. They each came up with pieces of the puzzle.
Put them together and you can see the whole assimilationist narrative. Indians were wild and savage. Americans just wanted to live with them in peace. Eventually the Indians agreed and gave up their uncivilized ways.
For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.
Together they spun a clear message of assimilation. America's "Indian problem" would go away if only the Indians joined the mainstream and became good white Christians.
The Far Horizons
An ambitious, historic attempt to explore and document an untamed American frontier unfolds in this rousing adventure drama. In 1803, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, with President Thomas Jefferson's blessing, embarked on the government-sponsored Lewis & Clark Expedition–an attempt to discover a water route connecting St. Louis, Missouri, with the Pacific Ocean. Their trek takes them through the magnificent, danger-filled territory of the Pacific Northwest, with guidance from the Shoshone maiden Sacagawea.
Reception
In 2011, Time Magazine rated The Far Horizons as one of the top ten most historically misleading films, in part due to its casting of Caucasian Donna Reed as Native American Sacagawea, and the creation of a romantic subplot between her character and William Clark despite the fact that Sacagawea's husband, French-Canadian trader Toussaint Charbonneau, was in real life also a member of the expedition.
The explorers' first encounter with a tribe is reasonably accurate. The white man approach the Indians in full dress uniforms, present them with medals and other trinkets, and declare they're now subjects of the Great Father in Washington. The Indians pretend to go along, but after the white men leave, the chief throws down his medals and declares his opposition. No one can own the land, he says.
So far, so good...but then the angry Indians stalk the explorers and try to kill them. Uh, no. Lewis and Clark encountered several friendly tribes and stayed with them for a couple of winters. No one made a concerted effort to kill them.
The unavoidable message is white men good, Indians bad. The noble explorers are just innocently surveying the land. The evil savages can't stand the idea of sharing the country, so they go into a murderous rage. They don't plan intelligent counteroffensives like Tecumseh's confederation of tribes, which happened only a few years later. They lash out like wild beasts threatened with captivity.
The whole love subplot is ridiculous too. And it contributes to the overall message. Sacagawea journeys to Washington DC with Clark, but she can't fit into white society, so she leaves. Although you could take that as advocating separatism, I didn't. I took it to mean Indians can't be part of the mainstream unless they eliminate what makes them unique and become plain-vanilla Americans.
Walk the Proud Land
This is the true story of Indian agent John Philip Clum (Audie Murphy) as told by Clum's son in the 1936 biography Apache Agent. The film begins in 1874, as Clum, an Eastern government representative, arrives in San Carlos, Arizona. He is sent to try a new approach to peace with Apaches based on respect for autonomy rather than submission to Army. He faces suspicions from the white settlers, the Army and the Indians, especially Geronimo.
Reception
The film was not a success at the box office, something attributed to the fact that Murphy played a pacifist rather than an action hero. This ended Murphy's plans to make his dream project, a biopic of painter Charles Marion Russell.
I saw only the final half of this, but I think I got the idea.
Clum plays the usual role of the white savior who knows what's best for the Indians. His "new approach" is to tell them to stop fighting and settle down as farmers. Many of the Apache agree, but Geronimo (Jay Silverheels!) and his renegades say they'll never give up their independence.
Needless to say, this isn't exactly a pro-Indian message. It's "pacifist" only in the sense that Clum isn't the one hold a gun to the Apaches' heads. But an implied threat is there. If the Indians don't do it Clum's way, the Army will enforce it their way.
Clum manages to trick Geronimo into submission. He approaches Geronimo with a small number of men and puts them in Geronimo's hands. But other men in the hills fire their guns, and the echoes make it seem as if Geronimo is outnumbered and surrounded. He finally surrenders.
So it's not Clum's pacifist message that carries the day. It's more of the white man's deception. The "bad" Indians are forced to accept the white man's way as the best and only possible existence.
Apache
John McIntire plays famed Indian scout Al Sieber, who-in this film, if not in real life-is sympathetic to the Indians' plight and Massai's single-purposed cause. The real-life counterpart to Massai was killed by Sieber's minions after agreeing to call off the hostilities; United Artists objected to this, forcing producer/star Burt Lancaster to shoot an unconvincingly happy ending. --Hal Erickson, Rovi
Lancaster looks silly as an Indian, and initially sounds silly too. I guess he eventually grows into the role. But that's neither here nor there.
Apache shows what happened to Geronimo and his men when they surrendered to "pacifist" white men. They were sent to a prison camp in Florida and never saw their homeland again. So much for peace and reconciliation.
Massai escapes and, on the way home, meets a Cherokee farmer who touts the value of settling down and growing corn. Massai is scornful, but the man insists he hasn't given up his Cherokee identity. Massai takes some corn with him when he leaves.
When he reaches his own people, the weak-willed appeaser of a chief turns him in to the white men. He escapes and begins his one-man battle to remain free. Nalinle tries to help him and eventually they hole up in a remote cabin, where he angrily tosses the corn away.
The next spring, he's surprised to find a corn crop growing near the cabin. The white men track him down, and he and Sieber play a silly cat-and-mouse game in the corn patch while the others surround it. The white men have scorned the idea that wild savages could become tame farmers, but Sieber sees the corn patch as proof that they can. Amazingly, he lets Massai return to his cabin and live as a newly minted man of the soil.
Conclusion
So the implied assimilationist message of The Far Horizons becomes explicit in Apache. Become a farmer or go to prison and die. Even the boldest and most independent warrior must bend to this inevitable outcome. There's no place for Indians in America unless they give up their old ways and become good Christian workers.
True, these movies didn't come out in this order. But in different ways, white filmmakers were trying to present the same message. They each came up with pieces of the puzzle.
Put them together and you can see the whole assimilationist narrative. Indians were wild and savage. Americans just wanted to live with them in peace. Eventually the Indians agreed and gave up their uncivilized ways.
For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.
January 13, 2014
"Sacagawea" at Macdonald Day celebration
Sir John A. Macdonald birthday celebrations set off Twitter debate
Hashtag #SirJAM challenged after photo posted of couple in mock aboriginal dress at Macdonald Day celebrations
By Crystal GreeneSaturday marked the 199th birthday of Canada's founding prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, and the Sir John A. Macdonald Bicentennial Commission has been honouring the event with a series of a celebrations and its own Twitter hashtag, #SirJAM.
But on Saturday, that hashtag was adopted by some Twitter users critical of Macdonald's legacy after a photo appeared on the #SirJAM Twitter feed that showed a couple attending a Sir John A. Macdonald Day event in Toronto dressed in "red face" (mock aboriginal dress).
Macdonald is known as one of the Fathers of Confederation and a "nation-builder" for his effort to build a national railroad stretching from one of the country to the other.
In a statement on his website marking Sir John A. Macdonald Day, Prime Minister Stephen Harper praised Macdonald for his "drive and ambition to unite and expand the country."
However, Macdonald's legacy is a dark one for many aboriginal people and others with an awareness of Canada’s dark history—one that includes some of the less praise-worthy events of Macdonald's tenure, such as the residential school system, the clearing of the plains, the mistreatment of Chinese railroad workers and the execution of Métis leader Louis Riel for high treason. Red in the Face over ‘Redface’This weekend saw a number of events held to mark the 199th birthday of Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. At one such event, it seems guests were encouraged to dress up in period costume, circa mid-to-late 1800s, the era when ‘SirJAM’ intermittently served as PM.
Among those costumed revelers, the pair of people you see pictured here, neither of whom are First Nations. The picture originally appeared on Twitter, but has since been taken down after [the photographer of] the woman in the picture faced an instant and sustained backlash, particularly from Indigenous people. In taking down the tweet, the woman [photographer] (Niru Kumar, who happens to be a member of the media and a lawyer in Toronto) also apologized. For some, it seemed, the move was too little, too late, but others apparently took it as a teachable moment. 
Immigrants don't know American history?
A Controversial Culture Clash at Sir John's 199th Birthday
By Steve PaikinIf you haven't seen the picture of the couple in question, I'm sure it's out there in the twitterverse. I'm not going to reproduce it here. The couple in question have been blasted incessantly already. Here's what I'm wondering: can we can use this controversy as a bit of a teachable moment for everyone? And I mean everyone. The couple in question are both physicians--specialists, in fact. They're from the south Asian community. Frankly, I'm told like many "ethnic minorities" in Canada, they feel more comfortable attending traditional events in their own community, and had no intention of coming to our event at all, mostly because they feel (as many "ethnic Canadians" apparently do) that these kinds of events are mostly for WASPs, rather than a more multicultural crowd. But our committee has tried hard to broaden the audience for Macdonald's story, to try to get those who are neither English nor French to see themselves reflected in the history of Macdonald and Canada and thus they were convinced to come and even dress in period garb. (Remember: Macdonald was an immigrant too. There's a powerful message in an immigrant being able to seek the highest political office in the land, unlike in the United States where only native born Americans need apply for the presidency).
The woman in question is an American. She was unaware of the toxic history between Macdonald and First Nations people. She wasn't educated here. She never had history lessons here. But she decided to come to the event and pay tribute to an Indian female legend named Sacagawea, a symbol of female strength and independence, and an honoured figure in American history. So her motives were pure.
Did she and her husband unknowingly make a mistake with their outfits, akin to dressing up in "blackface" as one tweeter suggested? Well, that's a question worthy of a civil discussion. As Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, who attended the event, tweeted:We have 96% of Cdns to educate #IdleKNOWmore Clearly we have many miles to go @odayminan @brando44 @spaikin @nirukumar @mworoniak My final observation is no doubt an impossible wish, but let's put it out there anyway. In this age of instant information comes instant judgment. None of the critics on Twitter paused for a moment to consider whether there might be mitigating circumstances behind the offending garments. Most tweets were immediate and harsh in their judgments, not once asking whether there might actually be an alternate explanation other than "those ignorant white people are just racists."
The fact is, the couple didn't intend to offend, aren't from here, had no knowledge of this chapter of Canadian history, and moreover, aren't white. Whether any of that will satisfy the critics, I can't say. Comment: Few people "intend" to offend others, so that's no excuse. The only possible excuse is that they didn't know any better. I don't buy that either.
The couple in costumes are well-educated South Asian physicians. The woman is an American. They had plenty of resources and opportunities to learn about Native Americans and whether they should dress as them.
Paikin notes that they're immigrants who weren't educated here. So? Depending on when they immigrated and how old they are, they could've been in Canada or the US for 10-20 years. That's more than enough time to educate themselves on Native issues.
And I thought immigrants had to learn US history and take a test on it before they became citizens. With our stereotype-filled education system, I wouldn't assume that long-time citizens know more than immigrants about Indians. It could be just the opposite.
In any case, if you're ignorant of local customs, all the more reason to do your due diligence before donning a costume. For instance, if I moved to India, I wouldn't think of wearing a silly rajah or guru costume. To avoid an offensive "blackface" situation, I wouldn't proceed unless I got reassurances from several sources.
Why didn't this couple do that? That's the key question here.
Honoring Macdonald with Sacagawea?
The fact that the woman dressed as Sacagawea is a strike against her, not for her. Sacagawea had nothing to do with Macdonald. She was dead by the "mid-to-late 1800s" time frame of the invitation.
Like Pocahontas, Sacagawea is a symbol of the stereotypical Indian maiden or princess. The woman chose a costume that implies Natives and their cultures are a homogeneous mass that conforms to our ignorant beliefs. In short, she "honored" Natives the way any dancing mascot or hipster in a headdress does: not at all.
It would be like dressing as a stereotypical harem girl or belly dancer for an event in India. I doubt anyone at a dignified historical celebration would appreciate a white woman pretending to be Mata Hari. This is about like that.
So no, there's little or no excuse for this kind of ignorance. People (should) know you're not supposed to dress up as ethnic types. Not as Shylock for a Jewish celebration or Al Capone for an Italian celebration.
It's common-sense sensitivity. You don't have to be a long-time resident of a place to understand that.
Hashtag #SirJAM challenged after photo posted of couple in mock aboriginal dress at Macdonald Day celebrations
By Crystal Greene
But on Saturday, that hashtag was adopted by some Twitter users critical of Macdonald's legacy after a photo appeared on the #SirJAM Twitter feed that showed a couple attending a Sir John A. Macdonald Day event in Toronto dressed in "red face" (mock aboriginal dress).
Macdonald is known as one of the Fathers of Confederation and a "nation-builder" for his effort to build a national railroad stretching from one of the country to the other.
In a statement on his website marking Sir John A. Macdonald Day, Prime Minister Stephen Harper praised Macdonald for his "drive and ambition to unite and expand the country."
However, Macdonald's legacy is a dark one for many aboriginal people and others with an awareness of Canada’s dark history—one that includes some of the less praise-worthy events of Macdonald's tenure, such as the residential school system, the clearing of the plains, the mistreatment of Chinese railroad workers and the execution of Métis leader Louis Riel for high treason.
Among those costumed revelers, the pair of people you see pictured here, neither of whom are First Nations. The picture originally appeared on Twitter, but has since been taken down after [the photographer of] the woman in the picture faced an instant and sustained backlash, particularly from Indigenous people. In taking down the tweet, the woman [photographer] (Niru Kumar, who happens to be a member of the media and a lawyer in Toronto) also apologized. For some, it seemed, the move was too little, too late, but others apparently took it as a teachable moment.
Immigrants don't know American history?
A Controversial Culture Clash at Sir John's 199th Birthday
By Steve Paikin
The woman in question is an American. She was unaware of the toxic history between Macdonald and First Nations people. She wasn't educated here. She never had history lessons here. But she decided to come to the event and pay tribute to an Indian female legend named Sacagawea, a symbol of female strength and independence, and an honoured figure in American history. So her motives were pure.
Did she and her husband unknowingly make a mistake with their outfits, akin to dressing up in "blackface" as one tweeter suggested? Well, that's a question worthy of a civil discussion. As Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, who attended the event, tweeted:
The fact is, the couple didn't intend to offend, aren't from here, had no knowledge of this chapter of Canadian history, and moreover, aren't white. Whether any of that will satisfy the critics, I can't say.
The couple in costumes are well-educated South Asian physicians. The woman is an American. They had plenty of resources and opportunities to learn about Native Americans and whether they should dress as them.
Paikin notes that they're immigrants who weren't educated here. So? Depending on when they immigrated and how old they are, they could've been in Canada or the US for 10-20 years. That's more than enough time to educate themselves on Native issues.
And I thought immigrants had to learn US history and take a test on it before they became citizens. With our stereotype-filled education system, I wouldn't assume that long-time citizens know more than immigrants about Indians. It could be just the opposite.
In any case, if you're ignorant of local customs, all the more reason to do your due diligence before donning a costume. For instance, if I moved to India, I wouldn't think of wearing a silly rajah or guru costume. To avoid an offensive "blackface" situation, I wouldn't proceed unless I got reassurances from several sources.
Why didn't this couple do that? That's the key question here.
Honoring Macdonald with Sacagawea?
The fact that the woman dressed as Sacagawea is a strike against her, not for her. Sacagawea had nothing to do with Macdonald. She was dead by the "mid-to-late 1800s" time frame of the invitation.
Like Pocahontas, Sacagawea is a symbol of the stereotypical Indian maiden or princess. The woman chose a costume that implies Natives and their cultures are a homogeneous mass that conforms to our ignorant beliefs. In short, she "honored" Natives the way any dancing mascot or hipster in a headdress does: not at all.
It would be like dressing as a stereotypical harem girl or belly dancer for an event in India. I doubt anyone at a dignified historical celebration would appreciate a white woman pretending to be Mata Hari. This is about like that.
So no, there's little or no excuse for this kind of ignorance. People (should) know you're not supposed to dress up as ethnic types. Not as Shylock for a Jewish celebration or Al Capone for an Italian celebration.
It's common-sense sensitivity. You don't have to be a long-time resident of a place to understand that.
September 02, 2013
Lewis and Clark in Drunk History
Drunk History: There's Nothing Funny About Violence Against Native American Women
By ElissaI’ve recently grown to love Drunk History. There’s nothing like the narration of a filter-free lush on the brink of a blackout to underscore the absurdity of Our Nation’s History, the kind that becomes fables in our young heads as soon as we’re old enough to memorize facts from textbooks. Drunk History is a Comedy Central series that presents drunken storytellers—comedians and other personalities—recounting historic events, with which historical reenactments are paired.
I was curious to see what Drunk History would do with the story of Lewis and Clark’s journey in the recent “Nashville” episode, which aired on August 27. As a lecturer of American Indian Studies at the University of Washington, I teach classes on literature and film, most recently a class on the representations of Native characters in the Twilight Saga.
The Drunk History treatment of the story of the Lewis and Clark Expedition was appalling. Yes, Drunk History has established a track record of using “mature” language—the people are wasted. They swear. Yes, the storytellers fudge the facts—that’s part of the point, and serves as a reminder that history is created by a massive chorus of voices, those with facts behind them and those without. But in narrating the Lewis and Clark segment, Alie Ward and Georgia Hardstark crossed a line from ribald to reprehensible. Some specifics:The Native people have arrived on screen inexplicably pumped for a fight. We know these guys are “(beep)holes” because they’re partially unclothed, which is pop culture parlance for savage. The Lakota Chief shows up (fully clothed, so we know he’s no barbarian), played by Pakistani-American actor Kumail Nanjiani. Do the producers mean to make a comment by casting a non-white, non-Native actor in this role?
We’re told that “each of Lewis and Clark’s men got like four wives, for the night—like hookers.” “Like, I’m gonna check out these old hooker wives.” “And sure enough, everyone on the expedition, they got (beep) crazy STD’s.” The Native men are cast as pimps, the women as whores, and the white adventurers are just there to enjoy the bounty.
Ward and Hardstark continue to narrate as Nanjiani reappears in the role of another Native man, this time donning the iconic headband in place of the headdress. Both pieces of costuming have been used throughout cinema’s history to erase the cultural distinctions among individual tribes, stripping us of our individuality and reinforcing a false notion of “pan-Indian” unity. Comment: For more on Lewis and Clark, see Review of A Blackfeet Encounter and Manifest Destiny Comic Book.
By Elissa
I was curious to see what Drunk History would do with the story of Lewis and Clark’s journey in the recent “Nashville” episode, which aired on August 27. As a lecturer of American Indian Studies at the University of Washington, I teach classes on literature and film, most recently a class on the representations of Native characters in the Twilight Saga.
The Drunk History treatment of the story of the Lewis and Clark Expedition was appalling. Yes, Drunk History has established a track record of using “mature” language—the people are wasted. They swear. Yes, the storytellers fudge the facts—that’s part of the point, and serves as a reminder that history is created by a massive chorus of voices, those with facts behind them and those without. But in narrating the Lewis and Clark segment, Alie Ward and Georgia Hardstark crossed a line from ribald to reprehensible.
We’re told that “each of Lewis and Clark’s men got like four wives, for the night—like hookers.” “Like, I’m gonna check out these old hooker wives.” “And sure enough, everyone on the expedition, they got (beep) crazy STD’s.” The Native men are cast as pimps, the women as whores, and the white adventurers are just there to enjoy the bounty.
Ward and Hardstark continue to narrate as Nanjiani reappears in the role of another Native man, this time donning the iconic headband in place of the headdress. Both pieces of costuming have been used throughout cinema’s history to erase the cultural distinctions among individual tribes, stripping us of our individuality and reinforcing a false notion of “pan-Indian” unity.
August 11, 2013
2014 dollar to honor Lewis and Clark
7 Choices for the Back of the Next Dollar Coin: What's Your Favorite?According to the coin collecting news site CoinUpdate.com, the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) has reviewed seven proposed designs for the 2014 Native American one dollar coin and made its recommendation to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Native American one dollar coin has a portrait of Sacagawea on its obverse (heads) side, and features a different themed design each year on its reverse (tails). The 2013 Native American one dollar coin commemorates the Delaware Treaty of 1778.
The theme for the 2014 coin is the cooperation among Natives and the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804-06. Of the seven designs below, the CFA chose the sixth, a depiction of Chief Cameahwait recommending the alternate route to Captain Lewis. Which is your favorite? 
Comment: As you may know, I follow the Native developments in the numismatics field. This posting led to an interesting discussion on Facebook:
Reverse of the 2014 dollar will honor the Indians' role in the Lewis and Clark expedition. Because the obverse featuring Sacagawea doesn't do that enough already.Sorry, can't quite get far enough past the irony of that big LIBERTY placed over the head of a Native American woman to choose a reverse. That, and the fact that almost all the choices seem to say "They gave us their continent! HOW COOL WAS THAT?!?!?" I guess the Mint has run out of Native subjects, so it had to double down on Sacagawea. I guess not much happened before the Indians met the white man.
"Liberty" and "In God We Trust" are a given on all these coins. But it's a good point. Imagine if we changed the slogans to, I dunno, "Don't Tread on Me" and "In Creator We Trust." The latter would send conservatives into a frenzy; it would be bigger than Benghazi.The Mint could, of course, consider a male Native American subject, but that will never do. There's a reason "America" was represented by a woman on the old maps, and that reason is that "she" was an object to be ravished by "him" (Europe). The Indian Head penny nailed that point to the wall. It featured a little white girl in an Indian headdress. So we got a two-fer on the "Europe rapes America in the name of liberty" theme.
But I'm undecided on featuring Sacagawea. On the one hand, it's nice that they've honored Native women. On the other hand, she's a safe and unthreatening choice.
This will be the third of six coins honoring an accommodation with the white man. Depending on which design they choose, it could be the second to feature a peace pipe. Message: "How wonderful that the Indians got along with the white man." It could be the second to feature food. Message: "How wonderful that the Indians helped sustain the white man."
If the Mint is going in chronological order, the next two coins should feature Tecumseh and the Trail of Tears. Both of which reflect badly on the US.
If they go instead to Sequoyah's inventing the Cherokee syllabary, you can bet the rest of the coins will be equally sanitized.
Deconstruct your coins, people! They have hidden messages!
Incidentally, I vote for design #2 (below). Design #6 would be my second choice.
P.S. If Disney makes a big enough contribution to the US government, can we get Johnny Depp's Tonto on the obverse? After all, the Comanche have told us that his bird hat is authentic.
For more on the Sacagawea dollar, see 2013 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled and 2012 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled.
The theme for the 2014 coin is the cooperation among Natives and the Lewis and Clark expedition of 1804-06. Of the seven designs below, the CFA chose the sixth, a depiction of Chief Cameahwait recommending the alternate route to Captain Lewis. Which is your favorite?
Comment: As you may know, I follow the Native developments in the numismatics field. This posting led to an interesting discussion on Facebook:
Reverse of the 2014 dollar will honor the Indians' role in the Lewis and Clark expedition. Because the obverse featuring Sacagawea doesn't do that enough already.
"Liberty" and "In God We Trust" are a given on all these coins. But it's a good point. Imagine if we changed the slogans to, I dunno, "Don't Tread on Me" and "In Creator We Trust." The latter would send conservatives into a frenzy; it would be bigger than Benghazi.
But I'm undecided on featuring Sacagawea. On the one hand, it's nice that they've honored Native women. On the other hand, she's a safe and unthreatening choice.
This will be the third of six coins honoring an accommodation with the white man. Depending on which design they choose, it could be the second to feature a peace pipe. Message: "How wonderful that the Indians got along with the white man." It could be the second to feature food. Message: "How wonderful that the Indians helped sustain the white man."
If the Mint is going in chronological order, the next two coins should feature Tecumseh and the Trail of Tears. Both of which reflect badly on the US.
If they go instead to Sequoyah's inventing the Cherokee syllabary, you can bet the rest of the coins will be equally sanitized.
Deconstruct your coins, people! They have hidden messages!
Incidentally, I vote for design #2 (below). Design #6 would be my second choice.
P.S. If Disney makes a big enough contribution to the US government, can we get Johnny Depp's Tonto on the obverse? After all, the Comanche have told us that his bird hat is authentic.
For more on the Sacagawea dollar, see 2013 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled and 2012 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled.
July 20, 2013
Manifest Destiny comic book
'Manifest Destiny' maps Lewis and Clark vs. monsters
Chris Dingess imagines the Louisiana Purchase going a lot differently in new comic book.This fall, Chris Dingess ventures from Being Human to being Lewis and Clark.
The TV screenwriter tackles two of America's greatest explorers and sends them on a much different journey—with a lot more weirdness—than history books would have you believe in Manifest Destiny, a new ongoing Image Comics/Skybound title announced today that launches in November.
Dingess takes the legend of Meriwether Lewis and William's Clark's famous three-year expedition in the early 19th century and posits it as America's first black-ops mission.
"The reason we got the Louisiana Purchase for so cheap from Napoleon was because the land west of the Mississippi was full of dangerous creatures and monsters," says Dingess, who wrote much of the series while on hiatus for the Syfy series Being Human. Some details:Q: So how does this fictional take fit into actual history?
Lewis and Clark are put together by Thomas Jefferson, and they assemble a rag-tag group of soldiers and convicts to go west and just destroy monsters and eventually make a deal with the devil to allow the expansion of the United States.
The whole time Lewis is keeping two journals. There's the journal you're forced to read in eighth grade, and there's the real journal depicting all this horrible, bloody chaos, which I would have rather read in eighth grade as opposed to how much fruit stock they were loading on the boat.
Q: Which of their crew is your favorite so far?
I really enjoy writing Lewis and Clark together, because they are our eyes for this thing, but we meet Sacagawea. In their real journals, the young Native American woman is their guide—we've reimagined her here and she's a really fun character.
She's not just a passive woman showing them and communicating with other Indians for them. She's the one who gets her hands dirty—if this were G.I Joe, she would be Snake Eyes. She's a badass.
Lewis and Clark are strong, but a lot of times they're going to have to rely on Sacagawea's cunning and skill and strength to get them out of the big jams they're in. They're slowly going to realize just how important she is to them. Comment: This is an interesting idea, but a lot depends on the execution.
Since it's supposedly a secret history, it doesn't have to follow actual history too closely. But there are still potential pitfalls. For instance:
Turning positive or neutral characters from Native mythologies into "monsters."
Portraying the Indians along the way as savages, or using Plains stereotypes.
Making Sacagawea super-sexy in a revealing buckskin outfit.
Alas, given her bare midriff on the cover, the last pitfall may come true.
For more on Lewis and Clark comic books, see Burgas Reviews Bertozzi's LEWIS & CLARK and Lewis and Clark Graphic Novel. For more on Lewis and Clark, see Jefferson's Indian Removal Policy.
Chris Dingess imagines the Louisiana Purchase going a lot differently in new comic book.
The TV screenwriter tackles two of America's greatest explorers and sends them on a much different journey—with a lot more weirdness—than history books would have you believe in Manifest Destiny, a new ongoing Image Comics/Skybound title announced today that launches in November.
Dingess takes the legend of Meriwether Lewis and William's Clark's famous three-year expedition in the early 19th century and posits it as America's first black-ops mission.
"The reason we got the Louisiana Purchase for so cheap from Napoleon was because the land west of the Mississippi was full of dangerous creatures and monsters," says Dingess, who wrote much of the series while on hiatus for the Syfy series Being Human.
Lewis and Clark are put together by Thomas Jefferson, and they assemble a rag-tag group of soldiers and convicts to go west and just destroy monsters and eventually make a deal with the devil to allow the expansion of the United States.
The whole time Lewis is keeping two journals. There's the journal you're forced to read in eighth grade, and there's the real journal depicting all this horrible, bloody chaos, which I would have rather read in eighth grade as opposed to how much fruit stock they were loading on the boat.
Q: Which of their crew is your favorite so far?
I really enjoy writing Lewis and Clark together, because they are our eyes for this thing, but we meet Sacagawea. In their real journals, the young Native American woman is their guide—we've reimagined her here and she's a really fun character.
She's not just a passive woman showing them and communicating with other Indians for them. She's the one who gets her hands dirty—if this were G.I Joe, she would be Snake Eyes. She's a badass.
Lewis and Clark are strong, but a lot of times they're going to have to rely on Sacagawea's cunning and skill and strength to get them out of the big jams they're in. They're slowly going to realize just how important she is to them.
Since it's supposedly a secret history, it doesn't have to follow actual history too closely. But there are still potential pitfalls. For instance:
Alas, given her bare midriff on the cover, the last pitfall may come true.
For more on Lewis and Clark comic books, see Burgas Reviews Bertozzi's LEWIS & CLARK and Lewis and Clark Graphic Novel. For more on Lewis and Clark, see Jefferson's Indian Removal Policy.
November 27, 2012
2013 Sacagawea dollar reverse unveiled
2013 Native American $1 Dollar Design Image
By Darrin Lee UnserA new reverse design for the 2013 Native American $1 coin was unveiled by the United States Mint last week. The dollar design represents the theme of "The Delaware Treaty (1778)."
Expected to debut early next year on new $1 coins, the design marks the fifth in a series of annually changing reverses to appear on Native American coinage. Congress mandated rotating dollar designs with the passage of the Native American $1 Coin Act. And:2013 Native American dollars feature a reverse design that is emblematic of the Delaware Treaty of 1778. After having declared independence just a few years before, the first formal treaty signed in the name of the United States was with an Indian tribe, the Delaware, at Fort Pitt (now Pittsburgh) on September 17, 1778.
To signify that treaty, the dollar design shows images of a turkey, howling wolf and turtle. These three creatures are symbols of the clans of the Delaware Tribe. A string of thirteen stars surround the design representing the thirteen original colonies. 
Comment: On the positive side, the design itself looks nice. I don't have any artistic complaints about it.
But I wonder if the Delaware Treaty of 1778 is worth commemorating. I think the British signed treaties with the Indians before the Revolution, so it wasn't literally the first treaty.
It was the first United States treaty, but other than that, I'm not sure it's historically important. In the articles I read, no one ever mentions it.
And I question the use of three animals to depict the event. We're talking about Delaware leaders using their rhetorical skills and intellectual prowess to negotiate a legal document. And the best we can do to represent this act of statesmanship is a menagerie? Doesn't this convey the impression that Indians are animal-like?
How about this? If you can't think of a sophisticated way to portray a Native event, don't portray it. In particular, don't use clichéd eagle, wolf, hawk, or bear symbols. Especially with such a tenuous connection to the event.
In notational form:
Delaware signed treaty => Delaware have clans => Clans based on animals => Pictures of animals
So
Delaware signed treaty => Pictures of animals?
I don't consider that a great chain of reasoning. It's like saying:
Lincoln wrote and delivered the Gettysburg Address => Lincoln was known as a rail-splitter => Picture of a log.
Is a piece of wood the best representation of Lincoln's rhetorical achievement? No? The same applies to clan animals and a historic treaty signing.
For more on the subject, see 2012 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled and 2011 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled.
By Darrin Lee Unser
Expected to debut early next year on new $1 coins, the design marks the fifth in a series of annually changing reverses to appear on Native American coinage. Congress mandated rotating dollar designs with the passage of the Native American $1 Coin Act.
To signify that treaty, the dollar design shows images of a turkey, howling wolf and turtle. These three creatures are symbols of the clans of the Delaware Tribe. A string of thirteen stars surround the design representing the thirteen original colonies.
Comment: On the positive side, the design itself looks nice. I don't have any artistic complaints about it.
But I wonder if the Delaware Treaty of 1778 is worth commemorating. I think the British signed treaties with the Indians before the Revolution, so it wasn't literally the first treaty.
It was the first United States treaty, but other than that, I'm not sure it's historically important. In the articles I read, no one ever mentions it.
And I question the use of three animals to depict the event. We're talking about Delaware leaders using their rhetorical skills and intellectual prowess to negotiate a legal document. And the best we can do to represent this act of statesmanship is a menagerie? Doesn't this convey the impression that Indians are animal-like?
How about this? If you can't think of a sophisticated way to portray a Native event, don't portray it. In particular, don't use clichéd eagle, wolf, hawk, or bear symbols. Especially with such a tenuous connection to the event.
In notational form:
Delaware signed treaty => Delaware have clans => Clans based on animals => Pictures of animals
So
Delaware signed treaty => Pictures of animals?
I don't consider that a great chain of reasoning. It's like saying:
Lincoln wrote and delivered the Gettysburg Address => Lincoln was known as a rail-splitter => Picture of a log.
Is a piece of wood the best representation of Lincoln's rhetorical achievement? No? The same applies to clan animals and a historic treaty signing.
For more on the subject, see 2012 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled and 2011 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled.
January 03, 2012
2012 Sacagawea dollar reverse unveiled
New US coin marks importance of horse tradeThe United States Mint's 2012 Native American $1 coin will feature the image of a horse and Native American in profile.
The mint said the new design for the reverse (tails side) is themed on "Trade Routes in the 17th Century", with the horse perhaps the most significant of all the goods traded throughout the continent during that period.
In keeping with the coin's theme, the image shows a Native American and horse in profile, with horses running in the background, representing the historical spread of the horse. Some background on the horse trade:Thanks to inter-tribal trade, horses had crossed the Rio Grande by 1600.
This trade received a massive infusion in 1680, when the Pueblo Revolt released thousands of horses from the mission herds into Native American hands.
The horse became perhaps the most sought-after commodity in inter-tribal trade.
The horse's spread in Native American hands was so prodigious that it became the primary means of transportation and the nucleus of the ranching economy already under way in the western territories.
In the south, the Caddo trade center became a major entry point for the horse. Trade up the Old Snake Route brought horses as far north as the Mandan in North Dakota, who supplied them to the Lakota and Blackfeet.
A parallel inter-mountain route brought horses to the northwest.
By the time Lewis and Clark wintered with the Mandan in 1803, they encountered a well-established horse culture. Comment: As I said before, most of this trade occurred before the peak of the Plains Indian cultures. You know, the cultures that depended on and became famous for the horse. Yet the coin shows a stereotypical Plains chief. Stupid.
Apparently the voters loved this design, and the mint went with the people's choice. As I said before, they were thinking of 19th-century stereotypes, not 17th-century history. The designs with ledger paintings, which were done in the 19th century, prove the point.
So the horse trade was a reason to feature the beloved chief of American history. In other words, it was basically an excuse to show off America's national mascot.
The design is okay if you ignore the figure of the chief. He looks goofy with his generic, almost Caucasian features and mink stole around his neck. This design would've been much better with a warrior who wasn't a chief.
For more on Indians and currency, see Chickasaw Quarter Debuts and 2012 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled.
The mint said the new design for the reverse (tails side) is themed on "Trade Routes in the 17th Century", with the horse perhaps the most significant of all the goods traded throughout the continent during that period.
In keeping with the coin's theme, the image shows a Native American and horse in profile, with horses running in the background, representing the historical spread of the horse.
This trade received a massive infusion in 1680, when the Pueblo Revolt released thousands of horses from the mission herds into Native American hands.
The horse became perhaps the most sought-after commodity in inter-tribal trade.
The horse's spread in Native American hands was so prodigious that it became the primary means of transportation and the nucleus of the ranching economy already under way in the western territories.
In the south, the Caddo trade center became a major entry point for the horse. Trade up the Old Snake Route brought horses as far north as the Mandan in North Dakota, who supplied them to the Lakota and Blackfeet.
A parallel inter-mountain route brought horses to the northwest.
By the time Lewis and Clark wintered with the Mandan in 1803, they encountered a well-established horse culture.
Apparently the voters loved this design, and the mint went with the people's choice. As I said before, they were thinking of 19th-century stereotypes, not 17th-century history. The designs with ledger paintings, which were done in the 19th century, prove the point.
So the horse trade was a reason to feature the beloved chief of American history. In other words, it was basically an excuse to show off America's national mascot.
The design is okay if you ignore the figure of the chief. He looks goofy with his generic, almost Caucasian features and mink stole around his neck. This design would've been much better with a warrior who wasn't a chief.
For more on Indians and currency, see Chickasaw Quarter Debuts and 2012 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled.
September 04, 2011
Eurocentrism in Night at the Museum 2
I watched the sequel to Night at the Museum Sunday. For those who don't know the story, here it is:
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (Three-Disc Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy) (2009)Ben Stiller wrestles with extinct beasts, historical figures, and meddling monkeys in Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian, the sequel to the popular 2006 special-effects extravaganza. This time, the ancient Egyptian tablet (the one that brings all the exhibits at New York's Museum of Natural History to life at night) is being shipped off to the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C.--which, as the movie diligently tells us, is the largest museum in the world. Naturally, former museum guard Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) heads down to rescue it (and, by extension, keep his magical museum friends alive). He ends up fighting with a nasty pharaoh who talks like Boris Karloff (Hank Azaria, The Simpsons) and falling in love with Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams, Enchanted). All the old gang are along for the ride, including Dexter the monkey; much face-slapping and special effects ensue. Comment: A couple of years ago, I discussed how Mizuo Peck (Caucasian/Japanese) played Sacagawea in the original:
Martin's letter to Mizuo Peck
Mizuo Peck in Night at the Museum
Peck doesn't have much to do in Night at the Museum 2. I think she has only one line: questioning General Custer's plan to announce "Attack!" before he attacks.
As before, she's obviously a "Hollywood starlet" version of a Native woman. Her dress looks like a designer Native outfit, but at least it's knee-length and demure. The movie doesn't flaunt her sexuality, as many others have done with Native women.
She has a quiver of arrows, although I'm not sure we see her using a bow. Giving her a bow and arrows seems historically inaccurate. As a teenage girl with Lewis and Clark, following her husband and carrying a baby, I doubt she did any hunting.
White characters rule
Larry Daley and Amelia Earhart have the run of the National Mall, including the 10 Smithsonian museums presently open. Four of those 10 museums feature minorities:
National Museum of the American Indian National Museum of African Art Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (Asian art) Freer Gallery of Art (Asian art)
So do minorities account for 40% of Night at the Museum 2's characters and artworks? Heck, no.
Let's review the movie's characters:
Larry Daley--night guard
Amelia Earhart
Jedidiah--cowboy
Octavius--Roman soldier
Kahmunrah--pharaoh
Ivan the Terrible
Napoleon Bonaparte
Al Capone
George Armstrong Custer
Teddy Roosevelt
Abe Lincoln
Dr. McPhee, curator
Einstein bobbleheads
The Thinker
Cherubs
Notice anything these characters have in common. Yeah, they're all white. The only one who might not qualify as white is Kahmunrah, and he's played by the white Hank Azaria.
Despite being called the Natural Museum of History, the original museum encompassed all of human history. Four of the 10 Smithsonian museums on the mall feature minorities. Yet Night at the Museum 2 is almost blindingly white.
Oh, sure...there are some minorities. For instance, blacks play a small role. George Foreman has a cameo at the beginning, and a group of Tuskegee airmen hamfistedly assert their importance in history.
Minorities = savages
But as you can see in the photo, here are the main ones:
1) Attila and his Huns. Although they were Eurasian in history, perhaps a Turkic people, they're dressed like Mongols in the movie. To me they "read" Asian.
They have no lines to speak of. They're just background characters. They're savage warriors who fill out the fight scenes.
2) Sacagawea. Again, no lines to speak of. Another background character. Another savage warrior.
3) Three Neanderthal-like cavemen. Grunts only (I'm pretty sure the so-called cavemen spoke languages). More background characters. Not even warriors; more like pets listening to and obeying their much-smarter masters.
I'm not sure the cavemen count as minorities. But look what we have here. All the main characters are white. The minority or dark-skinned characters are grouped together as extras. The Indian, the Huns, and the cavemen: a bunch of unthinking savages. They don't provide any important impetus to the story. They don't do anything except glower and fight.
I especially like the mingling of Sacagawea and the cavemen. As I've said many times, Indians and cavemen are America's favorite primitive people of the past. If you want to signify how savage and barbaric life used to be--you know, before Westerners brought civilization to the world--an Indian or a caveman is your choice.
4) The Easter Island Moai. This talking head speaks in Tonto-style pidgin English. Why? Because he (it?) comes from a non-Western culture.
The magic tablet lets the Egyptian pharaoh, the Roman soldier, Ivan the Terrible, and Napoleon Bonaparte speak good English. But somehow the magic doesn't extend to the Easter Island head. Or to the Huns or the cavemen, for that matter. Message: White people are civilized; they can speak properly. Non-white people aren't and can't.
How Hollywood thinks
With all of history to choose from, how hard could it have been to include minority characters? How about Confucius, Kublai Khan, Tamerlane, Simón Bolivar, Booker T. Washington, Pancho Villa, Harriet Tubman, or Mahatma Gandhi? If you're gonna use a random cowboy or Roman soldier, why not a random samurai or Muslim scholar or African chieftain?
Answer: Because Hollywood thinks in racist terms. Having Ben Stiller, Amy Adams, and Robin Williams in starring roles apparently isn't enough. Every major historical figure--except the silent savage ones--has to be white. Americans will stay away from the theaters if Hollywood forces them to watch blacks, Latinos, or Asians in heroic roles.
Yeah, right.
The Eurocentrism is obvious here. White people matter; others don't. History revolves around cowboys, soldiers, and presidents.
That was the perception for the last 200 years, anyway. But in the 21st century, we should be doing better.
As for the movie itself, it's a lightweight piece of fluff--an update on the old Saturday matinees that didn't make much sense but had a lot of running and chasing. The onslaught of special-effects characters and gimmicks seems designed to amuse children. The plot loopholes are big enough to fly the Wright Flyer through. (Does the pharaoh really think a few dozen hawk warriors are enough to defeat the world's military forces?) Rob's rating: 7.0 of 10.
For more on the subject, see "Bottom Line" Argument Is Racist, Patel's Struggle Shows Hollywood's Racism, and Movies Convey America's Master Narrative."
Below: The mostly white cast of Night at the Museum 2. Putting Sacagawea and Attila on this poster is misleading. The Thinker and the cherubs have more lines than they do.
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (Three-Disc Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy) (2009)
Martin's letter to Mizuo Peck
Mizuo Peck in Night at the Museum
Peck doesn't have much to do in Night at the Museum 2. I think she has only one line: questioning General Custer's plan to announce "Attack!" before he attacks.
As before, she's obviously a "Hollywood starlet" version of a Native woman. Her dress looks like a designer Native outfit, but at least it's knee-length and demure. The movie doesn't flaunt her sexuality, as many others have done with Native women.
She has a quiver of arrows, although I'm not sure we see her using a bow. Giving her a bow and arrows seems historically inaccurate. As a teenage girl with Lewis and Clark, following her husband and carrying a baby, I doubt she did any hunting.
White characters rule
Larry Daley and Amelia Earhart have the run of the National Mall, including the 10 Smithsonian museums presently open. Four of those 10 museums feature minorities:
So do minorities account for 40% of Night at the Museum 2's characters and artworks? Heck, no.
Let's review the movie's characters:
Larry Daley--night guard
Amelia Earhart
Jedidiah--cowboy
Octavius--Roman soldier
Kahmunrah--pharaoh
Ivan the Terrible
Napoleon Bonaparte
Al Capone
George Armstrong Custer
Teddy Roosevelt
Abe Lincoln
Dr. McPhee, curator
Einstein bobbleheads
The Thinker
Cherubs
Notice anything these characters have in common. Yeah, they're all white. The only one who might not qualify as white is Kahmunrah, and he's played by the white Hank Azaria.
Despite being called the Natural Museum of History, the original museum encompassed all of human history. Four of the 10 Smithsonian museums on the mall feature minorities. Yet Night at the Museum 2 is almost blindingly white.
Oh, sure...there are some minorities. For instance, blacks play a small role. George Foreman has a cameo at the beginning, and a group of Tuskegee airmen hamfistedly assert their importance in history.
Minorities = savages
But as you can see in the photo, here are the main ones:
1) Attila and his Huns. Although they were Eurasian in history, perhaps a Turkic people, they're dressed like Mongols in the movie. To me they "read" Asian.
They have no lines to speak of. They're just background characters. They're savage warriors who fill out the fight scenes.
2) Sacagawea. Again, no lines to speak of. Another background character. Another savage warrior.
3) Three Neanderthal-like cavemen. Grunts only (I'm pretty sure the so-called cavemen spoke languages). More background characters. Not even warriors; more like pets listening to and obeying their much-smarter masters.
I'm not sure the cavemen count as minorities. But look what we have here. All the main characters are white. The minority or dark-skinned characters are grouped together as extras. The Indian, the Huns, and the cavemen: a bunch of unthinking savages. They don't provide any important impetus to the story. They don't do anything except glower and fight.
I especially like the mingling of Sacagawea and the cavemen. As I've said many times, Indians and cavemen are America's favorite primitive people of the past. If you want to signify how savage and barbaric life used to be--you know, before Westerners brought civilization to the world--an Indian or a caveman is your choice.
4) The Easter Island Moai. This talking head speaks in Tonto-style pidgin English. Why? Because he (it?) comes from a non-Western culture.
The magic tablet lets the Egyptian pharaoh, the Roman soldier, Ivan the Terrible, and Napoleon Bonaparte speak good English. But somehow the magic doesn't extend to the Easter Island head. Or to the Huns or the cavemen, for that matter. Message: White people are civilized; they can speak properly. Non-white people aren't and can't.
How Hollywood thinks
With all of history to choose from, how hard could it have been to include minority characters? How about Confucius, Kublai Khan, Tamerlane, Simón Bolivar, Booker T. Washington, Pancho Villa, Harriet Tubman, or Mahatma Gandhi? If you're gonna use a random cowboy or Roman soldier, why not a random samurai or Muslim scholar or African chieftain?
Answer: Because Hollywood thinks in racist terms. Having Ben Stiller, Amy Adams, and Robin Williams in starring roles apparently isn't enough. Every major historical figure--except the silent savage ones--has to be white. Americans will stay away from the theaters if Hollywood forces them to watch blacks, Latinos, or Asians in heroic roles.
Yeah, right.
The Eurocentrism is obvious here. White people matter; others don't. History revolves around cowboys, soldiers, and presidents.
That was the perception for the last 200 years, anyway. But in the 21st century, we should be doing better.
As for the movie itself, it's a lightweight piece of fluff--an update on the old Saturday matinees that didn't make much sense but had a lot of running and chasing. The onslaught of special-effects characters and gimmicks seems designed to amuse children. The plot loopholes are big enough to fly the Wright Flyer through. (Does the pharaoh really think a few dozen hawk warriors are enough to defeat the world's military forces?) Rob's rating: 7.0 of 10.
For more on the subject, see "Bottom Line" Argument Is Racist, Patel's Struggle Shows Hollywood's Racism, and Movies Convey America's Master Narrative."
Below: The mostly white cast of Night at the Museum 2. Putting Sacagawea and Attila on this poster is misleading. The Thinker and the cherubs have more lines than they do.
August 16, 2011
Stereotypical chiefs on Sacagawea dollar
Vote on the 2012 Native American Dollar DesignsThe Native American $1 Coin Program began in 2009 and has featured annually rotating reverse designs representing contributions and accomplishments of Native Americans.
So far, designs have featured Agriculture with the “Three Sisters” method of planting, Government with the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois Confederacy, and Diplomacy with the written peace treaty between Native Americans and the settlers at Plymouth.
The 2012 Native American Dollar design will feature trade routes of the 17th century and the spread of the horse. The United States Mint recently provided the thirteen design candidates for coin. Some of the designs are traditional depictions while others are done in the style of Native American ledger art. Comment: The images are all about Plains chiefs and warriors on horseback. Because that aspect of Native culture hasn't been publicized enough. The only things missing are the stereotypical tipis.
So the design will "feature trade routes of the 17th century and the spread of the horse"? A few problems with this. There's nothing to signify trade routes in the designs. With all the images of lone warriors and buffalo hunters, these designs have nothing to do with trading parties. What they're conveying is the same Western "romance" seen in countless examples of kitschy art.
Moreover, the Plains horse culture didn't reach fruition until the 19th century. And ledger art didn't exist until the late 19th century. So the coins are using stereotypical images from the wrong era to promote the alleged topic.
Vote early and often
I suggest you go to this site and vote. And don't pick design #8--possibly the worst of the bunch--which is leading at the moment.
(Bad choice.)
I picked #11, but it was a tough choice among the final five ledger painting-style images. Any of them would be okay.
(Good choice.)
Any choice featuring a realistic Indian chief on horseback should be disqualified immediately as stereotypical. That's almost literally the last things that should appear on a Native American coin.
The ledger art adds a dimension of information and art to the subject. Even though some of the realistic images are good, the choice should be a ledger painting.
Why no contemporary Indians?
Someone questioned the idea of putting any historical Native images on coins because they have nothing to do with "contemporary Indian realities." My response:
Well, they can't put living subjects on US coins by law. Historical subjects are the norm, although they did reference the moon landing once.
I presumed they were going through Native history chronologically and would get to modern history eventually. Maybe the Indian Citizenship Act, the civil rights movement, or Wilma Mankiller to represent today's tribal leadership. Things like that.
Instead they jumped from the Pilgrims to the Plains culture of the mid-19th century. Are they gonna backtrack and cover the 250 years they missed? Or is the series turning into a Native "greatest hits"? Corn, Hiawatha, Pilgrims, Plains chiefs...let's hope the next coin isn't Iron Eyes Cody crying over the environment.
Was it a mistake?
I wonder if the "17th century" part was a typo for "19th century." Who knows much about 17th-century trade routes and the spread of horse culture? I'm thinking most 17th-century trading was done on foot or in canoes.
In that century, I believe the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) traveled west to the Ohio Valley and south to Virginia and the Carolinas. But more to raid and skirmish than to trade. Various Algonquian and Great Lakes tribes accompanied the French on exploring and trapping missions down the Mississippi River. The Europeans may have used horses during this period, but I doubt the Indians did.
Meanwhile, the Spanish were establishing colonies in the Southwest and Southeast. I believe they were the main contributors of horses to the Plains culture. But I'm not sure they did much trading. They were more into subjugating, enslaving, and converting Indians than trading with them.
So which trade routes are we talking about? Which horse culture? And what's the connection with 19th-century Plains chiefs, warriors, and ledger art? The whole thing doesn't make sense.
For more on the Sacagawea dollar, see 2011 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled and 2nd Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled.
Below: This isn't a stereotypical chief either. It's a lesson about the trade routes of the 17th century and the spread of the horse. Yeah, right.
So far, designs have featured Agriculture with the “Three Sisters” method of planting, Government with the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois Confederacy, and Diplomacy with the written peace treaty between Native Americans and the settlers at Plymouth.
The 2012 Native American Dollar design will feature trade routes of the 17th century and the spread of the horse. The United States Mint recently provided the thirteen design candidates for coin. Some of the designs are traditional depictions while others are done in the style of Native American ledger art.
So the design will "feature trade routes of the 17th century and the spread of the horse"? A few problems with this. There's nothing to signify trade routes in the designs. With all the images of lone warriors and buffalo hunters, these designs have nothing to do with trading parties. What they're conveying is the same Western "romance" seen in countless examples of kitschy art.
Moreover, the Plains horse culture didn't reach fruition until the 19th century. And ledger art didn't exist until the late 19th century. So the coins are using stereotypical images from the wrong era to promote the alleged topic.
Vote early and often
I suggest you go to this site and vote. And don't pick design #8--possibly the worst of the bunch--which is leading at the moment.
(Bad choice.)
I picked #11, but it was a tough choice among the final five ledger painting-style images. Any of them would be okay.
(Good choice.)
Any choice featuring a realistic Indian chief on horseback should be disqualified immediately as stereotypical. That's almost literally the last things that should appear on a Native American coin.
The ledger art adds a dimension of information and art to the subject. Even though some of the realistic images are good, the choice should be a ledger painting.
Why no contemporary Indians?
Someone questioned the idea of putting any historical Native images on coins because they have nothing to do with "contemporary Indian realities." My response:
Well, they can't put living subjects on US coins by law. Historical subjects are the norm, although they did reference the moon landing once.
I presumed they were going through Native history chronologically and would get to modern history eventually. Maybe the Indian Citizenship Act, the civil rights movement, or Wilma Mankiller to represent today's tribal leadership. Things like that.
Instead they jumped from the Pilgrims to the Plains culture of the mid-19th century. Are they gonna backtrack and cover the 250 years they missed? Or is the series turning into a Native "greatest hits"? Corn, Hiawatha, Pilgrims, Plains chiefs...let's hope the next coin isn't Iron Eyes Cody crying over the environment.
Was it a mistake?
I wonder if the "17th century" part was a typo for "19th century." Who knows much about 17th-century trade routes and the spread of horse culture? I'm thinking most 17th-century trading was done on foot or in canoes.
In that century, I believe the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) traveled west to the Ohio Valley and south to Virginia and the Carolinas. But more to raid and skirmish than to trade. Various Algonquian and Great Lakes tribes accompanied the French on exploring and trapping missions down the Mississippi River. The Europeans may have used horses during this period, but I doubt the Indians did.
Meanwhile, the Spanish were establishing colonies in the Southwest and Southeast. I believe they were the main contributors of horses to the Plains culture. But I'm not sure they did much trading. They were more into subjugating, enslaving, and converting Indians than trading with them.
So which trade routes are we talking about? Which horse culture? And what's the connection with 19th-century Plains chiefs, warriors, and ledger art? The whole thing doesn't make sense.
For more on the Sacagawea dollar, see 2011 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled and 2nd Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled.
Below: This isn't a stereotypical chief either. It's a lesson about the trade routes of the 17th century and the spread of the horse. Yeah, right.
May 28, 2011
Burgas reviews Bertozzi's LEWIS & CLARK
Review Time! With Lewis & Clark
By Greg BurgasI’ve been a fan of Nick Bertozzi for a few years now, and while I haven’t loved everything he’s done, I like his art quite a bit and I love that he writes about interesting topics. I’ve never been a big fan of the Lewis and Clark expeditions (despite living for some time in Oregon, where there’s a college named after them), but I loves me some historical fiction, so I figured I’d give this a look. It’s published by First Second and is listed at $16.99.
Bertozzi tells the story of the expedition in a fairly straightforward fashion, with one major exception, and through that we get a good sense of what life was like in the early nineteenth century both in the middle of civilization and out on the frontier. Bertozzi apparently handles the Native element well:Bertozzi, however, does a very nice job with the characters in the book reacting to the travails of the route. The relationship between Charbonneau and his wife, Sacagawea, is an unpleasant one, and Bertozzi doesn’t shy away from showing its ugliness. Clark’s slave, York, is presented in an uncomfortable way to modern audiences–he’s depicted much more like a servant than a slave, and even rejects the notion that Clark would free him when the expedition is over. Even Lewis, late in the book, expresses surprise that Clark hasn’t freed him yet. There’s also a lot of humor in the book, with two characters providing some of the comic relief. Bertozzi also does a nice job showing how the various Native American tribes treated the expedition. Some of them, like the Mandan, were very accommodating, while others were very wary. Bertozzi doesn’t get into the Indian culture too much, but he does a nice job showing how different the tribes were from each other. It’s an interesting glimpse into how the Indians sought to live with the whites and use them to their own purposes, which didn’t work out too well, as we know, but this was still early in their interaction with the new Americans. Comment: For more on the subject, see Burgas Reviews Demon Bear Saga and Lewis and Clark Graphic Novel.
By Greg Burgas
Bertozzi tells the story of the expedition in a fairly straightforward fashion, with one major exception, and through that we get a good sense of what life was like in the early nineteenth century both in the middle of civilization and out on the frontier.
March 06, 2011
Seattle, Sacagawea, and medicine wheels
NSA Speaks on Promotion of The Pacific Northwest Medicine Wheel Ceremony
Re: The Pacific Northwest Medicine Wheel Ceremony
The images used to promote the event that Common Bread and Ancestral Wisdom is hosting Friday at the Longhouse are concerning to those of us in Native Student Alliance (NSA). Native Americans are not part of a mono-culture; we value the uniqueness of each of our peoples and their different ways of knowing and being. By blurring these valued distinctions in public handouts and flyers, inaccuracies and misconceptions are allowed to spread. The following are just a few specific concerns regarding these images.
In this image, the depiction of Chief Seattle and Sacajawea appear to be homogeneous. Since her image wasn’t recorded and is merely speculation, we feel that it is incongruous to depict her image as nearly identical to that of the Indian male beside her, identified as Chief Seattle. I have included a link of Chief Seattle’s image here. As you can see, he bears no resemblance to the depiction of the Chief Seattle on the event flyer: 
We also find it odd that Sacajawea (Shoshone) and Chief Seattle (Duwamish) are pictured together. Lewis and Clark’s expedition did not take them anywhere near Chief Seattle’s Duwamish territory. However, if we are incorrect, we would like to know when such a historical meeting took place and if there are records of it that are accessible to us in Native Student Alliance. Also, both figures are depicted with their hands up, in the stereotypical “How!” gesture that so many non-Natives think is “Indian” for hello. This is neither an appropriate nor an actual greeting in Shoshone and Duwamish cultures.
Also inaccurate is the placement of the buffalo and the mention of the “Medicine Wheel,” both of which are highly sacred to the Plains Indian culture. Olympia and the surrounding Washington area is known as Coast Salish territory. Medicine wheels and buffalo are not a part of Coast Salish tradition, thus misrepresenting the original inhabitants of the land. Comment: I wouldn't be quite as critical as the NSA was. The event isn't claiming to represent Washington Indian cultures. Rather, it's presenting a film on sacred sites around the country and replicating one of the sites and an accompanying ceremony. That kind of explains the buffalo skull too. Besides, medicine wheels are found in the Rocky Mountains, at least, so they're not exclusive to the Great Plains.
Including Sacagawea is questionable, but she did pass briefly through the future Washington state and she's a famous Indian of the Pacific Northwest. The main thing I'd object to is the crude artwork depicting Seattle and Sacagawea as craggy cavemen types. And especially Seattle in an off-the-shoulder robe. Most portraits show him in Western clothes or full Native outfits, so why the primitive look?
Somehow the longhouse people should've communicated their message better. Is the event about the Native cultures--specifically, their medicine wheels and other sacred sites--east of Washington? Or is it about the Native cultures of Washington?
It could be both, but then it's important to distinguish the two. One shouldn't act as if all Indians are unified in some "web of life." As if Seattle, Sacagawea, medicine wheels, and buffalo skulls are all part of one big Indian family.
For more college events with a jumble of mistakes and stereotypes, see Miami's 68th Annual "Indian Party," "Firewater Friday" at University of Washington, and "Conquistabros and Navajos" at Harvard.
The images used to promote the event that Common Bread and Ancestral Wisdom is hosting Friday at the Longhouse are concerning to those of us in Native Student Alliance (NSA). Native Americans are not part of a mono-culture; we value the uniqueness of each of our peoples and their different ways of knowing and being. By blurring these valued distinctions in public handouts and flyers, inaccuracies and misconceptions are allowed to spread. The following are just a few specific concerns regarding these images.
In this image, the depiction of Chief Seattle and Sacajawea appear to be homogeneous. Since her image wasn’t recorded and is merely speculation, we feel that it is incongruous to depict her image as nearly identical to that of the Indian male beside her, identified as Chief Seattle. I have included a link of Chief Seattle’s image here. As you can see, he bears no resemblance to the depiction of the Chief Seattle on the event flyer:
Also inaccurate is the placement of the buffalo and the mention of the “Medicine Wheel,” both of which are highly sacred to the Plains Indian culture. Olympia and the surrounding Washington area is known as Coast Salish territory. Medicine wheels and buffalo are not a part of Coast Salish tradition, thus misrepresenting the original inhabitants of the land.
Including Sacagawea is questionable, but she did pass briefly through the future Washington state and she's a famous Indian of the Pacific Northwest. The main thing I'd object to is the crude artwork depicting Seattle and Sacagawea as craggy cavemen types. And especially Seattle in an off-the-shoulder robe. Most portraits show him in Western clothes or full Native outfits, so why the primitive look?
Somehow the longhouse people should've communicated their message better. Is the event about the Native cultures--specifically, their medicine wheels and other sacred sites--east of Washington? Or is it about the Native cultures of Washington?
It could be both, but then it's important to distinguish the two. One shouldn't act as if all Indians are unified in some "web of life." As if Seattle, Sacagawea, medicine wheels, and buffalo skulls are all part of one big Indian family.
For more college events with a jumble of mistakes and stereotypes, see Miami's 68th Annual "Indian Party," "Firewater Friday" at University of Washington, and "Conquistabros and Navajos" at Harvard.
December 01, 2010
Review of The Spirit of Sacajawea
Here's another documentary I watched on PBS last week for Native American Heritage Month:
The Spirit of Sacajawea (Lewis & Clark/Sacagawea/Sakakawea)One of the most revered women in American history, Sacajawea has been romanticized and often misinterpreted by non-natives. Revolving around interviews with her tribal peoples as well as recognized historians, this documentary examines the many controversies regarding her life, how her role in the Lewis & Clark journey impacted her tribes, and how they are surviving today. Documentary Premiere on PBSCharlotte filmmakers Beverly Penninger and Alyson Young of Naka Productions, Inc. are pleased to announce The Spirit of Sacajawea will air nationally via PBS Plus in November 2010.
Over two hundred years after the storied Lewis & Clark expedition to the Pacific, this new documentary retells the story of the Indian woman who traveled with the Corps of Discovery, carrying her infant son across the country on her back. The Spirit of Sacajawea reexamines the life and legacy of this woman whose image adorns more monuments than any other woman in US history, this time from the point of view of her own Native American people. Through a mix of interviews, footage shot along the trail, the original Lewis & Clark journals, and an original score by Native American artists, the Naka Productions team has endeavored to tell Sacajawea’s story in a way that both adheres to fact and reaches beyond—to the larger truths of westward expansion and its impact on Native Americans past and present.
The team’s hope is that the film will inspire “an honest exploration of American history. As a nation, we need to realize and acknowledge out loud that native peoples play into that history in much greater depth than what has traditionally been depicted."
To date, The Spirit of Sacajawea has earned two Emmy awards, one for Best Historical Documentary and one for Best Editing, a bronze Telly Award and a Gracie Allen Award for Best Mid-length Documentary. Some facts noted in the documentary:
Sacagawea BiographyAt the age of about sixteen she married a French trapper, Toussaint Charbonneau, who was also concurrently married to another Shoshone woman (he had purchased both from the Hidatsa as slaves). Sacagawea was pregnant with their first child when the Corps of Discovery arrived in the area to spend the winter of 1804/5. Needing someone to interpret the Hidatsa language, Lewis and Clark interviewed Charbonneau for the job. Although they were not overly impressed with him, the deal was sealed when they discovered that Sacagawea spoke Shoshone, an added bonus. She would become invaluable in her role as interpreter.
Sacagawea gave birth to a son, Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, on February 11, 1805 while staying with the party at Fort Mandan. She would carry the infant throughout the entire trip to the Pacific Ocean and back. This had a very salubrious effect for the party—native tribes spotting the expedition knew that war parties didn't generally travel with a mother and child, and would therefore approach in a friendly manner. Undoubtedly this dispelled quite a bit of friction with the people they met throughout the excursion.
Contrary to a common romantic view, Sacagawea did not act as a "guide" per se on the main part of the trip; her knowledge of the land was limited to the areas in which she grew up. Once the party was past her former Shoshone settlement, her knowledge of the land was no greater than that of the rest of the group. She did however perform well as a "pilot" in the North Dakota/Montana area; for example, she was able to help the group get a bearing on the return trip by pointing out Bozeman Pass.
Her main duties were as a translator, and this worked in a very circuitous way. For example, with the Shoshone, she would translate into Hidatsa to her husband Charbonneau, who would then translate into French (he knew little English, but several others in the party knew French). The value of having Sacagawea as a Shoshone translator was proved when they reached her old village, and she was reunited with her brother, Cameahwait, who had by that time become a tribal leader. This smoothed the way in the negotiation to obtain much-needed horses from the Shoshone.
As recorded in the expedition's journals for May 14, 1805, Sacagawea proved crucial to the success of the project when her husband Charbonneau capsized a pirogue the group was using to make its way upriver. Unable to swim, Charbonneau flew into a panic and was unable to help right the situation; Sacagawea therefore calmly went about collecting items which had been lost into the river: instruments, trade items and—perhaps most important, at least to future generations—the water-sodden pages of the journals themselves. Some people quoted in the film speak about her:
Who was Sacagawea, and how did she aid the expedition?
Rob's review
The Spirit of Sacajawea opens with the ubiquitous flute music, which is annoying. Please, makers of Native-themed documentaries: Give us something other than flute music next time.
The documentary is roughly divided between Sacagawea's own story, the Lewis and Clark expedition, and the continued existence of the tribes met along the way. This seems like about the right mix.
The Spirit of Sacajawea shows us a plethora of Sacagawea statues and paintings. Paradoxically, these demonstrate that we don't know much about her--that she's become a semi-mythical character.
A nice touch is that most of the speakers are women who are descendants, relatives, or experts on some aspect of her life and times. Only a couple are men.
The documentary doesn't shy away from ticklish subjects: whether she was Shoshone or Hidatsa, the spelling and pronunciation of her name, when and where she was buried, etc. It doesn't give credence to claims that she was romantically involved with Clark or that she lived to an old age.
The glorification of Sacagawea
Despite a couple claims that Native history is complex and not comforting, The Spirit of Sacajawea mostly glorifies Sacagawea. The film praises her toughness, strength, and chutzpah. It's bookended by two over-the-top statements: "She changed history" and "arguably the most important American Indian woman in American history."
Really? Let's review what she actually did for the expedition. 1) Fished a few items out of the river. 2) Found some roots to supplement the meals. 3) Translated the language of one or two tribes. 4) Pointed out an easier route a couple times.
Was she essential to the expedition? No. Was she its most valuable member? No. Did she do as much as the men, who hunted for food, carried heavy supplies, paddled the boats upriver, etc.? No. Where are the statues to the 17th or 24th man of the expedition, who undoubtedly did as much as she did?
The glorification reaches its apotheosis when the film recounts the boat incident. Someone says Sacagawea's tribal mindset gave her the presence of mind, put her in the moment, to rescue the items in the river. As if everyone else would've let the items sink and only she had enough foresight to act.
More likely she just happened to be near the boat when it spilled. Anyone would've saved the sinking items because, well, that's what you do when you're hauling valuable supplies through the wilderness. In other words, her effort probably was a lucky coincidence, not a profound testament to her Native abilities.
Expedition good or bad?
In talking about her determination, The Spirit of Sacajawea glosses over a key point. She was more like a slave than a wife to her husband Charbonneau. He impregnated her when she was 15 or so, which would make her a child-bride and possibly a rape victim. It's not clear she had any choice about going on the expedition. She probably did whatever her lord and master told her to do.
Someone in the film calls her a heroine. What, for obeying orders? A real heroine might've sabotaged the expedition to protect her people. Or run away to avoid a life of drudgery and early death. Simply carrying on and doing one's duty isn't enough to make one a hero.
In talking about her importance, The Spirit of Sacajawea glosses over another key point. Namely, whether the Lewis and Clark expedition helped or hurt Indians. Would tribes have been better off if Sacagawea had died along the way? If the expedition had failed? Quite possibly.
The expedition did little for Indians except further their decimation by disease and conquest by colonizers. If the "opening" of the West had been delayed a few years, the Indians would've had more time to develop a resistance to germs. And to put aside their differences and organize a common defense. They've might've grown strong enough to stymie the waves of settlers permanently.
The film ignores the real reason we "honor" Sacagawea. Like Pocahontas and the Indians at the first Thanksgiving, she bolsters the American myth of greatness. Her story tells us that people of every stripe worked in harmony to build this grand country of ours. That whites and Indians were partners in settling the untamed wilderness and turning it into a "shining city upon a hill."
In other words, that everyone did good and no one did bad. That Euro-Americans didn't demonstrate their immorality by stealing land, breaking treaties, and committing genocide. That we have nothing to feel guilty about as long as we remember noble Sacagawea.
Conclusion
So..."she changed history"? I think history would've been the same if she hadn't existed. "The most important American Indian woman"? I'm not sure she belongs in the top 100 Indian woman except as a symbol of other women. She's arguably the most overrated Indian woman in history...the one who least needs another statue, book, or film about her.
I give The Spirit of Sacajawea a 7.5 of 10 for telling her story well. But I subtract points because it doesn't address the subjects I've raised. It could've done more to discuss why we honor Sacagawea and whether she deserves it.
For more on Sacagawea, see 2011 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled and A Holiday for Sacagawea?
The Spirit of Sacajawea (Lewis & Clark/Sacagawea/Sakakawea)
Over two hundred years after the storied Lewis & Clark expedition to the Pacific, this new documentary retells the story of the Indian woman who traveled with the Corps of Discovery, carrying her infant son across the country on her back. The Spirit of Sacajawea reexamines the life and legacy of this woman whose image adorns more monuments than any other woman in US history, this time from the point of view of her own Native American people. Through a mix of interviews, footage shot along the trail, the original Lewis & Clark journals, and an original score by Native American artists, the Naka Productions team has endeavored to tell Sacajawea’s story in a way that both adheres to fact and reaches beyond—to the larger truths of westward expansion and its impact on Native Americans past and present.
The team’s hope is that the film will inspire “an honest exploration of American history. As a nation, we need to realize and acknowledge out loud that native peoples play into that history in much greater depth than what has traditionally been depicted."
To date, The Spirit of Sacajawea has earned two Emmy awards, one for Best Historical Documentary and one for Best Editing, a bronze Telly Award and a Gracie Allen Award for Best Mid-length Documentary.
Sacagawea Biography
Sacagawea gave birth to a son, Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, on February 11, 1805 while staying with the party at Fort Mandan. She would carry the infant throughout the entire trip to the Pacific Ocean and back. This had a very salubrious effect for the party—native tribes spotting the expedition knew that war parties didn't generally travel with a mother and child, and would therefore approach in a friendly manner. Undoubtedly this dispelled quite a bit of friction with the people they met throughout the excursion.
Contrary to a common romantic view, Sacagawea did not act as a "guide" per se on the main part of the trip; her knowledge of the land was limited to the areas in which she grew up. Once the party was past her former Shoshone settlement, her knowledge of the land was no greater than that of the rest of the group. She did however perform well as a "pilot" in the North Dakota/Montana area; for example, she was able to help the group get a bearing on the return trip by pointing out Bozeman Pass.
Her main duties were as a translator, and this worked in a very circuitous way. For example, with the Shoshone, she would translate into Hidatsa to her husband Charbonneau, who would then translate into French (he knew little English, but several others in the party knew French). The value of having Sacagawea as a Shoshone translator was proved when they reached her old village, and she was reunited with her brother, Cameahwait, who had by that time become a tribal leader. This smoothed the way in the negotiation to obtain much-needed horses from the Shoshone.
As recorded in the expedition's journals for May 14, 1805, Sacagawea proved crucial to the success of the project when her husband Charbonneau capsized a pirogue the group was using to make its way upriver. Unable to swim, Charbonneau flew into a panic and was unable to help right the situation; Sacagawea therefore calmly went about collecting items which had been lost into the river: instruments, trade items and—perhaps most important, at least to future generations—the water-sodden pages of the journals themselves.
Who was Sacagawea, and how did she aid the expedition?
Rob's review
The Spirit of Sacajawea opens with the ubiquitous flute music, which is annoying. Please, makers of Native-themed documentaries: Give us something other than flute music next time.
The documentary is roughly divided between Sacagawea's own story, the Lewis and Clark expedition, and the continued existence of the tribes met along the way. This seems like about the right mix.
The Spirit of Sacajawea shows us a plethora of Sacagawea statues and paintings. Paradoxically, these demonstrate that we don't know much about her--that she's become a semi-mythical character.
A nice touch is that most of the speakers are women who are descendants, relatives, or experts on some aspect of her life and times. Only a couple are men.
The documentary doesn't shy away from ticklish subjects: whether she was Shoshone or Hidatsa, the spelling and pronunciation of her name, when and where she was buried, etc. It doesn't give credence to claims that she was romantically involved with Clark or that she lived to an old age.
The glorification of Sacagawea
Despite a couple claims that Native history is complex and not comforting, The Spirit of Sacajawea mostly glorifies Sacagawea. The film praises her toughness, strength, and chutzpah. It's bookended by two over-the-top statements: "She changed history" and "arguably the most important American Indian woman in American history."
Really? Let's review what she actually did for the expedition. 1) Fished a few items out of the river. 2) Found some roots to supplement the meals. 3) Translated the language of one or two tribes. 4) Pointed out an easier route a couple times.
Was she essential to the expedition? No. Was she its most valuable member? No. Did she do as much as the men, who hunted for food, carried heavy supplies, paddled the boats upriver, etc.? No. Where are the statues to the 17th or 24th man of the expedition, who undoubtedly did as much as she did?
The glorification reaches its apotheosis when the film recounts the boat incident. Someone says Sacagawea's tribal mindset gave her the presence of mind, put her in the moment, to rescue the items in the river. As if everyone else would've let the items sink and only she had enough foresight to act.
More likely she just happened to be near the boat when it spilled. Anyone would've saved the sinking items because, well, that's what you do when you're hauling valuable supplies through the wilderness. In other words, her effort probably was a lucky coincidence, not a profound testament to her Native abilities.
Expedition good or bad?
In talking about her determination, The Spirit of Sacajawea glosses over a key point. She was more like a slave than a wife to her husband Charbonneau. He impregnated her when she was 15 or so, which would make her a child-bride and possibly a rape victim. It's not clear she had any choice about going on the expedition. She probably did whatever her lord and master told her to do.
Someone in the film calls her a heroine. What, for obeying orders? A real heroine might've sabotaged the expedition to protect her people. Or run away to avoid a life of drudgery and early death. Simply carrying on and doing one's duty isn't enough to make one a hero.
In talking about her importance, The Spirit of Sacajawea glosses over another key point. Namely, whether the Lewis and Clark expedition helped or hurt Indians. Would tribes have been better off if Sacagawea had died along the way? If the expedition had failed? Quite possibly.
The expedition did little for Indians except further their decimation by disease and conquest by colonizers. If the "opening" of the West had been delayed a few years, the Indians would've had more time to develop a resistance to germs. And to put aside their differences and organize a common defense. They've might've grown strong enough to stymie the waves of settlers permanently.
The film ignores the real reason we "honor" Sacagawea. Like Pocahontas and the Indians at the first Thanksgiving, she bolsters the American myth of greatness. Her story tells us that people of every stripe worked in harmony to build this grand country of ours. That whites and Indians were partners in settling the untamed wilderness and turning it into a "shining city upon a hill."
In other words, that everyone did good and no one did bad. That Euro-Americans didn't demonstrate their immorality by stealing land, breaking treaties, and committing genocide. That we have nothing to feel guilty about as long as we remember noble Sacagawea.
Conclusion
So..."she changed history"? I think history would've been the same if she hadn't existed. "The most important American Indian woman"? I'm not sure she belongs in the top 100 Indian woman except as a symbol of other women. She's arguably the most overrated Indian woman in history...the one who least needs another statue, book, or film about her.
I give The Spirit of Sacajawea a 7.5 of 10 for telling her story well. But I subtract points because it doesn't address the subjects I've raised. It could've done more to discuss why we honor Sacagawea and whether she deserves it.
For more on Sacagawea, see 2011 Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled and A Holiday for Sacagawea?
November 26, 2010
2011 Sacagawea dollar reverse unveiled
2011 Native American Dollar Design Selection Announced
By Michael ZielinskiThe United States Mint has announced the reverse design that will appear on the 2011 Native American Dollar. This series of circulating dollar coins features a different reverse design each year, representing the contributions and accomplishments of Native Americans.
The theme for the 2011 design is Diplomacy--Treaties with Tribal Nations. The selected reverse design specifically highlights the treaty between Supreme Sachem Ousamequin, Massasoit of the Great Wampanoag Nation, and Governor John Carver of the European settlers at Plymouth Bay.
The design features the ceremonial passing of the peace pipe after initiating the first formal written peace alliance. Comment: Like the reverse of the 2010 dollar, this is another fine design.
It highlights some little-known aspects of history: that the Wampanoag signed a treaty with the Pilgrims, and that they smoked peace pipes. We typically associate peace pipes with Plains Indians.
I guess the image depicts a Pilgrim handing the pipe to an Indian, which is a bit odd. Usually you think of Indians doing the passing and non-Indians doing the receiving. But if they were sitting in a circle, the passing could've happened that way.
It's nice that the Indian hand is more prominent and detailed. That conveys a key point: that Indians were active players in, even instigators of, diplomatic relations. They didn't just sit around waiting for white men to hand them a piece of paper to sign.
For more on the subject, see 2nd Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled and Sacagawea Dollar's Reverse Unveiled.
By Michael Zielinski
The theme for the 2011 design is Diplomacy--Treaties with Tribal Nations. The selected reverse design specifically highlights the treaty between Supreme Sachem Ousamequin, Massasoit of the Great Wampanoag Nation, and Governor John Carver of the European settlers at Plymouth Bay.
The design features the ceremonial passing of the peace pipe after initiating the first formal written peace alliance.
It highlights some little-known aspects of history: that the Wampanoag signed a treaty with the Pilgrims, and that they smoked peace pipes. We typically associate peace pipes with Plains Indians.
I guess the image depicts a Pilgrim handing the pipe to an Indian, which is a bit odd. Usually you think of Indians doing the passing and non-Indians doing the receiving. But if they were sitting in a circle, the passing could've happened that way.
It's nice that the Indian hand is more prominent and detailed. That conveys a key point: that Indians were active players in, even instigators of, diplomatic relations. They didn't just sit around waiting for white men to hand them a piece of paper to sign.
For more on the subject, see 2nd Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled and Sacagawea Dollar's Reverse Unveiled.
October 05, 2010
A holiday for Sacagawea?
Thoughts on the Run: Eleanor Roosevelt, Sacagawea deserve holidays
By Joe KingOther than the generic "Mother's Day," women have been ignored when it comes to naming holidays.
Four men--Columbus, Washington, Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr.--have been regulars on our calendars for years and this corner agrees with their importance, but one senses a certain lack of fairness here.
While teaching American history at Encinal High, I often suggested the need for a holiday in a woman's honor, or, perhaps two women. My choices: Sacagawea and Eleanor Roosevelt. Why those two? Read on.
Perhaps no exploratory adventure in American history rivals that of the intrepid Lewis and Clark expedition across the newly acquired Louisiana Territory and beyond to the Pacific Ocean.
Crucial to the success of this early venture (1804-05) was a young Native American lass named Sacagawea, the Bird Woman. And:Now for Anna Eleanor Roosevelt. No other first lady is a close second to this remarkable woman--not Dolly Madison, not Edith Galt Wilson, Jacqueline or Nancy. Harry Truman once called Eleanor the "first lady of the World."
What did she do? She held the first series of regular news conferences by a president's wife; wrote a six-days-a-week newspaper column (My Day) from 1935 to 1945, plus regular talks on radio; traveled the country visiting out-of-work factory workers and even shared sparse lunches in sharecroppers' cabins. She visited our troops on far-flung battlefronts during World War II and twice served as a delegate to the United Nations. A better-than-average resume, don't you think? Comment: Christmas is about a man too, you know. And Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Thanksgiving are mostly about men.
I like the idea of a Women's Day. To keep the calendar holiday-neutral, we could combine Mother's Day and Father's Day into Parents' Day. Or combine Memorial Day and Veterans Day into Armed Forces Day.
But I'm not sure about honoring Eleanor Roosevelt. Yes, she did good things, but so did many other women. She doesn't stand head-and-shoulders above her peers like a Washington or Lincoln. I think anyone who gets his or her own holiday should be someone we immediately recognize as a giant of history. Whatever Roosevelt accomplished, I don't think she was that important.
No, I'd stick with Women's Day to honor all women. Perhaps we could rotate it to honor a different woman each year. First Eleanor Roosevelt Day, then Harriet Tubman Day, Jane Addams Day, Rosa Parks Day, Helen Keller Day, and so forth and so on.
Happy Sacagawea Day?
As for Sacagawea, I think she's received enough honors: monuments, coins, plays, etc. Other Native women have done noteworthy things too.
Besides, Lewis and Clark's "exploratory adventure" doesn't necessarily deserve more acclaim. It was the first great expression of Manifest Destiny--the idea that America was a God-given wilderness waiting for us to "settle" it. It led to the opening of the West and the subjugation of America's Indian nations.
I'd stick with the idea I've suggested before: replace Columbus Day with Native American Day. That would go nicely with Women's Day to honor America's unsung heroes. Again, we could rotate it to recognize a different Indian each year: Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Crazy Horse, Sacagawea, et al.
Yes, let's remove Columbus Day permanently from every federal and state calendar. Let's mkae Native American Day an official holiday that everyone gets off and doesn't have to be renewed by presidential proclamation each year. Then I'll believe we're on the road to respecting and honoring Indians.
For more on the subject, see Choctaws Replace Columbus Day and Change Columbus Day or Thanksgiving?
By Joe King
Four men--Columbus, Washington, Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr.--have been regulars on our calendars for years and this corner agrees with their importance, but one senses a certain lack of fairness here.
While teaching American history at Encinal High, I often suggested the need for a holiday in a woman's honor, or, perhaps two women. My choices: Sacagawea and Eleanor Roosevelt. Why those two? Read on.
Perhaps no exploratory adventure in American history rivals that of the intrepid Lewis and Clark expedition across the newly acquired Louisiana Territory and beyond to the Pacific Ocean.
Crucial to the success of this early venture (1804-05) was a young Native American lass named Sacagawea, the Bird Woman.
What did she do? She held the first series of regular news conferences by a president's wife; wrote a six-days-a-week newspaper column (My Day) from 1935 to 1945, plus regular talks on radio; traveled the country visiting out-of-work factory workers and even shared sparse lunches in sharecroppers' cabins. She visited our troops on far-flung battlefronts during World War II and twice served as a delegate to the United Nations. A better-than-average resume, don't you think?
I like the idea of a Women's Day. To keep the calendar holiday-neutral, we could combine Mother's Day and Father's Day into Parents' Day. Or combine Memorial Day and Veterans Day into Armed Forces Day.
But I'm not sure about honoring Eleanor Roosevelt. Yes, she did good things, but so did many other women. She doesn't stand head-and-shoulders above her peers like a Washington or Lincoln. I think anyone who gets his or her own holiday should be someone we immediately recognize as a giant of history. Whatever Roosevelt accomplished, I don't think she was that important.
No, I'd stick with Women's Day to honor all women. Perhaps we could rotate it to honor a different woman each year. First Eleanor Roosevelt Day, then Harriet Tubman Day, Jane Addams Day, Rosa Parks Day, Helen Keller Day, and so forth and so on.
Happy Sacagawea Day?
As for Sacagawea, I think she's received enough honors: monuments, coins, plays, etc. Other Native women have done noteworthy things too.
Besides, Lewis and Clark's "exploratory adventure" doesn't necessarily deserve more acclaim. It was the first great expression of Manifest Destiny--the idea that America was a God-given wilderness waiting for us to "settle" it. It led to the opening of the West and the subjugation of America's Indian nations.
I'd stick with the idea I've suggested before: replace Columbus Day with Native American Day. That would go nicely with Women's Day to honor America's unsung heroes. Again, we could rotate it to recognize a different Indian each year: Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, Crazy Horse, Sacagawea, et al.
Yes, let's remove Columbus Day permanently from every federal and state calendar. Let's mkae Native American Day an official holiday that everyone gets off and doesn't have to be renewed by presidential proclamation each year. Then I'll believe we're on the road to respecting and honoring Indians.
For more on the subject, see Choctaws Replace Columbus Day and Change Columbus Day or Thanksgiving?
September 19, 2010
Dollar bills redesigned with Indians
Amazing New Designs For The Dollar Bill (PHOTOS)The American dollar is in bad need of a makeover. Thanks to the Dollar ReDe$ign Project, we may now have some options.
The leading vote-getter for this year's competition (pictured below) was submitted by British duo Dowling Duncan, which features a unique vertical design. 
Mark Gartland submitted the entry below, entitled "America Today." The $50 bill features (pictured below) Sacagawea, the native American Indian who acted as Lewis and Clark's interpreter and guide. Noting the "cosmetic drabness" of the current dollar bill, Gartland selected various historical icons from including Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and President Obama to represent the "diverse fabric" of the U.S. 
Comment: As this competition points out, we don't have to have the same bills every year. Why not change the bills once in a while the way we're doing with coins? Then people will collect them and the Treasury will make money when it makes money.
And why have the same dead presidents (and statesmen) every year? We could do series of people: famous women, blacks, Indians, inventors, artists, soldiers, etc. Or places: states, national parks, mountains, buildings, monuments, etc. Or things: animals, flowers, inventions, vehicles, works of fiction, etc.
Just color-code, them as Duncan has done, so you know the blue note is always the $1 bill and so forth. Then we can stop fawning over the people who fought, bought, relocated, and executed Indians. You know, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson (the Louisiana Purchase), Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln.
For more on the subject, see Replace Jackson on $20 Bill? and Replace Grant on $50 Bill?
The leading vote-getter for this year's competition (pictured below) was submitted by British duo Dowling Duncan, which features a unique vertical design.
Comment: As this competition points out, we don't have to have the same bills every year. Why not change the bills once in a while the way we're doing with coins? Then people will collect them and the Treasury will make money when it makes money.
And why have the same dead presidents (and statesmen) every year? We could do series of people: famous women, blacks, Indians, inventors, artists, soldiers, etc. Or places: states, national parks, mountains, buildings, monuments, etc. Or things: animals, flowers, inventions, vehicles, works of fiction, etc.
Just color-code, them as Duncan has done, so you know the blue note is always the $1 bill and so forth. Then we can stop fawning over the people who fought, bought, relocated, and executed Indians. You know, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson (the Louisiana Purchase), Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln.
For more on the subject, see Replace Jackson on $20 Bill? and Replace Grant on $50 Bill?
August 30, 2010
Sports logos = US coins?
Native Americans are on coins; why not logos?
By Charles E. BalleineIf Kewaunee cannot use the image of a "Native American" in our gym, why can the U.S. Government issue coinage in honor of Native Americans?
My tax dollars will be paid this year to the district in $1 U.S. coins, since the federal government is proud of what the Native American stands for. I hope the district won't be too worried about having all those Indian images present when thousands of coins are delivered. Comment: This is a superficially plausible argument, but it falls apart when you think about it. Here's why:
1) US coins, like monuments and murals, are meant to honor people of the past. In fact, a law says no living people may appear on our currency.
Coins put Indians in the same category as US presidents and statesmen. They recognize Indians as leaders and visionaries. There's (usually) no implied message that Indians are "savages" or warriors today.
In contrast, sports logos exist precisely to link today's teams with yesterday's Indians. The message of a typical logo is:We honor Indians of the past because they were savage warriors. We want to be just as savage and warlike as they were.
Alas, they're gone now or no longer have the warlike qualities we admire. We prefer to remember them the way they were, when they weren't lazy drunks or greedy welfare cheats.
In short, past Indians good; present Indians bad or irrelevant. 2) Look at the Indians we've actually honored on our coins. The female figure of Liberty in a headdress. The dignified Indian on the buffalo nickel. And Sacagawea the girl guide.
Only the buffalo nickel's Indian remotely resembles a warrior...but he isn't one. He doesn't carry weapons and there's nothing to suggest he's warlike or savage. For all we know, he might be history's greatest diplomat and peacemaker, not a fighter or a killer.
Balleine specifically points to the $1 coin as a model for a sports logo. Really, that's your argument? Okay, put Sacagawea on your logo. Rename your team the Girl Guides. Eliminate all your brave, noble euphemisms for savagery and tout your football team's feminine side instead. Then you can use a logo like the $1 coin.
Indians still would protest being used in this way, but I don't think they'd protest as vociferously. That's because the main thing they're protesting is being portrayed as one-dimensional warriors of the past. The Sacagawea coin contradicts this stereotype while the typical sports logo reinforces it.
Duhhh.
For more on the subject, see my previous postings on US currency.
Below: Which ones are the savage warriors? (This may be a tough challenge for someone like Balleine.)
By Charles E. Balleine
My tax dollars will be paid this year to the district in $1 U.S. coins, since the federal government is proud of what the Native American stands for. I hope the district won't be too worried about having all those Indian images present when thousands of coins are delivered.
1) US coins, like monuments and murals, are meant to honor people of the past. In fact, a law says no living people may appear on our currency.
Coins put Indians in the same category as US presidents and statesmen. They recognize Indians as leaders and visionaries. There's (usually) no implied message that Indians are "savages" or warriors today.
In contrast, sports logos exist precisely to link today's teams with yesterday's Indians. The message of a typical logo is:
Alas, they're gone now or no longer have the warlike qualities we admire. We prefer to remember them the way they were, when they weren't lazy drunks or greedy welfare cheats.
In short, past Indians good; present Indians bad or irrelevant.
Only the buffalo nickel's Indian remotely resembles a warrior...but he isn't one. He doesn't carry weapons and there's nothing to suggest he's warlike or savage. For all we know, he might be history's greatest diplomat and peacemaker, not a fighter or a killer.
Balleine specifically points to the $1 coin as a model for a sports logo. Really, that's your argument? Okay, put Sacagawea on your logo. Rename your team the Girl Guides. Eliminate all your brave, noble euphemisms for savagery and tout your football team's feminine side instead. Then you can use a logo like the $1 coin.
Indians still would protest being used in this way, but I don't think they'd protest as vociferously. That's because the main thing they're protesting is being portrayed as one-dimensional warriors of the past. The Sacagawea coin contradicts this stereotype while the typical sports logo reinforces it.
Duhhh.
For more on the subject, see my previous postings on US currency.
Below: Which ones are the savage warriors? (This may be a tough challenge for someone like Balleine.)
August 28, 2010
Story Circles at Sacajawea State Park
Artist's 'Story Circles' honor Lewis and Clark expedition, tribal history
By Kristi PihlDrums and Native American prayers once again echoed through the trees at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers in Pasco.
Members of area tribes performed a seven drums blessing as Story Circles was dedicated in Sacajawea State Park on Friday.
The $1.6 million artwork, designed by world-renowned artist Maya Lin, is part of the $30 million Confluence Project to commemorate the Lewis and Clark expedition and the region's tribal history.
The seven engraved basalt story circles, which range from 12 to 20 feet in diameter, mark where Capts. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark spent three days in 1805. The story continues at Sacajawea State ParkWith her latest Confluence Project artwork, Maya Lin will tell the complex story of what is now Sacajawea State Park, at the confluence of the Snake and Columbia rivers. Seven “story circles” and new landscaping at the site will recall its past, restore its native vegetation and reconnect it to the area’s Sahaptin-speaking people.
In October 1805, Lewis and Clark spent three days here, hunting, repairing their equipment, mapping the river landscape, and celebrating with more than 200 Native Yakama, Wanapum, Walla Walla, Umatilla, Palouse and other people of the Columbia Plateau. Native people from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific coast had already been gathering here for thousands of years, harvesting berries, root crops and medicinal plants; fishing and preserving the rivers’ abundant salmon; trading with one another; and celebrating together.
Today, the site would be unrecognizable to the Corps of Discovery explorers and the Native people they encountered here. Manicured lawn grass and introduced shade trees have replaced the dry, open plain and riparian ecosystem that once thrived here. Dams have slowed the rushing rivers and raised their water levels, submerging the historic shoreline under more than 20 feet of nearly still water. Shore birds and other native fauna have been displaced. All but one of the site’s six species of salmon have become threatened or endangered.
With text etched into seven story circles, some raised above the ground and some embedded within it, Maya Lin’s artwork will weave together the cultural, historical and environmental details that form the larger narrative of the area. The circles create voids in the landscape, representing the loss of habitat, wildlife and an important Native trading and fishing hub. As visitors walk from circle to circle, they’ll experience the present-day view of the river confluence as they reflect on its rich past. The story circles provide context for how the site has changed over time while re-establishing it as a spot to gather for generations to come. Comment: For more on the subject, see Lewis and Clark Monument Sans Sacagawea and Statue of Crouching Sacagawea.
By Kristi Pihl
Members of area tribes performed a seven drums blessing as Story Circles was dedicated in Sacajawea State Park on Friday.
The $1.6 million artwork, designed by world-renowned artist Maya Lin, is part of the $30 million Confluence Project to commemorate the Lewis and Clark expedition and the region's tribal history.
The seven engraved basalt story circles, which range from 12 to 20 feet in diameter, mark where Capts. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark spent three days in 1805.
In October 1805, Lewis and Clark spent three days here, hunting, repairing their equipment, mapping the river landscape, and celebrating with more than 200 Native Yakama, Wanapum, Walla Walla, Umatilla, Palouse and other people of the Columbia Plateau. Native people from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific coast had already been gathering here for thousands of years, harvesting berries, root crops and medicinal plants; fishing and preserving the rivers’ abundant salmon; trading with one another; and celebrating together.
Today, the site would be unrecognizable to the Corps of Discovery explorers and the Native people they encountered here. Manicured lawn grass and introduced shade trees have replaced the dry, open plain and riparian ecosystem that once thrived here. Dams have slowed the rushing rivers and raised their water levels, submerging the historic shoreline under more than 20 feet of nearly still water. Shore birds and other native fauna have been displaced. All but one of the site’s six species of salmon have become threatened or endangered.
With text etched into seven story circles, some raised above the ground and some embedded within it, Maya Lin’s artwork will weave together the cultural, historical and environmental details that form the larger narrative of the area. The circles create voids in the landscape, representing the loss of habitat, wildlife and an important Native trading and fishing hub. As visitors walk from circle to circle, they’ll experience the present-day view of the river confluence as they reflect on its rich past. The story circles provide context for how the site has changed over time while re-establishing it as a spot to gather for generations to come.
August 03, 2010
Sacagawea inspired comic-book guy
In Ten Days on the Road, Part One, blogger Greg Hatcher describes a vacation he and his wife took in the Pacific Northwest:The Adventures of Lewis and Clark was one of the first--possibly the first--books I ever owned, back when I was seven years old. That was one of the books I learned to read on, and the story of Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery made a huge impression on me, in large part due to John Severin's breathtaking illustrations. He made it all look real and believable in a way that a great many kid's books didn't then (and still don't today).
Fort Clatsop, the camp at the mouth of the Columbia River where the expedition wintered in 1805 before turning back home, is very close to where we were staying in Seaside. I'd pestered my parents into taking me there once, when I was eight years old, but I didn't really remember anything about it and I wanted to be sure and go back this trip. 
After exploring Fort Clatsop, Hatcher discusses Sacagawea:And, of course, there was the gift shop. Lots of postcards and stuff, but also a fairly extensive library of books about Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery. I had a vague hope that perhaps my beloved children's history book with those amazing Severin illustrations would be there, maybe in a new edition, and I could pick up a copy for Phenix--but no such luck. We resolved to keep an eye out for it for the rest of the trip, though.
There were, however, a number of books about Sacagawea, the young Shoshone bride of the expedition's guide, Charbonneau.
Sacagawea was an extraordinary young woman, and it's not really surprising that she continues to fascinate historians. I already told you the park ranger's characterization of the Corps as being 1805's version of the Special Forces, and how rough the expedition had it at Dismal Nitch. Now imagine coping with all that when you're a twentysomething Native American girl with only a vague grasp of English and carrying a newborn baby on your back. 
Hatcher ends up getting Marion Tinling's Sacagawea's Son for a friend's daughter.
The interesting point is how something you read as a child sticks with you your entire life. For Hatcher, it was a book about Lewis and Clerk with comic book-style illustrations. Decades later, he's still writing about adventures in pop culture: comic books, novels, movies, etc.
For me the milestones were The Wizard of Oz, Robinson Crusoe, the Tom Corbett adventure Stand By for Mars, and various books on astronomy and dinosaurs. Oh, and my Hopi kachina coloring book. You can sort of see that I'm still working in these areas, using my childhood inspirations.
The kicker is: What if we gave today's children Native comic books, children's books, or DVDs? What if that was their seminal inspiration? Would they go on to mock and stereotype Indians, to deny them their rights? Or would they become champions of Indians and other oppressed people? There's no way to be sure, but I'm guessing the latter.
For more on Sacagawea, see "Sacagawea" in Castle and 2nd Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled.
Fort Clatsop, the camp at the mouth of the Columbia River where the expedition wintered in 1805 before turning back home, is very close to where we were staying in Seaside. I'd pestered my parents into taking me there once, when I was eight years old, but I didn't really remember anything about it and I wanted to be sure and go back this trip.
After exploring Fort Clatsop, Hatcher discusses Sacagawea:
There were, however, a number of books about Sacagawea, the young Shoshone bride of the expedition's guide, Charbonneau.
Sacagawea was an extraordinary young woman, and it's not really surprising that she continues to fascinate historians. I already told you the park ranger's characterization of the Corps as being 1805's version of the Special Forces, and how rough the expedition had it at Dismal Nitch. Now imagine coping with all that when you're a twentysomething Native American girl with only a vague grasp of English and carrying a newborn baby on your back.
Hatcher ends up getting Marion Tinling's Sacagawea's Son for a friend's daughter.
The interesting point is how something you read as a child sticks with you your entire life. For Hatcher, it was a book about Lewis and Clerk with comic book-style illustrations. Decades later, he's still writing about adventures in pop culture: comic books, novels, movies, etc.
For me the milestones were The Wizard of Oz, Robinson Crusoe, the Tom Corbett adventure Stand By for Mars, and various books on astronomy and dinosaurs. Oh, and my Hopi kachina coloring book. You can sort of see that I'm still working in these areas, using my childhood inspirations.
The kicker is: What if we gave today's children Native comic books, children's books, or DVDs? What if that was their seminal inspiration? Would they go on to mock and stereotype Indians, to deny them their rights? Or would they become champions of Indians and other oppressed people? There's no way to be sure, but I'm guessing the latter.
For more on Sacagawea, see "Sacagawea" in Castle and 2nd Sacagawea Dollar Reverse Unveiled.
April 14, 2010
"Sacagawea" in Castle
This week's episode of Castle, The Late Shaft (airdate: 4/12/10), included a couple mentions of Indians. Castle called his daughter "Sacagawea" when she went camping, and Beckett observed that a suspect was gambling at Mohegan Sun.
Normally I might not mention anything so minor, but this episode follows last week's Maya mummy mystery. The writers seem to have taken a sudden interest in Native lore. If it's not a coincidence, I want to give them credit for trying.
For more on the subject, see Maya Mummy in Castle and TV Shows Featuring Indians.
Normally I might not mention anything so minor, but this episode follows last week's Maya mummy mystery. The writers seem to have taken a sudden interest in Native lore. If it's not a coincidence, I want to give them credit for trying.
For more on the subject, see Maya Mummy in Castle and TV Shows Featuring Indians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)