Rapid City Journal apologizes for headline

Many Natives criticized the misleading headline noted in Racist City Journal Blames Kids. The Native American Journalists Association provided an official response:

Rapid City Journal responds to NAJA concerns over irresponsible headline

By Rebecca LandsberryThe Rapid City Journal published a regrettable headline and flawed story on Saturday that represents one of the more troubling examples of irresponsible coverage of Native Americans in recent years. The newspaper has begun to address the problematic headline but further measures should be taken both in the short-term and long-term.

The newspaper's headline "Did Native students stand for National Anthem?" ran with its top story in the Saturday print edition--the latest in the paper's coverage of how children from the Pine Ridge Reservation became the target of racially charged insults. The headline fell short of the standards of responsible journalism, as it indirectly suggested that elementary and middle school students could have been responsible for prompting the harassment. The headline was the result of phrasing that was not well thought out on the paper's part, and outcry over the headline has been swift in the Rapid City region and beyond via social media.And:Here's more on the troubling headline and why NAJA, as a journalism organization, finds it and elements of the story so problematic:

Whether intentionally or not, the newspaper was party to victim blaming because of a headline based on an anonymous source's disputed allegations.

The headline suggests a decision by adults or children to stand or sit for the National Anthem is relevant to the incident that took place at the hockey arena. It isn't.

With the story, the Journal suggests to the public--even if inadvertently--that there could be some measure of logical explanation for the deplorable actions that included shouting racial slurs at children if any person in their group from the American Horse School on the Pine Ridge Reservation chose not to stand. There isn't.Soon after this, the newspaper apologized:

OURS: Journal erred on anthem headline

By Bart PfankuchA justifiable anger has resulted from a headline that appeared in the Rapid City Journal on Saturday, Jan. 31. It is now abundantly clear that the headline about the National Anthem is troubling to this community and our readers.

To some, the headline signified that there was a justification for the harassment of Native American students at the Rush hockey game on Saturday, Jan 24. This was not our intent. There is no justification for such racist behavior. There can never be any justification for the appalling way those students and their chaperons were treated at the game.Comment:  Good for them for apologizing. But how did that headline get by multiple levels of editors?

There's no way they could've justified it rationally. It jumped out at everyone, immediately, as accusing the children of being the problem.

This is a classic case of implicit bias. The editors obviously didn't think they were doing anything prejudicial, but they obviously were.

For more on the subject, see The Science of Racism.

Racist City Journal blames kids

Recently, drunken sports fans hurled beer and insults at 57 Native students at a hockey rink in Rapid City, South Dakota. That isn't necessarily a pop-culture issue, so I mentioned it only in my tweets. But an article in the Racist Rapid City Journal has elevated the story to a new level.



As another article explains:

Blaming the Victims: Witness Says Pine Ridge Reservation Students Did Not Stand Up for National Anthem

By Levi RickertThe students, who ages range from 8–13 years-old, were subjected to beer being sprayed on them and racial taunts of telling them to go back to the reservation from a corporate suite leased by Eagle Sales of the Black Hills, the Anheuser-Busch distributor for the region.

The Rapid City Journal’s story cited a person who was in the suite as claiming: “the incident was ignited when some members of the school group reportedly did not stand for the National Anthem prior to the start of the Rapid City Rush game.”

Justin Poor Bear, who was one of the parent chaperones who attended the game, denied the claim. He told the Journal: “We all stood up.” The newspaper reported two other officials of the American Horse School at Allen on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, indicated the students stood up for the national anthem.

The students were escorted out of the game by the adult chaperones who feared for the safety of the children, Poor Bear told Native News Online on Thursday.What this tells us

Along with the image above, Chase Iron Eyes wrote:The Racist City Journal, I mean Rapid City, calls out little Native grade schoolers for allegedly "not standing" for America's Nat'l Anthem, so I guess that means, if they didn't stand, that's justification for adults to racially attack kids with beer, frisbees, & beer cups whileyelling "GO BACK TO THE REZ." How about a story that they haven't arrested the perpetrator(s) even though they know his identity. We have our own Nat'l Anthem & we stand for yours, you stand for ours.More thoughts on this article from Last Real Indians:@RCJournal suggests Native Children could've deserved to be assaulted as they didn't stand for Nat'l Anthem ‪#‎FU‬And educator Debbie Reese:Rapid City Journal headline abt what Native kids did or did not do is irrelevant. Nothing justifies pouring beer on kids.Rob reacts

My snarky take on the subject:

Forget about climate change, poverty, or terrorism...the Racist City Journal has today's top story headlined on its front page!

Did the Native students also say the Pledge of Allegiance? Put their hands over their hearts? And sign a loyalty oath? We don't know the answers to any of these questions!

And if they didn't do these things, then what? I'd love to see the Racist City Journal spin that into a news story.

A news story that's more important than the racist assault on 57 Native kids, that is.

For more on Rapid City racism, see #NativeLivesMatter in Rapid City and Rapid City Board Rejects Sculpture Garden.

Natives "filed away" by stereotypes

A response to the negative media portrayal I covered in Photo Essay Maligns Wind River:

The White Media Kills Again and Again

By Lisa JonesStill, the media come to the reservation, eager for lurid stories but incurious about the people they see. A February 2012 front page New York Times story entitled “Brutal Crimes Grip an Indian Reservation,” reported: “The difficulties among Wind River's population of about 14,000 have become so daunting that many believe that the reservation ... is haunted by the ghosts of the innocent killed in an 1864 massacre.”

The article spurred 277 letters in two days. Some expressed historical outrage, while others blamed Native Americans for not lifting themselves out of their own mess. Some criticized the one-sidedness of the writing. Reservation teenager Willow Pingree, for example, wrote, “Not everything about this reservation is bad. … What many people who are not from this reservation ... don't understand is that there is a strong spiritual bond that we have with our culture and our homeland.” To its credit, the Times invited Pingree to write a longer letter in response to Williams's article.

But would it have been so hard to write a more textured, less biased story in the first place—one that tried to humanize the writer's sources? In 2010, I spoke to Wyoming Indian High School history teacher and cross-country coach Chico Her Many Horses, an Oglala Sioux who moved to the Wind River Reservation in 1990. He had seven sons, one of whom was in graduate school at Dartmouth, and his wife is also a teacher in the high school. “If we didn't think this place was good, I wouldn't be here, and my sons wouldn't be here.”

Non-Native reporters might think they're helping Native America by exposing the difficulties of Native life. But because so many people form an impression of reservation life from the media, it only makes the problems worse if reporters go to the reservation just to reinforce whatever ideas they arrived with. When reporters don't get curious, and fail to leaven their portrayal of reservation difficulties with a broader, more human picture, Native people end up being filed away in a special place in readers' brains—the file in which we put THINGS WE'D RATHER NOT THINK ABOUT. Which is where we've been putting Native Americans for five centuries.Comment:  Excellent point here. Negative stereotypes let bystanders ignore and dismiss the plight of Indians and other minorities. Programs are reduced and funding cut because "we" don't think "they" deserve our help.

They're lazy, drunken, good-for-nothing bums, goes this train of thought. They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps before trying to take our money. And so the cycles of poverty and crime continue.

Again, stereotypes contribute directly to the problem. Fighting America's ignorance about Indians is an integral part of fighting for economic and social justice. If you don't know in your heart that Indians are the same as everyone else, you won't do anything to help them.

For more on blaming the victim, see Attawapiskat Triggers "Welfare" Stereotypes and Rubio: Entitlements "Weakened" Us.

Childhood stress causes adult problems

The Psych Approach

By David BrooksIn Paul Tough’s essential book, “How Children Succeed,” he describes what’s going on. Childhood stress can have long lasting neural effects, making it harder to exercise self-control, focus attention, delay gratification and do many of the other things that contribute to a happy life.

Tough interviewed a young lady named Monisha, who was pulled out of class by a social worker, taken to a strange foster home and forbidden from seeing her father for months. “I remember the first day like it was yesterday. Every detail. I still have dreams about it. I feel like I’m going to be damaged forever.”

Monisha’s anxiety sensors are still going full blast. “If a plane flies over me, I think they’re going to drop a bomb. I think about my dad dying,” she told Tough. “When I get scared, I start shaking. My heart starts beating. I start sweating. You know how people say ‘I was scared to death’? I get scared that that’s really going to happen to me one day.”

Tough’s book is part of what you might call the psychologizing of domestic policy. In the past several decades, policy makers have focused on the material and bureaucratic things that correlate to school failure, like poor neighborhoods, bad nutrition, schools that are too big or too small. But, more recently, attention has shifted to the psychological reactions that impede learning—the ones that flow from insecure relationships, constant movement and economic anxiety.Cuddle Your Kid!

By Nicholas D. KristofOne University of Minnesota study that began in the 1970s followed 267 children of first-time low-income mothers for nearly four decades. It found that whether a child received supportive parenting in the first few years of life was at least as good a predictor as I.Q. of whether he or she would graduate from high school.

This may illuminate one way that poverty replicates itself from generation to generation. Children in poor households grow up under constant stress, disproportionately raised by young, single mothers also under tremendous stress, and the result may be brain architecture that makes it harder for the children to thrive at school or succeed in the work force.

Yet the cycle can be broken, and the implication is that the most cost-effective way to address poverty isn’t necessarily housing vouchers or welfare initiatives or prison-building. Rather, it may be early childhood education and parenting programs.

Scholars like James Heckman of the University of Chicago and Dr. Jack Shonkoff of Harvard have pioneered this field, and decades of fascinating research is now wonderfully assembled in Paul Tough’s important new book, “How Children Succeed.” Long may this book dwell on the best-seller lists!

As Tough suggests, the evidence is mounting that conservatives are right about some fundamental issues relating to poverty. For starters, we can’t talk just about welfare or tax policy but must also consider culture and character.

“There is no antipoverty tool we can provide for disadvantaged young people that will be more valuable,” Tough writes, than grit, resilience, perseverance and optimism.

Yet conservatives sometimes mistakenly see that as the end of the conversation.

“This science suggests a very different reality,” Tough writes. “It says that the character strengths that matter so much to young people’s success are not innate; they don’t appear in us magically, as a result of good luck or good genes. And they are not simply a choice. They are rooted in brain chemistry, and they are molded, in measurable and predictable ways, by the environment in which kids grow up. That means the rest of us—society as a whole—can do an enormous amount to influence their development.”The following study provides evidence for this position:

New Version of Classic Marshmallow Experiment Upends Original Conclusions

In it, a marshmallow was placed before young children, who were told to wait for it. The original experiment concluded that those who waited longer succeeded later in life. In shorthand:

Character => success

But in the revised experiment, the researchers withheld art supplies from one group of children before testing them with the marshmallow. Those who had been frustrated this way were much quicker to take the marshmallow. In shorthand:

Environment => character => stress

Conclusion

The implications of this study are obvious. As in Tough's book, kids in an unstable or unpredictable environment are more likely to avoid stress and seek comfort. That means dropping out of school or a job and pursuing sex, drugs, or gang affiliation. Which leads to a criminal record, a disease, or an unwanted pregnancy. The kids aren't "weak" because of their race or culture. They simply lack the mental maturity most of us take for granted. Any person raised in that environment would come out roughly the same.

This must be the 10th or 20th item I've posted on the subject of why poverty happens. Again, it's not because people are lazy and don't work hard enough. It's because environmental factors rob people of their ability to focus, learn, and apply themselves.

These people are victims of circumstance, which is why we denounce those who blame the victim. They often can't overcome their handicaps by themselves, but they can with our help. As Kristof says, we can and should do whatever we can to influence their development.

For more on the subject, see:

GOP America:  strivers vs. parasites
Social factors affect intelligence
Romney:  47% are moochers
America's "bootstrap theology"
Conservatives admit welfare-bashing is racial

Social factors affect intelligence

It’s Not Me, It’s You

By Annie Murphy PaulIn a 1995 article in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Professors Steele and Aronson found that black students performed comparably with white students when told that the test they were taking was “a laboratory problem-solving task.” Black students scored much lower, however, when they were instructed that the test was meant to measure their intellectual ability. In effect, the prospect of social evaluation suppressed these students’ intelligence.

Minorities aren’t the only ones vulnerable to stereotype threat. We all are. A group of people notably confident about their mathematical abilities—white male math and engineering majors who received high scores on the math portion of the SAT—did worse on a math test when told that the experiment was intended to investigate “why Asians appear to outperform other students on tests of math ability.”And:If the threat of social exclusion can decrease the expression of intelligence, so can a perceived threat to physical safety. It’s common to blame disadvantaged children’s poor academic performance on their “environment.” By this we usually mean longstanding characteristics of their homes and neighborhoods. But research on the social aspects of intelligence suggests that much more immediate aspects of kids’ surroundings can also affect their I.Q.’s.

In a study conducted on the troubled South Side of Chicago, for example, students whose neighborhoods had been the site of a homicide within the previous two weeks scored half a standard deviation lower on a test of intelligence.Comment:  This analysis offers another reason why conservatives who blame people for being poor are idiots. Rich pigs like Mitt Romney, who think 47% of Americans are government moochers, have no clue what it's like to work in low-paying jobs with no health care, to live in dismal neighborhoods rife with gangs and substance abuse.

No one wants to live like this, but a host of environmental factors helps keep people down. It has nothing to do with their desire to succeed and everything to do with the pressures and obstacles they face.

For more on blaming the victim, see Attawapiskat Triggers "Welfare" Stereotypes and Rubio:  Entitlements "Weakened" Us.

Blaming Trayvon for getting killed

To My Fellow White People: An Open Letter

By Brian CubbageSome of you–not going to name names, you will figure out who you are–are saying, or thinking, that in one way or another Trayvon is at fault for his own murder. You are saying, or thinking, “He should have known that he looked suspicious with that hoodie on.” “He should have known that someone like him would come across as threatening.” “He shouldn’t have felt afraid of the large man following him and chasing after him.” You are saying, or thinking, exactly the same sort of thing that some of you say, or think, about rape victims: They should have known what a dangerous world it is for them out there and they should have dressed and carried themselves accordingly, so as not to invite bad things to happen to them.

Never mind, of course, that the people who do these bad things are responsible for what they say, think, and do, too. Never mind, of course, that the people who actually do racist, sexist things are emboldened and enabled by the way that good folks who would never, ever in a million years think of doing such things continually blame their victims and not them. No, racists and rapists are just a fact of life in your worldview, like severe weather; women and people of color have to dodge them, take cover, be on the lookout, but we certainly can’t think that there’s something we might do about them.

Some of you get angry when I talk like this. You protest that you would never do racist things or commit rape. You are just making an observation. You don’t mean to say anything racist or sexist. Then I point out to you the difference between intent and impact. You might not mean to say racist things, but the things you are saying just are racist. The very fact that you have to appeal to the purity of your intentions to cleanse your words should provide you with a hint. Neither your good intentions or mine have magical powers. If you said something that was racist, your good intentions, assuming they are good, mean at best that you need to be far more careful in what you say and think. Learn from it in all humility and try to do better next time. Trust me, I’ve been there many times.

Some of you get even angrier at being told this. How unfair, you protest! Isn’t it a free country anymore? Now I have to police what I say and think? Yes, of course you do! I was raised in rural Kentucky to believe that people are supposed to think carefully before they say things and consider the impact my words have on others. This is just what good people do. However hard it is in practice, it isn’t all that complicated a concept. Why is this somehow forgotten, though, when the others aren’t other white people? Do you really want or need me to answer that question out loud?Comment:  For more on Trayvon Martin, see Bias Against Trayvon Martin and Obama and Tim Wise on Trayvon Martin.

Attawapiskat triggers "welfare" stereotypes

Depressing rerun for anti-native stereotypes

By Brent WesleyLazy. Incompetent. Dead weight. Basically, a burden on the taxpayers. Harsh descriptives for anyone to swallow, yet it’s par for the course for First Nations in this country. Especially when a major issue hits mainstream news like the state of emergency in Attawapiskat First Nation over inadequate housing.

The James Bay community in Northern Ontario made the declaration in late October, yet people in the community have lived in makeshift houses since 2009. Some residents are facing the onslaught of a third winter without proper homes. And in Ontario’s Far North, winter is harsh and unforgiving, It’s a situation that can tug at the heart strings of most people. But when Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan exercised his ministerial right to put the community under third-party management, suddenly the spotlight was on band finances. Where has the money gone?

Others have done a good job of breaking down the numbers, so I won’t dwell on it. Rather, as a First Nation person, the public backlash has weighed heavy. Instead of compassion, First Nations were suddenly generalized and told we don’t know how to fend for ourselves. Funny, considering I have an education, have a job, own a home and I’m raising a family. But wait, “you’re okay, I like you. It’s those other Indians I don’t like.” Words I have actually heard before.

I can’t imagine the toll the backlash has taken on the people of Attawapiskat. But sometimes the weight of the outside world isn’t very apparent in the day-to-day lives of people living in remote isolated communities. Life is a struggle to survive. Poverty. Social and health issues. Expensive food. Lack of potable water. The list goes on. Yet, the onslaught of voices can penetrate the thickest barrier. Suddenly, everyone is an expert and knows what’s best. And more often than not, that advice tends to focus on the usual uninformed, misguided diatribes of “get a job” or “take care of yourselves and stop depending on taxpayer money.” And even the most well-intentioned advice can be unwarranted.

Why does it bother me? Because it’s the same old attitude that has brought on the problems that exist and fester in every corner of Indian country. Father knows best. And you best heed his advice. Paternalistic attitudes and policies that have done more harm than good. Basically we are being told, “those Indians can’t take care of themselves so we best step in and make things right.”

On a personal level I’m deeply offended that government and certain segments of the Canadian public would even think of stepping in. In the case of Attawapiskat, the community reached out for help. Instead, they were told “you don’t know what you’re doing so move aside.”

Well, frankly, the community does know what it’s doing. It has stable leadership. It’s one of the rare communities to post its financials online. It has emergency management plans in place. It has operated a school for years without a proper building. No one is looking at those positives.

But like almost every other First Nation in Canada it operates on limited financial resources for health, education, infrastructure and housing. To compound that, it is stuck dealing with the bureaucratic juggernaut that is Aboriginal Affairs, one of the federal government’s largest ministries. It’s a lot to ask of any competent leader to deal with. But it’s the reality of First Nations.Comment:  A couple of things here:

1) Americans, and I guess Canadians, apply the "lazy, incompetent, dead weight" stereotypes to all minorities, not just Indians. As we've discussed in postings such as:

Republican Jesus™
Rubio:  Entitlements "weakened" us
Didier:  Stop "protecting the weak"
Why Americans hate welfare

2) In the Indians' case, these stereotypes are closely related to the "uncivilized" and "savage" stereotypes. The idea is that Indians can't handle business or government because they're too primitive and barbaric. Like cavemen who time-travel to the present, they're incapable of comprehending modern society. They're like apes or wolves in human clothing: pretending to be people, not real people.

For more on the Attawapiskat crisis, see Blaming the Victim at Attawapiskat and Home Renovator Tackles Housing Crisis. For more on Indians as welfare recipients, see Candidate:  Indians Spend "Handouts" on Drugs and Chickaloon Indians = Leeches?

Below:  The "crying Indian" stereotype, again.

Blaming the victim at Attawapiskat

Here's a commentary on the responses to the the Attawapiskat housing crisis. As I said, the crisis itself isn't a pop-culture issue, but the responses to it may be.

Don't blame bands for reserve housing woes

By Doug CuthandOttawa's reaction--and that of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in particular--has been appalling.

Rather than face the issue and try to find some kind of resolution, the prime minister complained that about $90 million has been spent by his government in the past six years and he sees little to show for it. Then the colonial office walks in and places the First Nations government under thirdparty management, which is a form of receivership.

It's easy to play blame-the-victim if people don't examine the facts. The $90 million spent over last six years constitutes the band's federal transfer payments. These cover costs for education and community and social development, and are accounted for in the band audits posted on its website since 2005.

It amounts to an average $15 million a year. This is comparable to other reserve communities of a similar size. The funds are closely regulated and can only be spent in certain ways.

The latest audited statement available on the Indian Affairs website is for the 2010-11 fiscal year. That year, the federal expenditures were $15,946,810 and included $403,986 available from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. for housing.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2001, the First Nation had a population of 1,290. The annual expenditures for the band were $15,861,724, and $159,748 was available for housing.

In the past decade, the population has grown to about 1,800, a 40 per cent increase. When such paltry amounts are put toward housing, it is no wonder that houses have become overcrowded and run down. If the overall federal contribution had kept pace with the population growth, it should be in excess of $22 million this year.

Attawapiskat is an isolated, fly-in community. The only way to transport building materials is by expensive air freight or a few months by winter road. This makes everything, including food, gasoline and basic transportation, more expensive. A standard two-or three-bedroom house will cost between $200,000 and $250,000.Comment:  So the $403,986 allocated for housing in 2010-2011 could buy one or two houses. Meanwhile, the population has grown from about 1,300 to 1,800 in ten years, or 50 people a year. Fifty new people a year in 1-2 new houses...sounds like overcrowding to me.

In short, the conservative "blame the victim" response to poverty is wrong again. Give the tribe enough money to build the 10 or 20 houses needed each year, then tell us whether they're dumb savages or not.

For more on the subject, see Home Renovator Tackles Housing Crisis.

Rubio: Entitlements "weakened" us

Rubio’s Reagan Speech:  Entitlements “Weakened” Us

By Thomas LaneWith a tone that suggested he spoke more in sorrow than in anger, Rubio said that though the creation of a welfare state "was well-intentioned, it was doomed to fail from the start."

"These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities."

Of course, one might argue that the reason welfare programs were created--with great popular demand--was precisely because in all too many cases "communities," "families," and "churches" weren't doing an adequate job. That hasn't prevented paeans of praise from flooding in from the right. The influential blog site RedState was fairly typical, headlining their take, "Marco Rubio speaking at the Reagan Library. OH HECK YEAH."Comment:  Who are these people who aren't taking care of each other? Who aren't tending to the sick or helping their neighbors? Who aren't saving for the future and their retirement?

Well, obviously they're the people living off "entitlement" programs, according to Rubio. You know, the people "mooching" off health and welfare programs. The lazy, good-for-nothing welfare queens and cheats who won't get off their duffs and get a job because government pays them to be unemployed.

Brown-skinned animals

If Rubio doesn't say who "those people" are, other conservatives have let the secret slip. They're America's brown-skinned poor: blacks, Latinos, Indians, and others. You know, the people conservatives compare to animals.

Nebraska AG Jon Bruning Compares Welfare Recipients To Scavenging Raccoons

By Benjy SarlinNebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, a frontrunner to win the GOP nomination against Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), compared poor people to scavenging racoons in a speech this week.

In a video captured by the liberal group, American Bridge 21st Century, Bruning makes the comparison as part of an elaborate metaphor originally focused on environmental regulations. He describes a requirement that workers at a construction project gather up endangered beetles by luring them into a bucket with a dead rat in order to release them elsewhere. But the plan is thwarted when hungry raccoons then eat them straight out of the rat-infested bucket. Which, according to Bruning, is a perfect image to illustrate how welfare recipients receive their benefits.

"The raccoons figured out the beetles are in the bucket," Bruning said. "And its like grapes in a jar. The raccoons--they're not stupid, they're gonna do the easy way if we make it easy for them. Just like welfare recipients all across America. If we don't send them to work, they're gonna take the easy route."

In Republican America, welfare recipients are no better than animalsWhile Bruning’s comments comparing welfare recipients to animals are absolutely disgusting, he’s not the only Republican who apparently thinks welfare recipients are no better than animals.

Take the case of South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, who during a speech in January 2011 said his grandmother told him “as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed.” Doubling down on his comparison of welfare recipients to animals, Bauer continued, saying that receiving assistance from the government is “facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”

Welcome to Republican America, where welfare recipients are no better than animals scavenging for food, instead of being real people who just need a hand up.Critics rip Rubio

Back to Rubio's comments. Here's what people had to say about them:Wonder if his parents received any government help when they arrived from Cuba as exiles? Wonder if they're collecting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid?

Even better: Ask Mr. Rubio why programs like Social Security and Medicare weaken us a society, but subsidies to his backers (e.g., Big Sugar) don't.

So, now that he and his family have safetly taken avantage of the "entitlements" that America has to offer and have given him a safe journey thru school, a good start on a career he now has the obligation to deny that to you or your brother or sister or friend or mother....He got his, so the hell with you.

The precise reason why wage standards, unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were established was because people did not have the means. Keeping a sick, elderly relative at home meant waiting for that person to die (more or less since the average life expectancy before 1930 was under 60 yrs. of age for both sexes). How do you take care of someone with cancer or other serious ailments at home? In a church??? Our communities responded by electing representatives who went to Washington and acted in the interests of the public, not the monied interests gobbling up all the wealth and making people work/live in substandard conditions. They were fed up with the fact that before 1965 approx. half of the nation's seniors had no health insurance, 1 in 4 avoided treatment because of cost concerns, and 1 out of every 3 was living in poverty.

"The right is not attacking safety net programs. We are saying they cannot continue as they are currently structured." That's just a lie, Rubio is clearly saying that the guarantees we make to old people are evil in principle.

Read Rubio's speech (even just the extended quote in this story). "These programs actually weakened us as a people." Etc. And read your guy Perry's book--he was telling us to read it as recently as a few days ago, until his campaign told us it was no longer operative. Questioning these programs' constitutionality, which he clearly does in the book (and elsewhere), doesn't exactly make him sound like a guy who wants to propose a sustaining fix for them. If you sincerely want what you describe, you're in the wrong party.

RighTeas want their entitlements (because, they're honestly entitled to them, of course). What they want is to prevent those who, in their Far White minds, are not honestly entitled to entitlements to be entitled to them as well. They simply don't want government to waste money that should go to them on all the undeserving, non-entitled people who are darker-skinned than themselves.

Please, please, GOP, take your cue from Rubio and make sure you, a) continually talk about how bad entitlements are and demonize the lazy brown people who take advantage of them, and b) continually coddle the mega-rich and corporations by refusing to tax them reasonably and refusing to regulate them in any way. Please continue those extremist policies, and in due time even the dumbest hick in this country will have seen through your self-serving lies. And that is no small feat.For examples of Rubio's "blame the victim" mentality, see:

Beck ridicules Lumbee woman
Aboriginals to be "weaned from government teat"
Commissioner:  Indians should get off the rez
Roger:  Let Indians commit suicide
Fox special on Indian "freeloaders"
Mines minister blames the victim

For more on the subject in general, see Why Americans Hate Welfare.

Billboards to raise awareness of Indians

Broken Treaties: Aaron Huey’s Pine Ridge Billboard Project

By Phil BickerThe Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, home of the Lakota Sioux, is ground zero for Native American Issues. Best known to most Americans as the site of the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre, where some 300 men, women and children were slaughtered by US soldiers, today Pine Ridge is one of the poorest counties in America. The life expectancy of men is 47-years–the same as for men in Afghanistan and Somalia. The unemployment levels on the reservation are about 90%. Most people are living on just $3,000 a year.

For the past six years, photographer Aaron Huey has trained his camera on these problems. But, he says, it took him five years to understand what the real story was. “When I first went to Pine Ridge,” says Huey, “the focus was on getting pictures of gangs, superficial violence, drugs and extreme circumstances.” It wasn’t until he was asked to present a TED talk that he pieced together the history–For the first time he saw the reality–how the land was stolen from the Lakota through a series of massacres disguised as battles, and the broken treaties that followed. “It was,” says Huey, “a calculated and systematic destruction of a people.”

To spread the message about the broken treaties–and let people know “where the statistics come from,” says Huey–the photographer has devised an ambitious plan. Collaborating with two artists, Ernesto Yerena and Shepard Fairey, (the latter is best known for his portrait for Obama’s “Hope” campaign), Huey is creating a nationwide billboard campaign. And giving the street artists no-holds-barred access to his work to design it. “I told them they can cut them up,” says Huey, “and put them together, however they want.”

He wants to put these collaborations on billboards, subway platforms and buses. “I want to shift people’s attention to outlets for action,” says Huey explaining that the posters direct potential donors to grass roots Native organizations, as well information on standing treaties between tribes and the US government, and details about broken treaties.An associated video:

The Black Hills Are Not for Sale:  An Interview with Photographer Aaron Huey

Comment:  Watch the video to see examples of Huey's photographs and a couple of posters made from them.

The posters are nice. I'm not sure a poster will catch many people's attention, but a billboard might. At that size, the art may get the public talking.

Huey seems liberal enough, but his mental journey sounds interesting. At first he was taking photos as an ignorant outsider. He seems to have taken the poverty at face value--which means he thought it was the Indians' fault, I suspect. It took him six years to get the idea that maybe the roots of the problem went deeper. That maybe the legacy of broken treaties, massacres, and concentration-camp living might've had something to do with the poor conditions.

Wow. If it took someone who's supposedly a keen observer that long to figure things out, what hope does the public have? It may take decades for Americans to get the message about the Third World conditions on some reservations.

Which means Native activists have their work cut out for them. They have to stick to their guns for as long as it takes. No single protest or documentary or media campaign will do the trick; it may take dozens or hundreds of such efforts.

For more on the subject, see "Res-Love" = Abuse and Alcoholism and Spirit Level Is Low in US.

"Res-love" = abuse and alcoholism

An article provides revealing glimpses into life on a troubled reservation:

Native American student shares struggle, dispels stereotypes

By John LonsdaleMurdo is a convergence of checkered white and Native American land in Jones County, S.D.

A town just a half-hour outside of White River, S.D., and 23 miles north of the Rosebud Indian Reservation in Todd County, Murdo is a place where the most common last name isn't Smith but is White Buffalo, Stands And Looks Back or Black Bear.

Renelle White Buffalo, senior in integrated studio arts, was raised by her grandmother and grandfather in this area.And:Her grandfather moved to a nursing home, and White Buffalo was forced to move in with her alcoholic mother, two brothers and two sisters.

"When I was in high school and middle school, I didn't want to be Native American," White Buffalo said. "I was so bitter about my mom and the bums drinking on the street and all of the bad things that I saw."And:White Buffalo took over the household—paying the bills and getting her siblings ready for school every day.

"It felt like I was trying to please [my mom] so much," White Buffalo said.And:Her youngest sister and mother started sending her Happy Birthday cards with hateful messages inside.

"They would say, 'Hey, happy birthday. I hope you...,'" she said, laughing.

White Buffalo and her brother William are the closest. They didn't speak for a year because of their mother, but they are in contact now. Her other brother is upset about how his life has turned out, and neither he nor her younger sister will speak to her.And:"Res-love" is the term used when women on a reservation have "hickies" and bruises all over their bodies. It's one of the main issues White Buffalo works toward raising awareness for as the only member of the Native American Club this semester.

"People just say, 'That's res-love,'" White Buffalo said. "People make fun of it in order to deal with it and in order to cope. I think that's a huge problem."

It isn't just res-love that was infecting her reservation, though.

"American Indians, as a general rule, live in what contemporary scholars call enforced poverty," Larson said.

Larson, director of American Indian Studies for 11 years, continued.

"They are made to live in greatly diminished circumstances creating the stereotype of the dysfunctional and the savage," he said.

Larson said there is an alcohol problem in many tribal communities, but under the circumstances, any cultural group would most likely medicate itself pretty heavily.

"It's not as simple as they're just all alcoholics," he said. "It's like the stereotype [of American] Indian students getting to go to college for free. It's just not that simple."Comment:  White Buffalo was a straight-A student so she managed to go to college, to escape. But look at what she had to endure to get there. An alcoholic mother. Running the household as a teenager. Hate from her siblings. An environment where domestic violence is so common it's laughed at.

White Buffalo had the intelligence to get away from her dysfunctional family. Yet her upbringing was enough to fill her with self-loathing at being an Indian.

Now imagine if she had been a straight-C rather than straight-A student. Or if a parent had abused her. Or if her mother had died and she was sent to a foster home. It wouldn't take much to tip her precarious life from the "win" to the "lose" column.

This is what many young rez Indians endure. It's part of what drives them to alcohol, drugs, crime, depression, and suicide. The problem isn't that they're not trying, or that they're "different" from us. It's that they're facing harsh circumstances that most middle-class Americans can't imagine.

To suggest that rez conditions are the "fault" of Indians like White Buffalo is tantamount to racism. Yes, her mother could've gotten help if help was available. But the four White Buffalo children couldn't do much about their circumstances. And so it goes in general. For every adult who may be able to exercise responsibility, there are children, elders, and others who can't. It's not their fault so blaming them is wrong.

Blame system, not victim

The problem is the environment as a whole...the lack of jobs and healthcare...the "enforced poverty." It's the intergenerational trauma stemming from broken treaties, boarding schools, and other forms of cultural extermination. White Buffalo is only a generation or two away from someone who may have been tortured for thinking and acting like an Indian.

Her case seems typical to me. Alcoholic and abusive parents pass their dysfunctionality to their children. One or two may survive while the rest succumb. Outsiders blame the victim without understanding the problem.

This also suggests why Indians cling to reservations and perpetuate the cycle. For mediocre students who have been abused and lack self-esteem, venturing to a college or city is almost unthinkable. To them this is alien territory, not the natural progression it is for many Americans.

It would be like my going to Russia to change my life. In theory I could do it, but I'd be likely to fail and I'd be too scared to try. I don't have the knowledge or tools to succeed in Russia any more than a troubled Indian teen has what it takes to succeed off the reservation.

The teen could do it with help and training too, of course. But not with platitudes such as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" or "try harder." That isn't "help," it's the opposite. It's America's rugged individualism aka social Darwinism: Survive on your own or die.

For more on the subject, see Spirit Level Is Low in US, Poverty Makes People Sick, and Intergenerational Trauma = PTSD.

Below:  "Renelle White Buffalo, senior in integrated studio arts, works on her drawings at her apartment. She said her art is influenced by her mother, as her mother had a monster just like everyone else, and alcohol fueled her monster and it eventually took over." (Karuna Ang/Iowa State Daily)

Hatewatch criticizes Fischer's column

American Family Association Official Has New Target: Native Americans

By Evelyn SchlatterPicking and choosing his history, Fischer essentially blamed violence between Indians and whites on Indians, who rather than embracing Christianity, murdered missionaries in cold blood, and rejected George Washington’s “direct counsel” to give up their own ways of life and learn, above all, “the religion of Jesus Christ.”

Regarding what he described as the “sexual immorality” of American natives, Fischer noted that certain tribesmen honored the arrival of the Lewis and Clark expedition in the early 19th Century by offering their wives to expedition members for sex. Fischer didn’t explain why such a practice should justify the tribes forfeiting claim to the land–but not so for the white men who took advantage of it.

Fischer said Americans today are as guilty of abominations as were the Native Americans before they were conquered, citing contemporary abortion, adultery, homosexuality and the normalization of sexual immorality. Furthermore, he claimed, we are witnessing “a surge in incest, pedophilia and even bestiality in our midst.” He offered no evidence at all to back up this unusual claim. Fischer also warned that we would soon morally disqualify ourselves from sovereign control of our own land.

Philip J. Deloria, professor of history and noted scholar of Native American history and culture at the University of Michigan, said in an E-mail to Hatewatch that “history … starts with the assumptions of historical people … and then examines how their actions comport with their morality.” A historian, he noted, would not take one moral standard and apply it across time and space, but a fundamentalist “can’t really think in those terms … which means that he or she should probably stay away from history.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Fischer Defends Pro-Genocide Column and Fischer's Passion for Killing.

Below:  God punishes Indians for not adopting Christianity. Bad Indians!

Mines minister blames the victim

First Nations chiefs want B.C. mines minister to quit over 'offensive' comments

By Terri TheodoreThe Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is calling for the resignation of B.C.'s minister of state for mining over what the group says were "shockingly offensive" comments.

"We are absolutely appalled that junior minister (Randy) Hawes has also gone on the record saying 'some First Nations reject mining for a more traditional lifestyle—those linked to lower birth weights, higher birth-rate deaths and lower life spans,'" the union said in a statement.

But Mr. Hawes said Saturday he has no intention of quitting, and he plans to continue speaking his mind about the large social gaps between First Nations and non-First Nations.

"We should, all of us, be ashamed of those and we should be working together with First Nations to close those gaps."Here's a general response to Hawes's generalization:

1) Indian tribes might reject mining as an economic solution for several reasons. Mines are environmentally destructive; they cause pollution. They're too far from home; the commute would destroy family life. Mines can change a community's way of life, and not in a good way. Look at mining towns in the Appalachians, which are often described as poor or depressed.

2) Indian tribes might have poor health for several reasons. Lack of access to health care and education, for starters. Lack of access to consumer goods: everything from healthy foods to condoms. Poverty and crime that create feelings of hopelessless and despair.

Obviously a source of jobs would inject money into a tribal community and start turning things around. Increased buying power might make things like grocery stores and health clinics feasible. The question is whether the drawbacks are worth the benefits. In many cases a tribe might say no. "We want high-quality jobs that add value to our community, not low-quality jobs that would tear the community apart."

Having that attitude isn't remotely the same as "choosing" to be poor and sick. It's telling the government to give the tribes more choices than mining or poverty. "Give us five or ten choices for economic development and we'll pick the most suitable one. Don't give us one bad choice and then blame us when we're wise enough to reject it."

In short, Hawes's comments were a gross oversimplification of a real problem. He apparently meant well, but his basic premise is wrong. People don't "choose" to be poor. They're poor because they don't have enough options and don't know how to take advantage of them.

So Hawes ended up being the latest in a long line of people to blame the victim. He implied Indians are lazy, degenerate, good-for-nothing bums who prefer welfare, drugs, crime, and booze to a healthy lifestyle. That's stereotypical.

What Hawes is talking about

Here's the particular situation Hawes was referring to:"There's something wrong here, and I believe it's a product of poverty on many First Nations territories. Now we need to work together to find a way out of, I guess I'll call it the cycle of poverty."

Mr. Hawes said some of that help can come through natural resource development, which creates jobs, brings in training and gives people a reason to stay in school.

The minister has supported the Taseko Mine's Prosperity Gold and Copper Mine proposal in an area outside of Williams Lake, B.C., and the native group said he has strongly criticized the local Tsilhquot'in First Nation for "putting a lake before their kids."

If the federal government gives approval for Prosperity Mine, a lake the Tsilhquot'in First Nation call Teztan Biny would be destroyed in the mining process.Really? Destroying a lake is what you consider a viable economic solution? The tribe may consider the lake an important ecological, economic, cultural, or spiritual resource. Any time you're talking about destruction on that scale, it should raise a red flag. We've learned that large-scale environmental harm in the name of progress is often a big mistake.

So yeah, Hawes is blaming the victim. No white person would give up a Beverly Hills neighborhood, a Civil War battlefield, or Walden's Pond for a mine. Why should the tribe have to give up their lake?

Your "solution" probably isn't a sound one environmentally or economically, Hawes. Quit blaming the Indians for smartly rejecting your feeble attempt at "helping" them. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

For more on blaming the victim, see Ron Hart Is a Racist and Cameron:  Lakota = "Dead-End Society."

Ron Hart is a racist

A few days ago I criticized Ron Hart's column about Indians. It was mostly about how soft-hearted liberals are giving destructive gambling to Indians, so I wasn't too hard on him. Turns out there's more to the story.

I came across another version of Hart's column. The previous version was the same except it omitted the last four paragraphs. These paragraphs are pretty bad. I assume some editor wisely cut them to make Hart's column less offensive.

Here's what we missed before, along with my comments:

Ron Hart:  Betting on tribe's land grabJust walk through depressing places like Indian casinos or an inner-city housing project and see what happens when we issue a perpetual victims excuse to a group and blindly throw tax money at them. It only works for the Democrats, who rely on their "victim" votes.If you see people playing the slot machines by rote rather than enthusing over poker or blackjack, it may bother you. So what? The casino isn't where Indians live, it's where they work. No way is it equivalent to an inner-city housing project.

The correct comparison would be to an Indian reservation, obviously. Go study a reservation before and after a casino has lifted its people out of poverty, Hart. Unless there's no difference, your asinine argument fails.

Worse is Hart's use of the "perpetual victims" claim. This implies that Indians are pretending to be victims to get rich from casinos. That they have no real reason to complain.

In reality, Americans are still victimizing Indians in many ways: broken treaties, budget shortfalls, court decisions, environmental harm, racial discrimination, etc. It's not "playing the victim card" if you're an actual victim. It's called demanding justice, something minorities have had to do for centuries.

Also, Hart repeats the lie that Democrats, not Republicans, are responsible for Indian gaming. Again, it was a bipartisan initiative passed during the Reagan era. And the dumbass seems unaware that George W. Bush was president for most of the last decade. Talk about your mindless conservative Obama-bashing!

Indians didn't try hard enough?!No doubt the Native Americans lost some land, but you know they really should have spent less time consumed with maize and more with the advantages of gunpowder. If they did not want to be on the Atlanta Braves baseball jersey, they really should have fought harder.Whoa...here's the most racist part of Hart's screed.

Indians lost some land? Yeah, like the entire North and South American continents. Except for their limited ownership of mostly small reservations, they suffered the greatest land loss in human history.

Hart may not think Indians were merciless savages, but he thinks they were uncivilized incompetents. To keep his liberal/Obama/Indian falsehood going, he paints them as nature-worshiping, veggie-eating weaklings. They lost not because their foes were greedy, rapacious, and dedicated to their genocidal aims, but because they didn't try hard enough.

It's your classic blame the victim strategy. Indians got what they deserved for being "primitive," so we have nothing to apologize for. They fought and lost against something or someone, but the anonymous aggressors aren't the problem. The Indians are because they got in the way of progress. They didn't vanish as they were supposed to.

Here's a clue, idiot: The Indians fought back with guns as soon as they obtained them. They almost staved off the Nazi-style white-led holocaust at several points. Most observers considered them too strong and dangerous as a race, not too weak and mild. The Indians eventually lost because of disease and the Euro-Americans' propensity to lie, cheat, and steal, not because of their own failings.

If Hart's paragraph doesn't sound awful to you, try saying something similar about blacks:No doubt the African Americans lost some freedom, but you know they really should have spent less time consumed with lion-hunting and more with the advantages of gunpowder. If they did not want to be slaves and welfare queens, they really should have fought harder.A columnist who said that would soon find himself out of a job. But it's okay to say the same things about Indians. People really believe Indians were primitive savages, so they don't consider this a racist attack.

Apologizing is for sissies?At least non-Native Americans have shown them respect by naming every golf course where the land was taken from the Indians after them. Shinnecock, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Seminole, etc., remain a homage to the Native American where much wampum is exchanged after Nassau bets.Hart uses a phony "honor" argument and the wampum stereotype to minimize the racism in his previous paragraphs.Always punctual and in perpetual apology mode, Congress read a resolution they passed regarding the Indian tribes "for past transgressions of war upon" them for some reason at the Congressional Cemetery. I trust when Congress was there, they took note of the 535 open political graves awaiting them.Obviously the US apology to Indians bothers Hart. How dare we show weakness by apologizing to a lesser race! Only women and gays say they're sorry!

I'm not sure what his final line about the 535 graves means, but it sounds bad. Does he really think Americans will remove everyone from Congress because of their votes on the US apology? Or their votes on Indian gaming? If that's what he thinks, he's even stupider than I thought. No one knows or cares about the apology; they aren't going to vote because of it.

When Indian gaming was taking off 7-8 years ago, we used to see a lot of these bigoted screeds against Indians. They've tapered off in recent years. But Hart has made a valiant try to stoke the flames of hatred. Too bad for him that some editors recognized the racism in his final paragraphs.

For more on the subject, see Marino Attacks Pequots and Wampanoags and The Facts About Indian Gaming.

Below:  A similar view of Indians.

Indian "species" to blame for racism?

I gather AIM Santa Barbara broadcast an e-mail about the Indian Headdresses at the World Cup. The e-mail generated a response that was more interesting than the headdress issue:Marie Jirousek
June 18, 2010 at 8:29pm
Re: Racism Regulations at World Cup...broken--TELL ESPN this is not OKAY

Oh for heaven's sake!!! Stop with this stupid paranoia already! Don't you have any more important issues to deal with (like your peoples' alcoholism, domestic violence, children abuse and such) that you have to waste your time with issues like a mexican fan wearing an Indian headdress? In case you forget, many mexicans are of indian origin too...those headdresses might have been Aztec, for all you know! Stop being so arrogant and self-centered. How do you want the world to respect you when you behave like total morons most of the time? It's your intolerant attitude that contributes to the racism against your species.Rob's reply

1) We saw the photos. There's no such thing as an Aztec headdress that looks like a Plains headdress. That Jirousek think they're interchangeable is proof of the problem.

2) Stereotyping contributes to alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse, and such.

3) Most people can handle several problems at a time. It's called multitasking.

4) "It's your intolerant attitude that contributes to the racism against your species" is an unfounded opinion unsupported by anything resembling a fact.

This is like saying, "The South maintained Jim Crow laws because blacks were too uppity." Or, "People hunt whales because whales think they own the ocean." You can say and think whatever you want, but unless you have some evidence, your opinion is probably worthless.

FYI, calling Indians a "species" also contributes to the racism against the "species." Duh.

Maybe Jirousek is tacitly admitting she comes from another planet. That could explain a lot.

Her comments remind me of Archie Bunker's statement about blacks:Let me tell you something about Richard E. Nixon. He keeps Pat home. Which was where Roosevelt should have kept Eleanor. Instead he let her run around loose, rousing up the coloreds, tellin' them they were gettin' the short end of the stick and we been having trouble ever since. Eleanor Roosevelt discovered the coloreds in this country. We never knew they was there!Here's my estimate of what people believe:

50% think Indians are pretty much dead and gone.

49.9% think Indians are alive but don't care about non-Indians wearing headdresses.

0.1% understand that Indians don't like non-Indians wearing headdresses.

If I'm right, the public is too ignorant about Indians to know their feelings about headdresses. Therefore, Indians who protest headdresses can't cause the harm Jirousek imagines.

Protesting racism causes racism?!

Proving that people who excuse racism are often racists themselves, here's some background on Jirousek. She's a white woman with cats who lives in Lausanne, Switzerland. She has a mere 34 friends on Facebook--down from 36 when this controversy started. In her own words, her experience with Natives includes this:After living for 5 years with a Native American, I know all I need to know about what is sacred to some Natives, but not for others. I know Natives who would gladly swap their eagle feather for a beer.

I have seen what Indians are really like. I lived with one, you know? He and many others were just pathetic alcoholic parasites. THOSE are the people who hurt your cause. Not the ones who wear your SACRED plastic headdress for fun.She or someone named SkyHawkFireHeart--the Native boyfriend she hates?--also maintains this website:

NDN Sports Mascots Issue

where they cheer for Indian mascots and attack the Indians who protest them.



Is SkyHawkFireHeart the Native boyfriend she obviously hates? With his made-up name, he sounds like a European hobbyist. But I guess he's real:

BiographyOriginally from the Blackfeet Nation in Montana state in the Rocky Mountains and from my mother’s side, the Confederate Umatilla Tribes in the northwest USA.What crazy people think

Let's delve deeper into Jirousek's theory of racism and see if we have it straight.

For at least 450 years, I think we can all agree, whites were prejudiced against Indians. Manifest Destiny, genocide, etc. But all that changed about 50 years ago. Suddenly the centuries of race-based hatred disappeared, never to be seen again.

In its place a new form of prejudice arose. Whites started despising Indians because Indians started protesting the previous racism against them. The old hate was gone, but a new hate replaced it.

This hate was all the Indians' fault. Because Indians grew intolerant of racism, white people grew intolerant of them. This had to be the problem because, as everyone knows, whites are open and tolerant toward minorities.

Thus we arrive at Jirousek's position today. "It's your intolerant attitude that contributes to the racism against your species." If Indians would just resume tolerating racism, as they did a century or two ago, the racism would disappear.

Summing it up:

Protesting racism causes racism...check. Ignoring racism eliminates racism...check. I guess racism against Indians was a minor problem until those pesky protesters made it a major problem in the last 50 years.

Thanks for filling us in on how racism works, Swiss Miss. We appreciate your vast experience and knowledge of the subject. Now that you've solved this problem, maybe you can tackle global warming or world peace for us.

Uppity "species" should shut up?

This is roughly the same excuse Michelle Shining Elk gave us for not protesting the Dudesons episode on MTV. She and Jirousek think protests make Indians look like sad victims or angry malcontents. Which are almost opposites, but never mind. These people want us to think like this:

Don't rock the boat. Accept the status quo. Causing trouble only leads to trouble. Keep quiet and suffer in silence.

It's a lot like what a John McCain supporter said about rape: "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." According to people like Jirousek, that's the best answer to racism and stereotyping.

For more on the subject, see Mentioning Racism = Dwelling on Past? and Stereotypes Disappear "Organically"?

Mentioning racism = dwelling on past?

Navajo Human Rights Commission clings to victim mentalityEditor:

The PC police may crucify me, but somebody has to say it. The Farmington Community Relations Commission is working on a general agreement with the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission, or NNHRC, to collaborate on improving interracial relations in the area. The NNHRC wanted to include language to the effect that, "We must never' forget the tragedies inflicted against the Navajo people," and "we intend to move forward' by acknowledging that racism and other destructive actions were inflicted upon the Navajo and this racism continues in America to this day." Excuse me? This is moving forward? Mayor Roberts was right in suggesting the language be removed.

There is no denying that the Navajo tribe and its people have been mistreated in the past. And granted, pockets of racism still exist on both sides of the aisle, and unfortunately always will. But the majority of the people in San Juan County (Anglo, Native American, Black or Hispanic) live, work and play without even distinguishing that there is a racial difference. We are friends, neighbors, co-workers and business associates. While we shouldn't forget what happened in the past, we also will never get beyond it if the coals are fanned back to flame at the start of every conversation. That language keeps the old wounds exposed and implies that racism always has been and continues to be a white-against-Navajo problem. Prejudice goes both ways, and relationships are a two-way street. In that regard, the NNHRC should emphasize improving ongoing relations by focusing on the future, and should take responsibility and a proactive role in that effort.

GEORGE SHARPE
FarmingtonSome comments from the comments section:I totally agree, The past is the past, We cannot change what has happened. But to keep it in the forefront will not help. I know racism is alive & well in the four corners. But the finger pointing is detrimental to all.

Yeah right--keep it all legal, by leaving it out, that this never happened. By not acknowledging this important fact--the very reason for powwow of commissions--Farmington is stuck on the past. You don't want to acknowledge it happened and move forward. You won't admit your guilt. That's why F-town is still totally in denial.

[Quoting previous comment] Just goes to show, there will always be haters on both sides of the fence. If you don't believe me look in the MIRROR!

Well said.

Well said? The coals are fanned back to flame every time a crime of hatred is committed like branding swastikas on an Indian or when a "gang" of whites pick up and beat an Indian. Yea, let's move forward by acknowledging history and to continue pursing tolerance through education because at present its ignorance that breeds bigotry.

We natives need that paragraph in there because that is the reason for this collaboration. That is a very important paragraph that acknowledges that native people have suffered!

All people have suffered at different times because of different reasons. Dwelling on the past is counterproductive.

Ya know people are always saying poor me, and sad to say but in this area is extremely worse...except its not people in general, it's the race's here...they think poor me because of the past...GET OVER IT....it's the past...you cant change the past, only the future...do you really want ur future generations to possibly work out like the past? Or do we want to build a bridge and get over it..it's in the history books...leave it there for kids to read...actually teach your kids morals and ethics...they shouldn't see skin color just personality...no judgement should be made because of skin but it is since people can't/WON'T get over what happened many many...years ago!Comment:  The last comment sums up what the naysayers are thinking. Racism is a thing of the past. Everyone's equal these days. People are talking about this only to "play the victim card" and get something for nothing: money, preferential treatment, or whatever.

What they're really thinking is that the brown-skins are lazy drunks and bums who won't work and want a handout. Otherwise why would these people keep complaining when they could solve their own problems by hard work? "Pull yourselves up by the bootstraps, crybabies, like white people have done for centuries. We went out and civilized the world while you were still grubbing for roots and berries."

It's pretty clear Sharpe agrees with this view. Look at his language: "PC police," "what happened in the past," "old wounds," etc. As far as he's concerned, racism against minorities is no longer a problem except in a few "pockets" somewhere.

Sharpe helpfully indicates what he considers the real problem: Indian prejudice against whites. Never mind the fact that some white supremacists recently shaved a swastika in a Navajo's hair. To him the actions of the white majority are equivalent to those of the brown minority. "Those Injuns are lookin' at our wimmin and takin' our money at the casinos! They're gettin' special rights from the gummint when they haven't done nuthin'! Sure, we're racists, but they're racists too!"

"Racism" causes racism?

Perhaps the funniest thing is what triggered this whole diatribe. Was it a proposal to give the Indians massive reparations for their stolen land? A mandatory class to teach kids racial awareness and multiculturalism (which would be a good idea)? No. If we go by Sharpe's letter, it was a couple of lines in an agreement with a human rights commission. Nothing else, just a few words.

So a commission established to address racial issues shouldn't talk about race. Mentioning racism causes children to think about race, which causes them to turn racist. If we could scrub the word "racism" from government docs, the media, and the dictionary, racism would no longer exist except in history books.

This is breathtakingly stupid, yet it's how a sizable minority of the US population thinks. Guess these people have never heard Santayana's dictum that "those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." To them, Santayana should've said: "Those who learn history are doomed to repeat it."

Who will think of the children?!

This must explain why Arizona's conservatives are cracking down on ethnic studies. They're just trying to protect their children from learning about racism. If the kids never hear about genocide or slavery, it'll never occur to them to discriminate against people.

And just coincidentally, white people will get to 1) curtail government benefits to minorities, and 2) maintain their power and privilege. Everyone who matters will be happy. Nice!

For more on scrubbing the history books, see Ethnic History Corrects American History and Mainstream History = Pro-White Propaganda. For more on the color-blind fantasies of white people, see "Color-Blind" People Are More Racist and Children Aren't Color-Blind.

Below:  Fortunately, these kids haven't been infected by the pernicious word "racism" yet. They don't know anything about prejudice or discrimination, so they're free to dress up as stereotypical Indians without shame. Yay!

Cameron: Lakota = "dead-end society"

Avatar director James Cameron joins Amazon tribe's fight to halt giant dam

By Tom PhillipsCameron said witnessing indigenous ceremonies and meetings in the Amazon had made him reflect on the plight of the North American Indians and inspired him to attempt to give the "global consciousness… a heads up."

"I felt like I was 130 years back in time watching what the Lakota Sioux might have been saying at a point when they were being pushed and they were being killed and they were being asked to displace and they were being given some form of compensation," he said. "This was a driving force for me in the writing of Avatar–I couldn't help but think that if they [the Lakota Sioux] had had a time-window and they could see the future… and they could see their kids committing suicide at the highest suicide rates in the nation… because they were hopeless and they were a dead-end society–which is what is happening now–they would have fought a lot harder."Adrienne Keene of the Native Appropriations blog responds to this quote:Wow, James Cameron. Wow. So, the contemporary Lakota are "hopeless" and a "dead-end society"? And the generations of fighting against colonialism and continued oppression weren't and aren't fighting hard enough? Talk about ignorance. He makes it seem like the Lakota just rolled over and let their land be taken away. Couldn't be further from the truth.

Ugh. So hear that Natives? We should have just fought harder, and the state of our Native nations would be different. Right.Some comments about this on Facebook:Just pisses me right off...glad I did not see his stupid movie. It was full of stereotypes anyways....JERK.

James Cameron will never get another cent of my money. Sorry SOB. Proud to be Lakota!

I will never see another of his movies. Just don't like him in general. Did not see Avatar.Comment:  Someone asked if Cameron meant his remarks figuratively and someone else said no, he meant them literally. I don't know about that.

Cameron may have meant the kids who commit suicide feel they're in hopeless or dead-end situations. That isn't the same as saying the whole society is hopeless or dead-end.

On the other hand, many people do think Indian reservations are hopeless, dead-end places. So Cameron may have meant what he said.

It's a common figure of speech to say, "If I'd known x, I would've done y." For instance, "If I'd known my blind date was a supermodel, I would've driven twice as fast to meet her." When people say something like this, they don't mean they'd literally do what they didn't do if given another chance.

Nor do I think anyone has ever accused the Lakota of being soft on resistance. Considering they fought on until they were massacred at Wounded Knee, I don't see how anyone could've expected them to do more.

On the other hand, maybe Cameron was seduced by his moviemaking. Maybe he really thinks his Na'vi offer a lesson for indigenous people. Something like, "If you're as smart and brave as my fictional warriors were, you too could win against the forces of imperialism."

Never mind that the Na'vi probably should've lost against the Terran military--even with the help of Jake the white savior. It was a fluke that Jake encountered and was able to tame the giant Toruk, giving him the clout to unite the tribes. That Trudy turned her gunship against Quaritch's ship. And that the Pandoran wildlife joined the battle at just the right moment.

I think it's obvious what Cameron wanted to say: that the traditional Lakota would be unhappy if they saw their people today. I think he chose his words poorly; he stupidly used a phrase that sounded like blaming the victim. But I don't think he meant what people inferred.

For more on the subject, see Brainstorming Avatar 2 with Indians and Dam Suspended with Cameron's Help.

Below:  "James Cameron talks to a Xingu leader in Brazil." (Atossa Soldani/EPA)

Kids can't resist brainwashing

Shame is a learned attribute

By Rainey Nasugraq HigbeeWhen I moved to Northern California for college I brought no mementos of my culture: no pictures, no handmade clothing. I took care to avoid mentioning where I was from. When people assumed I was Asian I was happy to let them think it, because Asians were smart and clean. My dorm room was bare of my cultural past; the village was scrubbed from my skin. For months I got away with it.

Eventually I did have a lichen-flavored epiphany, and through a different kind of birth I emerged to love 90 percent of my being. There were a lot of tears and a lot of pain and for a while I was ashamed not of my heritage but of my denial of my heritage. I will live the rest of my life in finding the fragile forgiveness of my ancestors.

But after a while I began examining where this burning self-hate came from. I looked into my past and the influences that made me who I was. I looked at each and every thought and prayer and hope I held next to my heart. The examination took years.And:I grew up hearing from people that I spent time with everyday tell me that my beloved home and my brown skin were less. That the things I could not change about myself were things to be ashamed of. I don't think they did it on purpose. Instead, I think they thought they were imparting us with great guidance and wisdom, hoping that these revelations would dispel laziness and uncaring: a twisted motivator.

I write this not to be vindictive. I write to make someone, at least one person I hope, aware. I am angry about my experiences; that anger is surrounded by tears and pain. I still work to untangle the tangled, unmapped threads.

And yes, I am talking about teachers. The teachers that work in the villages. I do want to point out that not all teachers are bad or are doing badly. But there were a few in my life that did damage to others and myself. They wove cruel words into our daily diet. With statements like, "If you do well in this class you can get a good grade, go to college and get out of this place." Or comments about animal smells, dirty environments, or how they REALLY can't wait to leave this dreadful/lonely/isolated/cold/desolate place and go to a REAL place with theaters and bowling alleys and things to do. I grew up hearing these offhand comments.Comment:  This seems kind of obvious to me, but it bears repeating. Children in any disadvantaged environment grow up hearing they're inferior. From their family and friends, authority figures such as teachers and priests, and the media. It's a form of brainwashing. Since people aren't even aware it's happening, they have little or no power to resist it. This is especially true of children who have no capacity to distinguish fact from fiction.

It's ridiculous when outsiders who haven't a clue what disadvantaged people lived through presume to judge them. Presume to say things like "Just get over it" or "That wouldn't have bothered me." It's especially ridiculous when adults presume to judge they would've reacted as children. Saying that physical or mental abuse wouldn't have harmed you is like saying bullets wouldn't have harmed you.

It's much like judging a prisoner-of-war or torture victim without having gone through the same experience. You wouldn't have broken, gone crazy, given secrets to the enemy? Prove it, you silly twit. Your opinion that you could resist societal brainwashing is about as valid as your opinion that you could fly.

For more on the subject, see Teacher's Aide Chopped Native Boy's Hair and Intergenerational Trauma = PTSD.

Intergenerational trauma = PTSD

Another point on Only Whites Blame "Intergenerational Trauma"?:

If you need a helpful analogy for intergenerational trauma, think about John McCain or some other prisoner of war. Or anyone who comes back from war and suffers post-traumatic stress disorder.

Yes, some people will surrender to the pain while others will fight it. But pointing to intergenerational trauma is like pointing to the war as the pain's source. It explains why the pain is happening. People don't get depressed or "freak out" because they're stupid or bad...born without self-control...modern-day "savages." They do it because external forces impel them to do it.

Yes, they must overcome these forces to right themselves and move forward. Some have the capabilities and resources to do this, some don't. If they can't do it themselves, the solution is to help them. But blaming the victim for living in a tough, poor environment is like blaming a stressed-out soldier for going to war.

Let's not forget the evidence that historical trauma is transmitted biologically. This is far from something that liberals made up to excuse Indians and help themselves in the process. It's a real phenomenon with some scientific backing.

Below:  Adam Beach as Ira Hayes, who may have suffered both intergenerational trauma and PTSD.

Only whites blame "intergenerational trauma"?

My Friend Chad:  Victims and Victory, and those Visitors Who Want Indians to Stay Virtually the Same PART 1

By Gyasi RossSee, my dude Nish Chad—amazing business man and hustler supreme—emailed me one day to talk about historic trauma amongst Natives. He pointed out that the majority of the people who like to exercise the “intergenerational trauma” card for Native people are not Natives but, instead, white folks who want to be accepted in Native communities. Think about it: you rarely hear Native people excuse the few young Native knuckleheads by saying that it’s “intergenerational trauma.” Native parents know that some Native kids are simply knuckleheads, just like some white kids, black kids, Hispanic and Asian kids (but very few Asians) are knuckleheads.

Yet, according to Chad, white school administrators, academics and bloggers do not like to admit that some Native kids just simply mess up. So they present an all-encompassing excuse for Native kids—intergenerational trauma. He said that when he talks to elderly Natives—or even most of us Natives who grew up within our own communities—those Natives want accountability, responsibility and an end to all the excuses.And:These non-Natives love to tell us Natives what to do. They attempt to tell us what we should or should not expect from our own children. They attempt to tell us what should or should not offend us. Because, apparently, we’re not smart enough to know ourselves. Crazily, sometimes we even listen to those non-Native folks who tell us that we should lower our standards for our children and we should find a convenient excuse to expect them not to do well in today’s society.

When I thought more about Chad’s pseudo-conspiracy theory I had to admit—it wasn’t even really a theory. In fact, I’ve seen this “white-folks-excusing-bad-behavior-within-Native-youth-who-ultimately-end-up-in-prison” phenomenon up close. I’ve also seen the destruction that it does within our communities.Comment:  Compare this with Ross's position in his previous column:So yeah, we [Indians] can ramble on and on about how Natives have been screwed historically and that some poverty is a by-product of that; we wouldn’t be lying. Still, we can also say, since we’re being so honest, that we really don’t use condoms nearly enough and we create more acute poverty because of our lack of self-control.Glad to see Ross flip-flopped...did a complete turnabout...reversed his position 180 degrees. Presumably this occurred after some of the angry e-mails he received. It's not Indians who are playing the "victim card," he's suddenly realized. It's white people who are playing the victim card for them.

Natives in control

I agree with Ross's newfound position expressed above and here:In my experience, Natives appreciate my perspective that we Natives are 100% in control of our destiny and that we should never feel sorry for ourselves. Old Natives LOVE it when I say that our kids are accountable for their actions. Those elders understand that blaming others for their pain doesn’t accomplish anything. Young Natives love it when they feel that others aren’t making decisions for them.Yes, which is why I criticize people like Charles Trimble and the former Gyasi Ross when they blame Indians for their own troubles. True, some Indians are in pain and some have let the pain paralyze them. But many Indians aren't in pain or are working through their pain.

Even though I believe intergenerational trauma explains some of the problems, I don't hear Indians using it as an excuse for their problems. I hear about them seeking the resources for and implementing programs to combat these problems. These programs don't always succeed--often because they lack money--but most Indians aren't just sitting around crying. Or hanging their heads in defeat like the End of the Trail statue.

Which is why a comic book like SCALPED, where everyone is mired in poverty and despair, rings false to me. Unlike Ross's Natives, SCALPED's Natives are totally out of control of their destiny. They're pawns of gambling syndicates, gangsters, and gunmen--not to mention the murderer-in-chief. The good Natives--elders, doctors, lawyers, teachers, social workers, police officers, fire fighters, housing officials, et al.--are basically absent. If any are present, they're outnumbered by the bad Natives--criminals, thugs, and lowlifes--by a wide margin.

For more on the subject, see Why Indians Remain Poor and Blaming the Victim.