Here's my submission for Mark Miller's script competition for his Chrononauts comic-book series. Since I didn't win, I've changed the names to avoid copyright issues. Here's a four-page story starring the Time Jerks.
PAGE 1
Panel 1/ A convertible sports car bursts through a fiery circle of light. Dark-haired Grizzle frantically drives while light-haired Forst rides shotgun. Behind them, faintly visible in the glare, Zulu warriors hurl spears at them.
The car has emerged onto a broad grassy plain. In the background are small groves of trees and a low line of bluffs. A few Plains Indian tipis stand in the distance on the right. A couple of dark-haired people and their animals—horses and dogs—look at the commotion.
1. TITLE: Time Jerks
2. SUBTITLE: Two white guys romp though history in search of fame and fortune.
3. CAPTION: 1876
4. FORST: Zulus are as tough as their reputation.
5. GRIZZLE: Yeah, recruiting drive didn’t go so well.
6. CREDITS:
Story: Rob Schmidt
Art: __________
Colors: __________
Panel 2/ Still dodging a few spears, the car plows into a group of tipis. Indians in a mix of Western clothing and buckskins scatter.
7. FORST: Whoa, watch where you’re going!
8. GRIZZLE: Gotta get out of range.
Panel 3/ An overhead shot shows the car zooming past the first campsites of a huge Indian gathering. It’s an obstacle course of tipis, cooking fires, and people and animals. To the north, a river flows below the bluffs.
9. FORST: Where are we?
10. GRIZZLE: Not sure. Didn’t have time to set the coordinates.
11. FORST: Slow down! You’re gonna hit someone!
Panel 4/ The Indians regroup and attack the car as it barrels through the camp. On foot and on horseback, they shoot at the intruders with rifles and bows. Bullets and arrows fly past.
12. FORST: Speed up! Speed up!
13: SOUND F/X: zip zip zip
PAGE 2
Panel 1/ A half-naked warrior leaps onto the car’s hood. With a knife in his mouth, he creeps toward Grizzle and Forst.
1. FORST: Get him off us!
Panel 2/ Grizzle yanks the steering wheel. The car swerves and strikes a tipi, ripping it from its moorings. Surprised, the Indian goes flying in the other direction.
Ahead, just visible in the distance, is a large buffalo hide stretched on a wooden frame.
2. GRIZZLE: Satisfied?
3. FORST: These people … are we changing their history?
Panel 3/ Grizzle and Forst glance behind them. Like a scene from an old Western, angry warriors pursue them on horseback.
4. GRIZZLE: Either we’re creating a parallel timeline or we’re rewriting our own.
5. GRIZZLE: Won’t know which unless we go back to the future.
6: SOUND F/X: yi yi yi yi yi!
Panel 4/ The car slams into the buffalo hide, which envelops the front half of car, blocking the guys’ view.
7. GRIZZLE: Which I don’t plan to—
8. FORST: LOOK OUT!
Panel 5/ As the hide falls away, Grizzle and Forst find warriors surrounding them with weapons aimed to kill. The guys raise their hands in surrender.
9. WARRIORS: Spies! Thieves! Fat takers!
10. GRIZZLE: Whatever they’re speaking, our translators are handling it.
11. FORST: Hey, we’re after fame and fortune, not “fat.”
PAGE 3
Panel 1/ As women and children watch, the warriors lead Grizzle and Forst through the camp. With their hands tied in front of them, the guys try to talk to their captors.
1. FORST: Not spies or thieves. We’re, uh, messengers.
2. GRIZZLE: Never thought I’d say this, but ... take us to your leader.
Panel 2/ The warriors push them through a flap into a big, dimly lit tipi. On the far side, sitting on hides, are a middle-aged Sioux and his advisers. The Indians look unhappy to see white men.
3. FORST: Is that … Sitting Bull?
4. GRIZZLE: Looks like it.
5. FORST: Then this must be Little Big Horn.
6. GRIZZLE: And Custer’s about to attack.
Panel 3/ Grizzle and Forst stand before Sitting Bull and the other Sioux leaders.
7. SITTING BULL: Who are you and where did you come from?
8. FORST: We, uh, flew down from the sky.
9. GRIZZLE: Yeah, uh, on the back of a thunderbird.
10. SITTING BULL: You speak nonsense. Why are you here?
11. GRIZZLE: We come with, er—
Panel 4/ Face to face with Sitting Bull, Grizzle has a bright idea.
12. GRIZZLE: A warning from the spirits.
13. GRIZZLE: Beware the Long Hair. Though you will be victorious, many will die. The white man will hunt you until you have vanished like the buffalo.
Panel 5/ Warriors lead Grizzle and Forst away as Sitting Bull and his men discuss what to do with them.
14. ADVISER #1: They’re lying, of course.
15. ADVISER #2: Kill them and take their scalps.
16. SITTING BULL: No, tie them up. I may have questions for them later.
PAGE 4
Panel 1/ Just outside the tipi, Forst kicks one of the guards in the gut. Grizzle raises his arms to shield himself from another guard slashing at him with a knife. He positions his hands so the blade slices through his bonds.
1. FORST: Didja hear that?
2. GRIZZLE: Let’s get outta here!
Panel 2/ They run for their car as Indians chase them. With his hands still tied, Forst ducks as a warrior tumbles over him. With his bonds unraveling, Grizzle straight-arms another warrior.
3. FORST: Why aren’t they shooting at us?
4. GRIZZLE: Camp’s too crowded! Go!
Panel 3/ With Indians in hot pursuit, the guys leap into their car. Grizzle guns the engine and the wheels spin in a cloud of dust. A circle of light shimmers into existence before them.
5. FORST: Back to your place in Manhattan?
6. GRIZZLE: Yeah, Lucky Luciano’s girl is waiting.
7. SOUND F/X: rrrrRRWRR—
Panel 4/ In the background, the car sits in front of Grizzle’s luxurious mansion. Grizzle and Forst relate their adventures to men in pinstriped suits and women in flapper outfits. Perhaps a black butler stands by with a tray of refreshments.
8. CAPTION: 1929
9. FLAPPER: Were they all barbaric and savage-like?
10. FORST: Actually, they weren’t too bad—
11. GRIZZLE: Considering we invaded their home.
Filling the foreground is a copy of the New York Herald newspaper—on a table or in a henchman’s hands. Part of the front page is visible: the headlines, a drawing, and a chronology in one or two columns. The main headline is big.
12. HEADLINES:
Custer dead at 90
Former president dies in bed
The photo is a drawing of General Custer as seen in photographs just before Little Big Horn. The chronology reads:
His Career in Politics
1876: 7th Cavalry routs Sioux as they break camp
1877: Custer persuades Geronimo to surrender in Ariz.
1879: Custer is proclaimed “The Hero of the West”
1880: Custer runs for president against Garfield, wins
1882: “Learn and Earn” program launched for Negroes
1883: Chinese riot at So. Pacific Railroad ceremony
1884: Custer wins second presidential term
1885: Assassination attempt against Custer fails
1886: France starts to build Statue of Victory for U.S.
1888: Custer wins unprecedented third presidential term
1890: U.S. annexes Panama to begin work on canal
1891: First Hawaiian War ends in stalemate
1892: Custer wins fourth presidential term
1894: Sequoyah admitted to the Union as 45th state
1896: Col. Theodore Roosevelt killed in attack on Cuba
13. CAPTION: End.
For more on the subject, see White Male Privilege in Chrononauts.
Showing posts with label Sitting Bull. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sitting Bull. Show all posts
February 23, 2016
February 09, 2016
White Woman Walks Ahead
White woman walks ahead: Jessica Chastain starring in a film about Sitting Bull is everything that’s wrong with prestige films
"Woman Walks Ahead" is the latest installation in Hollywood's pathological obsession with white-savior films
By Paula Young LeeAccording to the report, Chastain will portray Caroline Weldon, a “19th-century Brooklyn artist and activist who moved to the Standing Rock Reservation in Dakota Territory to help Sioux chieftain Sitting Bull fight to keep the land for his people.”
The basic problem is that “Woman Walks Ahead” is already being conceived and presented as a white-savior film, precisely because the narrative is being framed through Weldon’s white feminist, righteous position of ally-ship with a dispossessed and marginalized people. The tragedy of history becomes a narrative shield that continues to legitimize the hideous fate of Lakota Sioux precisely because the story is mined for its tragedy … and that’s it. Must stories about Natives always take place in some mythologized past stocked with pintos and muskets? Is it so difficult to grasp that a fairy tale wrapped in museologically accurate buffalo robes is still a fairy tale? Frankly, the setup would be a lot more interesting if the film unfolded from the perspective of a young Lakota girl born and raised in the Standing Rock reservation, with a story line exploring her bafflement and anger at this random white lady who shows up to play interlocutor and scribe, while being utterly clueless about how to make poultices out of wild plants or anything that has to do with functioning as a whole person.
What would it take to get the film written in this way? A female team of Sioux screenwriters, to start. But the bigger obstacle is Hollywood’s near pathological obsession with white-savior narratives, which become synonymous with the “prestige” film. “In the last quarter-century,” David Sirota wrote in 2013 for Salon, “10 White Savior films have received major Hollywood award nominations, with fully half of those coming in just the last five years.” No surprise, then, that since 2010, only two actors of color have garnered Oscars for acting, both times in “supporting” roles that position them as subservient to white authority: Octavia Spencer in 2012, playing a maid in “The Help,” and Lupita Nyong’o in 2013, as a slave in “12 Years a Slave.” In other words, as Kara Brown writes for Jezebel, “Hollywood has a problem with only paying attention to non-white people when they’re playing a stereotype.”
Small victories do not fundamentally alter the structural racism of the industry. “The reality is that if no scripts or films are made that include roles for Native people, roles that call for extraordinary acting chops,” wrote Sonny Skyhawk, “then we are excluded from the opportunity to participate in the yearly considerations for Golden Globe Awards, SAG Awards, and Oscars.” It’s not a chicken-and-egg problem so much as an exclusionary system pretending to reward merit. As long as Oscar-bait films privilege white-savior narratives, actors of color will find it difficult if not impossible to get nominated for awards—especially best actor or actress—inside a system designed to prevent this. Comment: Also known as Stands With a Fist: The True Story. Juliette Lewis wanted the role because she looks good in a headdress.
Discussion
I discussed this project with a few Facebook friends:[Sitting Bull] had an Irish confidant? Her name was Caroline Weldon and she was his "white squaw." Her story was more important than Sitting Bull's and needs to be told.WTF Chastain is young and pretty, so it makes sense to make a Native movie starring her.[Godzilla facepalm] They were going to call it Sitting Bull Walks Behind. But they decided to focus on the star.I remember Steve Judd and I were meeting with people who wanted to do this story. Obviously, it never happened. Acctually I think the producers ripped off some Indians. But I wanted to do the story (SPOILERS) because I thought it was the anti-white saviour story. I thought the woman had savior syndrome and wanted to be the great white hope for the Lakota and ended up losing her son, and may have been one of the reasons for instigating Sitting Bull's death and the massacre of Wounded Knee. After that, she left the rez and never dealt with Indians again. There was also inference that she messed around with Sitting Bull. So, it would be a tragedy. I wonder if this movie would be more hopeful. I don't think they can make the history surrounding Sitting Bull and Wounded Knee more hopeful. They can make Weldon's life more hopeful as a fighter for justice.
I hope you pitched it as the dramatic story of a white woman who refused to give up. Because that was the way to get this movie made!
Savior or anti-savior?
I'm being somewhat sarcastic, since I don't know the actual story. It could well be an anti-white-savior tragedy. It could feature as-yet-unnamed Native actors in career-making roles. It could champion a Native writer and a Native director--oh, wait, those ships have already sailed.
I guess Weldon could give up and go home after Sitting Bull dies. But somehow I imagine her pounding doors or tables, refusing to give up, demanding justice. Only after the Great White Father shuts her out will she admit defeat. But not really, because she'll be defiant to the end in her heart!
Caroline WeldonCaroline Weldon was a 19th-century artist and activist with the National Indian Defense Association. Weldon became confidante and private secretary to Sitting Bull during the time when Plains Indians had adopted the Ghost Dance movement. I don't see anything more dramatic than writing letters in her bio. Maybe the movie will surprise us and not have a dramatic scene of her storming the halls of Congress or the Indian agent's office and demanding justice.
No doubt they'll play up the relationship as a torrid love affair. Something like this:
The movie's previous title was Savage Desire aka Sitting Bull Walks Behind aka Sitting Bull's White Squaw. Not Me Sexy. Because that would be silly.
Why stop with Chastain?
But maybe I'm giving them too much credit. What about a rugged white star to play Sitting Bull? You know, the way Joseph Fiennes is playing Michael Jackson.
Perhaps someone like Jeff Bridges or Kurt Russell. You know, someone who has an affinity for old Westerns. And can put a few butts in the seats.
White people want to see white stars! It's a law!The lady is a little known historical figure and very little information about her, so you have a lot of freedom with how to depict her. but, as you said, there's no mention of the rest of the cast. There are also very few well-known (by western standards) American Indian actors/actresses. so a publication of Hollywood Reporter will not care, they just care about the star of the moment, not some little known actor who may have been in a few movies and TV shows. I doubt they would even throw Gil Birmingham or Wes Studi a shout out even though they've been in in award winning and some of the most successful films. Heaven forbid we should lower Jessica Chastain (39 roles according to IMDB) to the level of a Gil Birmingham (51 roles) or Wes Studi (92 roles). I mean, she starred in Zero Dark Thirty, which was way bigger than Twilight or Avatar.
Obviously, the lack of mentions is my point. Even in a movie that's ostensibly about Natives, the announcement is all about the white people doing the project.
For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.
"Woman Walks Ahead" is the latest installation in Hollywood's pathological obsession with white-savior films
By Paula Young Lee
The basic problem is that “Woman Walks Ahead” is already being conceived and presented as a white-savior film, precisely because the narrative is being framed through Weldon’s white feminist, righteous position of ally-ship with a dispossessed and marginalized people. The tragedy of history becomes a narrative shield that continues to legitimize the hideous fate of Lakota Sioux precisely because the story is mined for its tragedy … and that’s it. Must stories about Natives always take place in some mythologized past stocked with pintos and muskets? Is it so difficult to grasp that a fairy tale wrapped in museologically accurate buffalo robes is still a fairy tale? Frankly, the setup would be a lot more interesting if the film unfolded from the perspective of a young Lakota girl born and raised in the Standing Rock reservation, with a story line exploring her bafflement and anger at this random white lady who shows up to play interlocutor and scribe, while being utterly clueless about how to make poultices out of wild plants or anything that has to do with functioning as a whole person.
What would it take to get the film written in this way? A female team of Sioux screenwriters, to start. But the bigger obstacle is Hollywood’s near pathological obsession with white-savior narratives, which become synonymous with the “prestige” film. “In the last quarter-century,” David Sirota wrote in 2013 for Salon, “10 White Savior films have received major Hollywood award nominations, with fully half of those coming in just the last five years.” No surprise, then, that since 2010, only two actors of color have garnered Oscars for acting, both times in “supporting” roles that position them as subservient to white authority: Octavia Spencer in 2012, playing a maid in “The Help,” and Lupita Nyong’o in 2013, as a slave in “12 Years a Slave.” In other words, as Kara Brown writes for Jezebel, “Hollywood has a problem with only paying attention to non-white people when they’re playing a stereotype.”
Small victories do not fundamentally alter the structural racism of the industry. “The reality is that if no scripts or films are made that include roles for Native people, roles that call for extraordinary acting chops,” wrote Sonny Skyhawk, “then we are excluded from the opportunity to participate in the yearly considerations for Golden Globe Awards, SAG Awards, and Oscars.” It’s not a chicken-and-egg problem so much as an exclusionary system pretending to reward merit. As long as Oscar-bait films privilege white-savior narratives, actors of color will find it difficult if not impossible to get nominated for awards—especially best actor or actress—inside a system designed to prevent this.
Discussion
I discussed this project with a few Facebook friends:
I hope you pitched it as the dramatic story of a white woman who refused to give up. Because that was the way to get this movie made!
Savior or anti-savior?
I'm being somewhat sarcastic, since I don't know the actual story. It could well be an anti-white-savior tragedy. It could feature as-yet-unnamed Native actors in career-making roles. It could champion a Native writer and a Native director--oh, wait, those ships have already sailed.
I guess Weldon could give up and go home after Sitting Bull dies. But somehow I imagine her pounding doors or tables, refusing to give up, demanding justice. Only after the Great White Father shuts her out will she admit defeat. But not really, because she'll be defiant to the end in her heart!
Caroline Weldon
No doubt they'll play up the relationship as a torrid love affair. Something like this:
The movie's previous title was Savage Desire aka Sitting Bull Walks Behind aka Sitting Bull's White Squaw. Not Me Sexy. Because that would be silly.
Why stop with Chastain?
But maybe I'm giving them too much credit. What about a rugged white star to play Sitting Bull? You know, the way Joseph Fiennes is playing Michael Jackson.
Perhaps someone like Jeff Bridges or Kurt Russell. You know, someone who has an affinity for old Westerns. And can put a few butts in the seats.
White people want to see white stars! It's a law!
Obviously, the lack of mentions is my point. Even in a movie that's ostensibly about Natives, the announcement is all about the white people doing the project.
For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.
December 30, 2015
Atlantic's "influential" list omits Indians
Here's another list of the "top" Americans along with my comments:
Atlantic Magazine Listed the “100 Most Influential Figures in American History” And Didn’t Put a Single Native American on the List
A good list in some ways; a bad list in others.
They seem to have confused "important" and "influential." As these lists often do. They aren't the same thing.
They also seem to have confused the person and the accomplishment. The telegraph may have influenced the course of the country, but Samuel Morse didn't. Not enough to put him on the list.
They gave artists and "pop" celebrities short shrift. And despite Elvis, went mostly for establishment figures. Herman Melville? P.T. Barnum? Stephen Foster? William Faulkner? Louis Armstrong? How about Bob Dylan, John Wayne, Michael Jackson, Marilyn Monroe, or Michael Jordan? I'd put one or two of these choices against all five of Atlantic's choices in terms of influence.
The Native alternatives
As for Natives, who would be the no. 1 choice? Perhaps Geronimo. From both sides--Native and non-Native--he must be the icon of Indianness. Natives see him as a savage resistance fighter determined to be free. Non-Natives see him as simply the ultimate savage.
Who else? Siting Bull? Pocahontas? I'm not sure how much they accomplished, but they were hugely influential as symbols. One or both of them could go on the list also.
Tecumseh may qualify as the most accomplished Native in American history. But his accomplishment--building a widespread tribal coalition--fell apart at the end. So I'm not sure how much influence it had on the course of US history.
Anyone else? Sacagawea? She had one big accomplishment: keeping Lewis and Clark alive during the winter of 1805-6. But that was a single small role in a major expedition, and it's not clear how influential the expedition was. I wouldn't include her.
Jim Thorpe? He was hugely accomplished, but I'm not sure how his accomplishments influenced anyone else. Or changed the course of history. The historians may have been right to limit sports figures to people like Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth.
The code talkers? Maybe if one of them had singlehandedly created and operated the group. But you can't have a group of 400 or whatever in a list like this. Otherwise you'd have to nominate George Washington's or FDR's Cabinet. Or the soldiers who landed at Normandy.
Why Indians?
Despite the "influential" tag, much of this list is about symbolism. For instance, Jackie Robinson didn't integrate baseball or other sports by himself. He's important as the first person to break the color--as a symbol of change. But if he hadn't been first, someone else would've been.
Like Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, Robinson didn't cause the change himself. He represented the forces of change working their way through society. He "influenced" history by being in the right place at the right time.
For the first century, most of America's "foreign" policy concerned the Indian question. Turner's Frontier Thesis argued that we defined ourselves in relation to the wild West--i.e., Indians. Taming the wilderness, turning "savagery" into civilization, is America's founding myth.
Symbolically, Indians loomed huge in our imagination. They played a much greater role than their actual numbers or accomplishments suggested. Therefore, you could easily argue for including one or more of them on the list. They were prominent for half our history, so they deserve some spots.
For more on the subject, see 100 Most Significant Americans? and Indians in the Celebrity 100.
Atlantic Magazine Listed the “100 Most Influential Figures in American History” And Didn’t Put a Single Native American on the List
A good list in some ways; a bad list in others.
They seem to have confused "important" and "influential." As these lists often do. They aren't the same thing.
They also seem to have confused the person and the accomplishment. The telegraph may have influenced the course of the country, but Samuel Morse didn't. Not enough to put him on the list.
They gave artists and "pop" celebrities short shrift. And despite Elvis, went mostly for establishment figures. Herman Melville? P.T. Barnum? Stephen Foster? William Faulkner? Louis Armstrong? How about Bob Dylan, John Wayne, Michael Jackson, Marilyn Monroe, or Michael Jordan? I'd put one or two of these choices against all five of Atlantic's choices in terms of influence.
The Native alternatives
As for Natives, who would be the no. 1 choice? Perhaps Geronimo. From both sides--Native and non-Native--he must be the icon of Indianness. Natives see him as a savage resistance fighter determined to be free. Non-Natives see him as simply the ultimate savage.
Who else? Siting Bull? Pocahontas? I'm not sure how much they accomplished, but they were hugely influential as symbols. One or both of them could go on the list also.
Tecumseh may qualify as the most accomplished Native in American history. But his accomplishment--building a widespread tribal coalition--fell apart at the end. So I'm not sure how much influence it had on the course of US history.
Anyone else? Sacagawea? She had one big accomplishment: keeping Lewis and Clark alive during the winter of 1805-6. But that was a single small role in a major expedition, and it's not clear how influential the expedition was. I wouldn't include her.
Jim Thorpe? He was hugely accomplished, but I'm not sure how his accomplishments influenced anyone else. Or changed the course of history. The historians may have been right to limit sports figures to people like Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth.
The code talkers? Maybe if one of them had singlehandedly created and operated the group. But you can't have a group of 400 or whatever in a list like this. Otherwise you'd have to nominate George Washington's or FDR's Cabinet. Or the soldiers who landed at Normandy.
Why Indians?
Despite the "influential" tag, much of this list is about symbolism. For instance, Jackie Robinson didn't integrate baseball or other sports by himself. He's important as the first person to break the color--as a symbol of change. But if he hadn't been first, someone else would've been.
Like Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, Robinson didn't cause the change himself. He represented the forces of change working their way through society. He "influenced" history by being in the right place at the right time.
For the first century, most of America's "foreign" policy concerned the Indian question. Turner's Frontier Thesis argued that we defined ourselves in relation to the wild West--i.e., Indians. Taming the wilderness, turning "savagery" into civilization, is America's founding myth.
Symbolically, Indians loomed huge in our imagination. They played a much greater role than their actual numbers or accomplishments suggested. Therefore, you could easily argue for including one or more of them on the list. They were prominent for half our history, so they deserve some spots.
For more on the subject, see 100 Most Significant Americans? and Indians in the Celebrity 100.
January 02, 2011
Sitting Bull joke in Mad Men
In the third episode of Mad Men's second season, The Benefactor (airdate: 8/10/08), a comedian jokes about a fat woman. One of his lines is:Hey, get Sitting Bull on the phone. We found the last buffalo. I doubt an Indian joke would be among the first 100 retorts that came to mind in the early 1960s. Again, the writers seem to be going out of their way to mention Indians. Good for them, although it doesn't quite ring true in this context.
Later, someone concerned about being fired says "I'm one gone paleface"--an oblique reference to Indians. So Mad Men has made several references to Indians in the space of its first 16 episodes. That isn't a coincidence; it's a conscious or unconscious choice by someone.
For more on the subject, see Mohawk Airlines in Mad Men and Indians in Mad Men.
Later, someone concerned about being fired says "I'm one gone paleface"--an oblique reference to Indians. So Mad Men has made several references to Indians in the space of its first 16 episodes. That isn't a coincidence; it's a conscious or unconscious choice by someone.
For more on the subject, see Mohawk Airlines in Mad Men and Indians in Mad Men.
November 21, 2010
Sitting Bull as landscape in Obama's book
Here's more on the book discussed in Obama Attacked Over Sitting Bull:
Loren Long's illustration of Sitting Bull in Barack Obama's OF THEE I SINGRoger [Sutton of Horn Book] wrote that:
Loren Long chose to depict Sitting Bull as a sort of landscape, with buffalo for eyes, hills and cracked earth for nose and mouth, and some pine trees placed so they form eyebrows (and, dare I say, boogers). It's the old one-with-nature stereotype, which wouldn't be so bad had all of the other subjects of the book not been depicted realistically. 
I see what Roger means. All the other people in the book are portrayed in a realistic fashion. They look great! In contrast, "Sitting Bull" is kind of scary looking. I can imagine a kid reading (or being read) the book. Turning the pages, seeing the realistic art, and then coming upon this one?! I imagine kids leaning in closer to the page in confusion....Long definitely bought into the one-with-nature stereotype.... (Excerpted from Debbie Reese's American Indians in Children's Literature, 11/20/10.)
Comment: The problem isn't only the one-with-nature stereotype. It's depicting Sitting Bull as a remote, otherworldly, even mythical character. The message is that Indians have vanished into the landscape just as Sitting Bull seems to be doing.
Again, if Long had drawn everyone that way, it would be okay. The ultimate problem is treating the Indian differently from whites and other minorities.
For more on semi-mythical Indians, see Bears Replace Indians in Store Window, Vanished Mound Builders in The Prairies, and Neil Gaiman on Dead Indians.
Loren Long's illustration of Sitting Bull in Barack Obama's OF THEE I SING
Comment: The problem isn't only the one-with-nature stereotype. It's depicting Sitting Bull as a remote, otherworldly, even mythical character. The message is that Indians have vanished into the landscape just as Sitting Bull seems to be doing.
Again, if Long had drawn everyone that way, it would be okay. The ultimate problem is treating the Indian differently from whites and other minorities.
For more on semi-mythical Indians, see Bears Replace Indians in Store Window, Vanished Mound Builders in The Prairies, and Neil Gaiman on Dead Indians.
November 16, 2010
Obama attacked over Sitting Bull
Here's an excellent example of how Fox News will twist anything to gain political advantage.
Obama's children's book hits stores
By Stephen Lowman“Of Thee I Sing,” aimed at children ages 3 and up, is light on text but rich with Loren Long’s illustrations. On the opening page Obama addresses his two daughters, Malia and Sasha.
“Have I told you lately how wonderful you are? / How the sound of your feet / running from afar / brings dancing rhythms to my day? / How you laugh / and sunshine spills into the room?”
Obama goes on to tell them about 13 “groundbreaking Americans.” In order, they are:
Georgia O’Keeffe (“helped us see big beauty in what is small”) Albert Einstein (“changing the world with energy and light”) Jackie Robinson (“showed us all how to turn fear to respect”) Sitting Bull (“a Sioux medicine man”) Billie Holiday (“sang beautiful blues”) Helen Keller (“taught us to look and listen to each other”) Maya Lin (“public spaces should be filled with art, she thought”) Jane Addams (“fed the poor”) Martin Luther King, Jr. (“taught us unyielding compassion”) Neil Armstrong (“first to walk on the moon”) Cesar Chavez (“showed farmworkers their own power”) Abraham Lincoln (“promised freedom to enslaved sisters and brothers”) George Washington (“our first president”) 
Obama's Kids Book Hits Shelves, Fox News Grumbles
Network is not happy about inclusion of Sitting Bull
By Evann GastaldoPresident Obama's children's book hits shelves today—what could possibly go wrong? Well, Of Thee I Sing includes a tribute to Sioux medicine man Sitting Bull—or, as Fox News puts it, "Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed US General." The book is framed as a letter to Obama's daughters, and talks about 13 Americans the president admires. In addition to Sitting Bull, luminaries like Billie Holiday, Helen Keller, Cesar Chavez, and Abraham Lincoln are included, the Washington Post reports. Proceeds are being donated to a scholarship fund for the children of killed or disabled soldiers.
The Fox News piece, Gawker points out, is actually just a reprint of a USA Today report on the book, except with a markedly different headline (USA Today's was "Obama Shares Dreams for His Kids in Book About 13 Americans") and the paragraph about Sitting Bull bolded: "His most controversial choice may be Sitting Bull, who defeated Custer at Little Bighorn: ('A Sioux medicine man who healed broken hearts and broken promises.')" Writes Maureen O'Connor on Gawker, "Basically, this picture book is [Obama's] jihad. You heard it here first." 
Obama Children's Book Ignites Controversy
Analysis
By Andrea StoneThat Fox would single out Sitting Bull for condemnation illustrates how the wounds inflicted during the settling of the American West remain raw long after the "closing of the frontier" more than a century ago. Yet historians say the Native American holy man earned his place in Obama's slender 31-page book.
The inclusion of Sitting Bull in "Of Thee I Sing" has caused a storm of derision in the blogosphere over historical revisionism and political correctness.
"Why should that be controversial?" asked Linenthal, author of "Sacred Ground: Americans and Their Battlefields," an examination of how the Little Bighorn and other historic sites have been redefined in the nation's memory. "Is it controversial to hold up Robert E. Lee as a significant American even though he was commander of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederacy's goal was to create a new nation apart from the United States?"
The Lakota Sioux chief belongs among the pantheon of American heroes, said Robert Utley, author of the definitive biography, "Sitting Bull: The Life and Times of an American Patriot."
"He was probably the most Indian Indian, the most devoted to his particular culture, and he practiced it on a daily basis and had the political and spiritual influence to lead his people as their greatest chief," Utley said. "He is as American as they come."
Utley called the Fox headline "a vast oversimplification." Sitting Bull was already too old to fight at the time of the standoff with Custer, he said, and was back with the women and children when Crazy Horse led the war party at the Little Bighorn.
"I'd brush Fox News off," he said. "They don't know what they're talking about." Fox News: Native Americans Can’t Be HeroesThere are several things that irked me about this headline, aside from the fact that it appears to take a cheap shot at our nation’s President for writing a children’s book that features famous American heroes. It seemed to imply that Sitting Bull was not American but rather some crazed terrorist that killed a U.S. General. I’ll stand up for America any time, but I’m afraid you're on your own if you want to side with the government over their treatment of the Native Americans. He was about as American as you can get. Fox News lies...again
Many people noted that Fox's headline was a flat-out lie. Sitting Bull was too old to fight at Little Bighorn and didn't kill anyone, and Custer wasn't a general then. The criticism continued:
Fox News headline of Obama’s kids book draws criticism
By Michael CalderoneObama's decision to include Native American leader Sitting Bull didn't go over well with the headline writers at Fox Nation, a Fox News website. Their initial take: "Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General." (At the time of this writing, the headline has been changed to read: "Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Defeated U.S. General.")
Several bloggers and Fox critics quickly jumped on the site's overheated reaction to the children's book.
"Fox News Turns Obama's Kid Book Into Anti-American War Epic," wrote Gawker's Maureen O'Connor.
The New Republic's Jonathan Chait also poked fun at the network's coverage of the book: "Fox News Exposes Obama As Indian, Not Kenyan, Anti-Colonialist."
"Our Indonesian-Kenyan-socialist president is at it again!" wrote Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank (who has criticized Fox News in the past), linking to the Fox Nation article. Trail of Tears: Obama right to include Native American in book[W]e’re ashamed major media outlets and fellow citizens are attacking a children’s book simply for its inclusion of one of the most important historical demographics of this country—Native Americans.
To call the children’s book “anti-American” because it includes Sitting Bull rather than Gen. Custer is to deny the rights and history of the people who Americans ruthlessly slaughtered and forced onto reservations, and, furthermore, it suggests America should take no blame for the atrocities committed unto these people.
Sitting Bull embodies the very essence of dissidence on which this country was founded.
The only thing that’s anti-American is not including a footnote to explain how America is the country it is today because of our ability to massacre technologically inferior native people. Comment: For more battles over Custer and Sitting Bull, see Custer Re-enactor at Veterans Powwow and Custer's Last Stand and Ethnic Studies. For more on conservative attacks on Obama, see What "I Want My Country Back" Means and Obama Smeared as Luo Tribesman.
Obama's children's book hits stores
By Stephen Lowman
“Have I told you lately how wonderful you are? / How the sound of your feet / running from afar / brings dancing rhythms to my day? / How you laugh / and sunshine spills into the room?”
Obama goes on to tell them about 13 “groundbreaking Americans.” In order, they are:
Obama's Kids Book Hits Shelves, Fox News Grumbles
Network is not happy about inclusion of Sitting Bull
By Evann Gastaldo
The Fox News piece, Gawker points out, is actually just a reprint of a USA Today report on the book, except with a markedly different headline (USA Today's was "Obama Shares Dreams for His Kids in Book About 13 Americans") and the paragraph about Sitting Bull bolded: "His most controversial choice may be Sitting Bull, who defeated Custer at Little Bighorn: ('A Sioux medicine man who healed broken hearts and broken promises.')" Writes Maureen O'Connor on Gawker, "Basically, this picture book is [Obama's] jihad. You heard it here first."
Obama Children's Book Ignites Controversy
Analysis
By Andrea Stone
The inclusion of Sitting Bull in "Of Thee I Sing" has caused a storm of derision in the blogosphere over historical revisionism and political correctness.
"Why should that be controversial?" asked Linenthal, author of "Sacred Ground: Americans and Their Battlefields," an examination of how the Little Bighorn and other historic sites have been redefined in the nation's memory. "Is it controversial to hold up Robert E. Lee as a significant American even though he was commander of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederacy's goal was to create a new nation apart from the United States?"
The Lakota Sioux chief belongs among the pantheon of American heroes, said Robert Utley, author of the definitive biography, "Sitting Bull: The Life and Times of an American Patriot."
"He was probably the most Indian Indian, the most devoted to his particular culture, and he practiced it on a daily basis and had the political and spiritual influence to lead his people as their greatest chief," Utley said. "He is as American as they come."
Utley called the Fox headline "a vast oversimplification." Sitting Bull was already too old to fight at the time of the standoff with Custer, he said, and was back with the women and children when Crazy Horse led the war party at the Little Bighorn.
"I'd brush Fox News off," he said. "They don't know what they're talking about."
Many people noted that Fox's headline was a flat-out lie. Sitting Bull was too old to fight at Little Bighorn and didn't kill anyone, and Custer wasn't a general then. The criticism continued:
Fox News headline of Obama’s kids book draws criticism
By Michael Calderone
Several bloggers and Fox critics quickly jumped on the site's overheated reaction to the children's book.
"Fox News Turns Obama's Kid Book Into Anti-American War Epic," wrote Gawker's Maureen O'Connor.
The New Republic's Jonathan Chait also poked fun at the network's coverage of the book: "Fox News Exposes Obama As Indian, Not Kenyan, Anti-Colonialist."
"Our Indonesian-Kenyan-socialist president is at it again!" wrote Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank (who has criticized Fox News in the past), linking to the Fox Nation article.
To call the children’s book “anti-American” because it includes Sitting Bull rather than Gen. Custer is to deny the rights and history of the people who Americans ruthlessly slaughtered and forced onto reservations, and, furthermore, it suggests America should take no blame for the atrocities committed unto these people.
Sitting Bull embodies the very essence of dissidence on which this country was founded.
The only thing that’s anti-American is not including a footnote to explain how America is the country it is today because of our ability to massacre technologically inferior native people.
May 10, 2009
Sitting Bull ice cream
Correspondent Morten Krogh is leading the fight against this stereotype-based Norwegian product:
Diplom is viser ingen respekt til historisk personIn July 2008 I discovered one product in a foodshop here in Oslo that really shocked me. Sitting Bull ICE-CREAM from Diplom-IS. Therefore I made this Facebook site to stop DIPLOM ICE. Check it out, and support this group.
Here is the official DIPLOM ICE site.
SITTING BULL [link no longer works]
Please check it out, and tell me what you think about the logo, and the name.
They are also using a picture of the cartoon series called Hiawatha on the product, and they are using Sitting Bulls name.
IT'S REALLY Disrespectful.
:-( NO. If they are going to continue to sell it they can change the name.
Diplom-Is is the trademark of Diplom-Is AS, and is the best known and most popular ice-cream brand in Norway.
You can get in contact with Diplom-Is. I will...:-(
Tel: + 47 02001
Fax: + 47 67 06 66 01
E-mail: firmapost@diplom-is.no Comment: I assume the group's title is something like "Diplom Ice Should Give Respect to This Historic Person."
As I told Morten, I think the image is a cartoon character like Disney's old Hiawatha. I'm not convinced it is Hiawatha.
I'm not as bothered by this as I am by products such as Crazy Horse malt liquor or Crazy Horse nightclub. Unlike these products, I don't think ice cream is inherently disrespectful to Indians. Sitting Bull might appreciate or endorse this product if he were alive.
Would the ice cream be okay if it used an actual picture of Sitting Bull? If it was called L'il Sitting Bull Ice Cream? Or if it was called Hiawatha Ice Cream to match the picture? I don't know, but it would make more sense.
This product is like Pocahontas tires or Tecumseh pajamas--a meaningless and incomprehensible appropriation of a Native name. The image is a phony Indian "brave" who has nothing to do with Sitting Bull, who has nothing to do with ice cream. The only thing noteworthy about it is how mismatched the name, image, and product are.
But as offenses go, it's not at the top of my list. I see stereotypes this bad all the time. Therefore, I can't devote too much time to it.
For more on Native stereotypes, see the Stereotype of the Month contest.
Diplom is viser ingen respekt til historisk person
Here is the official DIPLOM ICE site.
SITTING BULL [link no longer works]
Please check it out, and tell me what you think about the logo, and the name.
They are also using a picture of the cartoon series called Hiawatha on the product, and they are using Sitting Bulls name.
IT'S REALLY Disrespectful.
:-( NO. If they are going to continue to sell it they can change the name.
Diplom-Is is the trademark of Diplom-Is AS, and is the best known and most popular ice-cream brand in Norway.
You can get in contact with Diplom-Is. I will...:-(
Tel: + 47 02001
Fax: + 47 67 06 66 01
E-mail: firmapost@diplom-is.no
As I told Morten, I think the image is a cartoon character like Disney's old Hiawatha. I'm not convinced it is Hiawatha.
I'm not as bothered by this as I am by products such as Crazy Horse malt liquor or Crazy Horse nightclub. Unlike these products, I don't think ice cream is inherently disrespectful to Indians. Sitting Bull might appreciate or endorse this product if he were alive.
Would the ice cream be okay if it used an actual picture of Sitting Bull? If it was called L'il Sitting Bull Ice Cream? Or if it was called Hiawatha Ice Cream to match the picture? I don't know, but it would make more sense.
This product is like Pocahontas tires or Tecumseh pajamas--a meaningless and incomprehensible appropriation of a Native name. The image is a phony Indian "brave" who has nothing to do with Sitting Bull, who has nothing to do with ice cream. The only thing noteworthy about it is how mismatched the name, image, and product are.
But as offenses go, it's not at the top of my list. I see stereotypes this bad all the time. Therefore, I can't devote too much time to it.
For more on Native stereotypes, see the Stereotype of the Month contest.
October 16, 2008
Sitting Bull the progressive
‘Sitting Bull,’ by Bill YenneYenne’s study is most interesting when the author discusses the Lakota leader’s impressions of wasicu society during the time he spent traveling on lecture tours and as part of Bill Cody’s Wild West Show. Although his assessment of these years could benefit from a wider reading of more recent secondary sources, the insights he provides into Sitting Bull’s thoughts and ideas about urban settlement, technology and the character of 19th century white Americans are both fascinating and significant.
His book helps to dispel romantic, essentialist notions that have served to suspend Indians in time as hapless creatures of an archaic past. Through Yenne’s research, we learn that Sitting Bull was a progressive, practical thinker, interested in new technology and not opposed to the beneficial things Euro-Americans had to offer. Sitting Bull summed up his thoughts on the matter this way: “When you find anything good in the white man’s road, pick it up; but when you find something bad … leave it alone.” 
His book helps to dispel romantic, essentialist notions that have served to suspend Indians in time as hapless creatures of an archaic past. Through Yenne’s research, we learn that Sitting Bull was a progressive, practical thinker, interested in new technology and not opposed to the beneficial things Euro-Americans had to offer. Sitting Bull summed up his thoughts on the matter this way: “When you find anything good in the white man’s road, pick it up; but when you find something bad … leave it alone.”
May 29, 2008
No spoils, said Sitting Bull
Little Big Horn museum collecting Sitting Bull exhibitThen in his 40s and past his warrior days, Sitting Bull offered 50 pieces of flesh from each arm before he began the grueling ritual of dance and prayers. On the second day, a vision came. Soldiers were falling into camp, upside down, with no ears, LaPointe said.
“These dead soldiers who are coming are the gifts of God,” Sitting Bull told his people. “Kill them, but do not take their guns or horses. Do not touch the spoils. If you set your hearts upon the goods of the white man, it will prove a curse to this nation.”
They did not heed his words, LaPointe said.
When six companies of the 7th Cavalry under the command of Lt. Col. George Custer were annihilated at the Little Bighorn on June 25, 1876, victorious Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho took horses, guns, scalps, uniforms and anything that could be useful on their nomadic journeys. Comment: For more on Indian museums, see The Feel-Good National Museum.
“These dead soldiers who are coming are the gifts of God,” Sitting Bull told his people. “Kill them, but do not take their guns or horses. Do not touch the spoils. If you set your hearts upon the goods of the white man, it will prove a curse to this nation.”
They did not heed his words, LaPointe said.
When six companies of the 7th Cavalry under the command of Lt. Col. George Custer were annihilated at the Little Bighorn on June 25, 1876, victorious Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho took horses, guns, scalps, uniforms and anything that could be useful on their nomadic journeys.
May 04, 2008
The truth about Sitting Bull
Bill Yenne’s biography of Sitting Bull strips away the mythsSitting Bull was a complicated man. Yenne said that “for more than a century, there have been those who have painted Sitting Bull as the ultimate hero or the ultimate villain of the Old West or of the Indian Wars. In fact, he was neither. He was much more complex. He was a man who could strike a hard bargain just as easily as he could strike with a coup stick. At the same time, he found himself occasionally confused, burdened with indecision, changing his mind back and forth, unsure of what to do.”
Another aspect Yenne addresses is that of Sitting Bull as mythic image of a warrior.
“I’m still stunned by how many people truly believe that Sitting Bull put on a big eagle feather headdress and led the warriors against Custer at the Greasy Grass. This is the image that had gotten him painted as the ultimate hero or ultimate villain. He becomes a caricature to support a viewpoint. This caricature has taken on a life, or parallel lives, of its own, becoming a myth that I have tried to dispel.” Comment: I'm guessing most Americans don't know much about Sitting Bull. They don't think of him as anything but a great chief, period.
Suppose you asked them some questions about his life? E.g.,
True or false: Sitting Bull led the charge against Custer at Little Big Horn. (False.)
True or false: Sitting Bull appeared in Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. (True.)
True or false: Sitting Bull died at Wounded Knee. (False.)
I'm guessing most Americans wouldn't do any better than chance. They don't have misconceptions so much as no conceptions.
P.S. Those who read the graphic novel SITTING BULL get a reasonably complex view his life.
Another aspect Yenne addresses is that of Sitting Bull as mythic image of a warrior.
“I’m still stunned by how many people truly believe that Sitting Bull put on a big eagle feather headdress and led the warriors against Custer at the Greasy Grass. This is the image that had gotten him painted as the ultimate hero or ultimate villain. He becomes a caricature to support a viewpoint. This caricature has taken on a life, or parallel lives, of its own, becoming a myth that I have tried to dispel.”
Suppose you asked them some questions about his life? E.g.,
I'm guessing most Americans wouldn't do any better than chance. They don't have misconceptions so much as no conceptions.
P.S. Those who read the graphic novel SITTING BULL get a reasonably complex view his life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)