Cliven Bundy vs. Dann sisters

Several commentators made the obvious connection between Cliven Bundy's white-privileged claim to own his land and America's treatment of the similarly-situated Dann sisters.

How Did I Miss That? Militia: God Gave Land to Settlers, Not Shoshone

By Steve RussellBig news that went on all week was the confrontation between the federal government and the “militia movement” over the removal of cattle belonging to Mormon “pioneer” Cliven Bundy from federal land. Bundy has not paid his grazing fees for 20 years. Why? His ancestors settled those lands in the 19th century. “Time immemorial,” my Cousin Ray Sixkiller pointed out, “means different things to different people.”

The 68-year-old Bundy recognizes no federal authority in the matter. If he owed grazing fees, he claimed they would be owed to the state of Nevada, which entered the United States on Halloween, 1864. Because the Civil War was going on, the Nevada Constitution contained a “paramount allegiance clause,” which is seriously inconvenient for anybody claiming, as Bundy does, a right to ignore the feds.

The year before Nevada was admitted, the US signed the Treaty of Ruby Valley, which recognized the Western Shoshone as owners of the dirt Cliven Bundy is claiming the right to use because of his “pioneer” pedigree. In 1979, the Indian Claims Commission awarded the Shoshone $26 million in compensation for land lost to “settler encroachment” while the federal government looked the other way. Those encroaching settlers would be who Cliven Bundy cites today as originators of his right to graze his cattle.

The Shoshone refused the money. They had not agreed to sell the land. They did not agree that the land should be used for nuclear testing. Carrie and Mary Dann were Shoshone elders who stood up to the abuse. Mary walked on at age 82, in 2005. The 81-year-old Carrie was last arrested in 2007, protesting against the use of Shoshone land for nuclear weapons research.

The Dann Sisters grazed their cattle on land the Bureau of Land Management claimed since 1973, refusing to pay grazing fees based on the Treaty of Ruby Valley, Article VI of the US Constitution, and a report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States that found the US to be cheating the Shoshone.

In 1992 and again in 2002, armed BLM posses rounded up the Dann Sisters’ cattle and sold them for grazing fees. The New York Times reported in 2002 that the Dann Sisters had been fined $3 million for “trespass.”

When a BLM posse came to round up Cliven Bundy’s cattle, armed “patriots” rode to the rescue. The BLM got about 400 head of Bundy’s cattle and Bundy got about as many supporters, many of them armed, from as far away as Montana. The Washington Post reported on April 10 that a sign at the entrance to the protest camp read “MILITA SIGHN IN.” Cousin Ray said he hoped their shooting was no better than their spelling.

Protestor Richard Mack, a former Arizona Sheriff, told a Fox News camera that the plan was “to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

On April 12, the BLM postponed the circus, giving Bundy’s cattle back and leaving Cousin Ray to wonder where all these lovers of law and liberty were when the women up front were Carrie and Mary Dann?

Millionaire Mormon Ranchers Always Get Their Way, Indians Get Off Of Your Land!In the news in the last week has been the story of a downtrodden millionaire rancher who has refused to pay the Bureau of Land Management grazing fees for 20 years. Cliven Bundy refused to pay grazing fees on federal land and invited 1000 of his militia Nazi buddies who were heavily armed to release his confiscated cattle. The Federal government backed down yesterday to a bunch of Neo nazi shit kickers. Add to this menagerie of assholes is that Bundy is claiming his right to continue bilking us out of our money the fact that “my Mormon faith teaches me I have a right to this land.” What a load of shit!

Now contrast this with the treatment of Western Shoshone Tribal members Carrie and Mary Dann in 1998 after grazing cattle on land that was rightfully theirs since 1973 the US government ordered them off of their own land. In 2003 Federal agents with back up from local cowboys swept onto the Dann sisters traditional grazing lands in helicopters, on ATVs, and on horseback they confiscated 504 horses that belonged to the Dann sisters. at one point elder Clifford Dann doused himself with gasoline to stop federal agents to no avail. In the end the Federal government hung a 3 million dollar bill around the Dann sisters necks and kept their horses. Mary Dann passed on in 2005 at the age of 82.
Carrie is still with us. The Western Shoshone land claim was upheld by the United Nations. The United States refuses to acknowledge the treaty.

So here we are in 2014 and white ranchers are still using their faith to steal our land and Indigenous people who have a real and spiritual claim to the land are still being herded, harassed, and intimidated into giving it up. Had Cliven Bundy been an Indian we would be talking about a dead Indian. White millionaires just have an amazing ability to get whatever they want.Never Mind Cliven Bundy: Here’s the Real David vs. Goliath Story Between Ranchers and Feds

Shoshone sisters have battled against the U.S. over land and cattle.

By Evelyn NievesThe kicker to this story is that while the Bureau of Land Management’s fight against the Danns claimed the sisters' herds were overgrazing—and thus harming—the land, much of the land the Danns have fought for has been leased to gold mining companies that have conducted resource-intensive extraction methods.

The land surrounding the Danns' ranch sits atop one of the most significant deposits of gold ever found in the United States. Only a few months after the Danns' horses were first rounded up, Nevada's headlines blared about gold finds in Crescent Valley, at the exact locations where the horses were removed. Most of the world's largest gold mining companies have some interest in the land, which involves using cyanide to extract minuscule amounts of gold from rock. Because the gold dust sits under the water table, it also involves pumping 20,000 to 70,000 gallons of water per minute every day and moving tons of soil and rock, leaving open pits. The extraction methods are so energy-intensive that the production of a single gold ring generates 20 tons of waste land.

Carrie Dann is no Tea Party hero. But she vows to fight until her last breath.

"Right is right," she said in an interview. "And wrong is wrong."Video: Dann Sisters' Battle to Save Their Cattle Is Stark Contrast to That of Cliven Bundy



Nor is this prejudice limited to Indians:

Cliven Bundy and the Tyranny All Around Us

How would the Nevada standoff be different if the rancher were black? American history has already answered that question.

By Ta-Nehisi CoatesI've been laughing my way through the Cliven Bundy fiasco because, as Jamelle Bouie suggests, there may be no better example of racist privilege than the right to flout the government's authority and then back its agents down at gunpoint. Bouie asks, hypothetically, how we'd respond if Bundy were black.

Inasmuch as this is even a question, American history has already answered it (emphasis added):In an 18-month investigation, The Associated Press documented a pattern in which black Americans were cheated out of their land or driven from it through intimidation, violence and even murder.

In some cases, government officials approved the land takings; in others, they took part in them. The earliest occurred before the Civil War; others are being litigated today. Some of the land taken from black families has become a country club in Virginia, oil fields in Mississippi, a major-league baseball spring training facility in Florida ...Coates's position is self-evidently true. Roughly 0% of the gun-totin' far-right "patriots" would rush to defend a black, Latino, or Native rancher from the feds. And if it were a Muslim rancher, forget it!

Then there's this idiocy. Some right-wingers are seriously comparing Bundy the welfare cowboy to Indians:

The Cliven Bundy Standoff: Wounded Knee Revisited?

By Mary W.Cattle became the successor to buffalo in the late 1860s and early 1870s. That was the era when the ancestors of Cliven Bundy settled in what was to become the State of Nevada, and began to graze cattle in what would later be called the Bunkerville Grazing Allotment. The Bundy family made peaceful and productive use of that allotment for more than 120 years, mixing their labor with the land to create original wealth.

Unfortunately, the Bundy family—like the American Indians—had been living on a reservation: They were never allowed to exercise ownership of their grazing “allotment,” in much the same way that Indians were not permitted to have clear title to their lands. The land on which the Bundy family raised cattle was “owned” by the government, and the Bundys were required to pay rent—in the form of grazing fees—for the “privilege” of making productive use of it. The public-land grazing system has been described as “the nation’s most conspicuous and extensive flirtation with socialism”—except, perhaps, for the Indian Reservation System.I responded to this with a tweet:

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics
"Bundy Standoff: Wounded Knee Revisited?" More like Trail of Tears revisited. Locals steal land and feds do nothing. http://theresistanceunited.com/2014/04/12/the-cliven-bundy-standoff-wounded-knee-revisited/

Never mind that Bundy's parents bought the ranch in 1948. Whenever they bought it, they never owned more than grazing rights to the Bunkerville allotment. In contrast, the Indians owned the land itself.



Conservatives = hypocrites

More tweets by myself and others show the hypocrisy of Cliven Bundy and his far-right supporters:

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics
Bundy says feds can't take the land his ancestors took from the Indians. Because Doctrine of Discovery, Manifest Destiny, and white power.

deneeshka ‏@deneeshka
I am a Native American and I look forward to reclaiming my ancestral lands at #BundyRanch. pic.twitter.com/TR20tduzVq

indigenista ‏@Indigeneesta
BundyRanchers not once acknowledged the #Paiute nation, the real "owners" of the land. #IndigenousNationhood

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics
Indians agree with Bundy: Ownership claims of the first inhabitants supersede those of the federal government. Give the land back to them.

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics
Bundy gets different treatment from Dann sisters. Feds ordered them off their own land and sent in copters and ATVs.

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics
Conservatives hate that the federal gov't owns land. So let's put it in private hands and give it back to the Indians. Win-win for everyone!

BlueCornComics ‏@bluecorncomics
A solution for everyone: Feds give land back to Indians, no more gov't handouts, and ranchers and miners pay full market rates to tribes!

For more on the subject, see Cliven Bundy the Welfare Cowboy.

Cliven Bundy the welfare cowboy

Cliven Bundy's standoff with the Bureau of Land Management says a lot about conservative Christianity, white privilege, and racism in America.

Rancher in land dispute is a bully, not a hero

By Alan O’NeillI have been following the news on the proposed roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle that are grazing illegally on federal lands in Gold Butte managed on behalf of the public by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

I am familiar with the situation, as I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900.

It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies’ position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation.

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do “whatever it takes” to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.Fox News’ demented poster boy: Why angry rancher Cliven Bundy is no patriot

The right's new fixation: An angry old white man who thinks freedom means not having to follow the law

By Edwin LyngarBundy has not paid grazing fees in close to 20 years, while the federal government has, with painful, stupid moves, tried to somehow deal with him. Bundy also faced restrictions because he continued to graze cattle on a slice of public land reserved for the endangered desert tortoise. He was invited to talk to Sean Hannity (of course) about the “standoff.”

“We want freedom,” Bundy said. I don’t know what freedom Bundy’s talking about. He does not own the land nor does he even pay the modest fees required to use it. Thousands of ranchers across the West pay fees for their businesses, but Bundy thinks he should get to use public resources to make a personal profit. Cliven Bundy, far from being a patriot, is also clearly a straight-up communist.

Bundy is using the language of freedom, patriotism and outright paranoia to further his business interests. He succeeded wildly in drawing other “patriots” to his slice of contested desert. I don’t know these exact people, but the words and phrases they used were the nursery rhymes of my childhood. I’ve been listening to ignorant people bitch about the federal “gub’met,” since I could crawl, and I’m weary of it. I can’t bear to hear poor people rally to the defense of moneyed interests like mining and ranching, like well-trained, bleating sheep. As tired and silly as I find his language, clearly it worked. He so inflamed the lunatic militia movement, that many rallied to him, often from out of state, with guns and naked threats. They created a real possibility that someone might get killed, so the feds backed down.

It is asinine in our age that an armed group of idiots can thwart reasonable government action. Bundy is not a hero, a victim or innocent in any way. Just think of real injustice of America, like people spending life in jail for marijuana charges. It’s hard to imagine the “militia,” a mostly fat, white and ignorant group, showing up to defend a kid in the inner city who was arrested for no reason. Also think what would happen to you, if you opted not to register your car for 20 years. Bundy exploits the most sickening version of white privilege to justify what amounts to theft.

Cliven Bundy syndrome: Why Christian conservatives think they’re above the law

From Hobby Lobby to the Nevada rancher, members of the far right share a dangerous, anarchic pathology

By Amanda Marcotte[F]or some reason, Bundy’s outrageous theft of services from the taxpayers is not being taken seriously by the right-wing press. As Roy Edroso of Village Voice and Eric Boehlert of Media Matters have chronicled, the conservative response to the whole incident has ranged from minimizing the seriousness of the crime to outright cheering Bundy on in his efforts to use the threat of violence to continue stealing from the taxpayers.

It’s tempting to write this reaction off as a matter of idiocy married to identity politics. Bundy is a white guy in a cowboy hat wielding guns, which reads as “one of us” to many on the right, so they refuse to accept that he’s a bad guy no matter how much he threatens violence against federal officers simply for enforcing a law that applies to everyone. And no doubt that is part of what’s going on here. But really, what’s going on runs deeper than a knee-jerk desire on the part of the right to believe every white guy in a cowboy hat is a good guy. This is the logical extension of a push that’s grown in recent years from conservatives to argue that they, and only they, have special rights to simply disregard any law they don’t want to follow. And unfortunately that’s an argument that may be making headway this year in the Supreme Court.

The past couple of years have seen a surge in conservatives demanding special rights to disobey universally applicable federal laws on the grounds that they don’t believe in them. This argument has largely been treated favorably by right-wing media that would definitely not extend that courtesy to anyone else. The Hobby Lobby case is simply the most prominent. To recap, Hobby Lobby is arguing before the Supreme Court that because they don’t believe certain forms of contraception are allowed by their god, they shouldn’t be required to meet federal minimum standards requiring that contraception for healthcare plans offered to employees as part of their compensation package, even if the employees don’t believe in a birth control-hating god.

It’s alarming to think that Hobby Lobby is arguing that anyone should be able to ignore any law they want just by stating they don’t “believe” in it, but reading between the lines of their lawyer Paul Clemente’s arguments before the Supreme Court, it’s clear they think this right to exempt yourself from federal regulations should be exclusive to Christian conservatives.

Bundy the liar

It goes without saying that Bundy the welfare cowboy has no case. Indeed, he seems to be lying through his teeth:

BREAKING: Proof Cliven Bundy is Lying About ‘Ancestral Claim’ to Grazing Rights (Video)

By John PragerNevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his army of domestic terrorists that call themselves “militias” may claim that his family has been working taxpayer-owned land he has been using for personal gain since 1877, but property records tell a completely different story.

Bundy has claimed pre-emptive rights because of his family’s history on the land. “I’ve lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements,” Bundy said.

However, Clark County property records reveal that Bundy’s parents moved from Bundyville, Arizona and purchased the ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt. Water rights were, as Bundy claims, transferred, but only to the ranch–not to the federal land surrounding it. In another blow to the welfare cowboy’s credibility, cattle did not graze on the land until 1954.

The Bureau of Land Management, Bundy’s nemesis, was created in 1946–the same year that Bundy was born, and two years before the family’s purchase of the ranch. However, Bundy won’t let little things like facts stop him! “My rights are before the BLM even existed, but my rights are created by beneficial use. Beneficial use means we created the forage and the water from the time the very first pioneers come here,” Bundy claims.

But hey–who needs “facts” and “reality” when you can focus on the delusion that, as Oathkeeper and Bundy supporter Justin Giles put it, “They are literally treating western United States citizens, ranchers, rural folks like this--are the modern day Indians. We’re being driven off of our lands. We’re being forced into reservations known as cities.”

The “Indians” of which he speaks would be the Paiute, who were forced onto reservations in 1875. They were promised the land that Bundy now inhabits.

Josh Marshall quotes TPM Reader JG:

Smarter Than It Seemed?I grew up in southern Utah, not far from the Bundy ranch standoff--and the stuff going on there turns my stomach. I share Josh's concern about letting the camo crowd scare off the BLM, though it's probably wise in the short term. Here's why:

I've got FB friends who are ranchers, and most of them are pretty right-wing, but even they are rolling their eyes at this guy. They've had conflicts with the feds/BLM over land use issues, and they're way more conservative than me on those issues, but they're really worried that Bundy is going to make things much harder for them in the long run. They're also angry, too, because they pay the grazing fees that Bundy has skipped out on. Bundy will have a crowd of aimless teaparty gun-toters, bored during a midterm election year, that will wave their guns (so to speak) around for a while, but Bundy's situation won't keep that crowd inspired very long. Everyone will be embarrassed about the whole thing eventually. I think it was wise for the BLM to let the Bundy wackos go full wacko for the cameras so the feds could be seen taking the high road for the time being. Bundy won't garner much sympathy for very long. He's a no-nothing Joe the Plumber in a cowboy hat.Comment:  For more on conservative Christians, see Conservative Christians in Panic Mode and Conservative Christian Persecution Fantasies

Arizona honors cowboys, not Indians

Arizona Representatives Vote to Honor Cowboys With Special Day

By Lee AllenAnglo versions of the history of the west traditionally laud the country as being discovered and settled by pioneers, ranchers, and cowboys. If you’re an American Indian, your understanding of that history is a bit different.

The Arizona House of Representatives recently voted 44-14 to create an official National Day of the Cowboy to honor the role cowboys have played and continue to play in the Grand Canyon state. One Republican who voted in favor of the measure noted the state’s history was “exemplified by the characteristics of the hard life of the cowboy.”

One Democrat, a Navajo representative from Cameron, views that chronological archive through a different lens. While Representative Jamescita Peshlakai (Tangle People Clan, born for the Redhouse Clan), who voted in favor of the initial bill in committee, says she doesn’t have a problem lauding cowboys as a way of life or a vocation, by the time the measure came up for a final floor vote, she opted not to support the measure and plans to offer a solution of her own.

“It weighed on my conscious from initial committee passage,” she says. “I first voted ‘yes’ thinking of a cowboy in the contemporary sense–a drugstore cowboy, a rhinestone cowboy, a midnight cowboy–but the original cowboys purpose was to help pioneer and colonize the West and that means cowboys were involved in hand-to-hand combat with the American Indian.”

Peshlakai told reporter Howard Fisher of Capitol Media Services: “There’s more to the concept of ‘cowboy’ than someone who rides horses and herds cattle. The cowboy created the westward expansion so people could colonize the nation.” Adding to those thoughts, she told Indian Country Today Media Network: “I have the moral responsibility to remember our ancestors and singling out cowboys for recognition in a state with 22 federally-recognized tribes–but no specific day to honor Native American nations–did not sit well.

“We call history in textbooks the white man’s history, but as Native Americans, we have a complex history of our own and have frequently been ‘overlooked’ in its writing–especially in Arizona where we have a long history and a complex relationship with government. I don’t have it out for cowboys, in fact my father and brother are Indian cowboys, but very little voice is being given to the Native American in these discussions and I could jump up and down and turn blue on the floor of the House of Representatives and it would go in one ear and out the other of my colleagues.”Comment:  For more on cowboys and Indians, see Black Lawman Inspired Lone Ranger and Women and Indians as Peacemakers.

Black lawman inspired Lone Ranger

America's forgotten black cowboys

By Sarfraz ManzoorBoth Jacobs and Walters grew up in the 1940s, watching Westerns but never seeing any black actors in major roles.

Not only did Hollywood ignore black cowboys, it plundered their real stories as material for some of its films.

The Lone Ranger, for example, is believed to have been inspired by Bass Reeves, a black lawman who used disguises, had a Native American sidekick and went through his whole career without being shot.

The 1956 John Ford film The Searchers, based on Alan Le May's novel, was partly inspired by the exploits of Brit Johnson, a black cowboy whose wife and children were captured by the Comanches in 1865. In the film, John Wayne plays as a Civil War veteran who spends years looking for his niece who has been abducted by Indians.Comment:  So much for the idea of Johnny Depp's doing the Lone Ranger "authentically." If the movie were really authentic, it would feature a black protagonist with a Native sidekick.

For more on the Lone Ranger, see Michelle Shining Elk on Johnny Depp and 2nd Lone Ranger Trailer.

Below:  "Bass Reeves was one of the first African-American lawmen."

Women and Indians as peacemakers

The Key to Sustainable Peace:  Women

By Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jonas Gahr StorePeace agreements typically fall apart when they fail to resolve the issues that caused the conflict in the first place—including ethnic tensions, inequality, and injustice. But women are the ones who face these problems every day, and so they’re the ones who will bring the issues to the negotiating table and make sure they have practical solutions.

Ten years ago this week, the United Nations took a historic step in this direction by recognizing that women are not merely victims of war, they are also indispensable agents of peace. Yet progress in including women in the peacemaking process has lagged. On this anniversary of the unanimous passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that women are at last seated at the negotiating table--and in meaningful roles.

It is indisputable that women and children suffer disproportionately from war, including as targets of rape. We must do more to protect them. But relegating them to the role of passive victims keeps them powerless. When the “victims” organize, they are potent advocates for change, as they were in Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Liberia.

Women can be effective peacemakers because they have a broad view of security. To them, it is more than the absence of armed fighters. It means their sons and daughters can go to school safely. It means they can get medical attention when they give birth, and have their children vaccinated. It means returning refugees can find land, water and jobs. Broadening our definition of security in this way helps prevent simmering grievances from recurring and escalating.

Of course, including women does not guarantee that peace talks will succeed. But recent history shows that agreements that exclude women and ignore their concerns usually fail.Comment:  I usually don't emphasize gender in my analyses, but it's often implicit. This time I'll make the implicit explicit.

I often criticize America as a macho, violent, cowboy, warrior country. I've said our national anthem should be Be a Victor or Be a Victim. I've said our literary heroes are modeled on Hercules. And so forth.

We're quick to engage in fistfights, shootouts, and wars because that lets us prove our manhood. We build ourselves up as the toughest guy on the block, able to lick anyone in the house. Our national self-image is rugged individualism.

If people like the French aren't as eager to fight, we call them sissies and wimps at best, cowards and traitors at worst. We question their manhood. We suggest they're gay--perhaps the ultimate insult to a red-blooded American.

We build up our enemies to be even more macho than we are. We call them savages, barbarians, or Huns. That way, we can congratulate ourselves when we defeat them. "They thought they were tough but we proved we were tougher."

What about Indians?

When we look back at foes such as Indians, we're of two minds. If it's in a warlike setting--e.g., the military or sports--we emphasize their warrior qualities. We still want to reward ourselves for beating them.

It's like wearing a bearskin cloak or necklace made of claws. An Indian name or image is like a trophy from a successful hunt. We came, we saw, we conquered, and here's the proof.

But if it's not a warlike setting, we emphasize their "inferior" cultural and spiritual qualities. We say they're lazy, ignorant wastrels who can't hold a job and drink too much. We think they can't learn or change, can't cope with the modern world. We say they're like children: immature, mercurial, and ungovernable. Or like spirits: strange, dark, and mysterious.

All this is similar to what we've said about women through the ages. For instance:

Female hysteriaFemale hysteria was a once-common medical diagnosis, made exclusively in women, which is today no longer recognized by modern medical authorities as a medical disorder. Its diagnosis and treatment were routine for many hundreds of years in Western Europe. Hysteria was widely discussed in the medical literature of the Victorian era. Women considered to be suffering from it exhibited a wide array of symptoms including faintness, nervousness, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and "a tendency to cause trouble."

The history of hysteria can be traced to ancient times; in ancient Greece it was described in the gynecological treatises of the Hippocratic corpus, which date from the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. Plato's dialogue Timaeus tells of the uterus wandering throughout a woman’s body, strangling the victim as it reaches the chest and causing disease. This theory is the source of the name, which stems from the Greek word for uterus, hystera (ὑστέρα).In short, we think a wild Indian is like a hysterical women. Neither is a rational, civilized (white) man.

Shared values

But the Indians who were warlike gave up their "wild" ways when they settled on reservations. What's left are the core values that I talk about frequently: caring for the community, stewarding the environment, thinking seven generations ahead. Indians don't boast and dominate a room; they stay quiet and listen. They don't impose their religions on others; they let everyone worship in their own way. They don't send people to jail; they resolve conflicts through talking circles.

All these are generalizations, of course, but I think they're generally true. There's a large overlap between female values and indigenous values. Men want quick, tough, focused solutions. If someone hits you, fight back. Women and Natives take the long view, make webs of connections, and focus on healing and nurturing. If someone hits you, talk to him and learn what's wrong. Find a permanent solution, not a temporary Band-Aid.

Americans obviously favor the male way of thinking. They'd rather fight than switch. Our purpose here is to suggest an alternative perspective. Both women and Natives provide that. They offer a different way of looking at the world.

Hence the Clinton/Store thesis that women are or should be peacemakers. If the world adopted more of the female or Native perspective, it would be a better place.

For more on this clash of values, see:

Columbus the cannibal
National Day of the American Cowboy
Arizona laws = manifest insanity
Conservative worldview = fear of cooties
Why Americans keep killing

For more the female/Native nexus of values, see:

Indians inspired feminism
A Latin view of American-style violence
Diplomacy works, violence doesn't
Winning Through nonviolence
Hercules vs. Coyote:  Native and Euro-American beliefs

Below:  The Western/male way of dealing with conflicts and...



...the Native/female way.

"Conquistabros and Navajos" invitation

Adrienne Keene fills us in on the "Conquistabros and Navajos" party at Harvard in her Native Appropriations blog:

Harvard's "Conquistabros and Navajos" Frat Party

The text of the invitation:The brothers of Sigma Chi invite you to our Columbus Day party this Friday: Conquistabros and Navajos. Start off the long weekend right with one of our best parties of the year. The theme is lighthearted and flexible; dress as anything related to exploration in America, e.g. Columbus, pilgrims, conquistadors, Native Americans and cowboys/girls.Adrienne's mockery of same:The brothers of Sigma Chi invite you to our party this Friday: Jew-bros and Nazi-hos. Start off the long weekend right with one of our best parties of the year. The theme is lighthearted and flexible; dress as anything related to WWII/The Holocaust, e.g. Hitler, Nazis, The Gestapo, Jews and soldiers.She goes on to list several problems with the party concept, including:Encouraging party goers to "dress up" as American Indians and Indigenous Peoples puts Native people in the category of a fantasy character--something that no longer exists, or never did. Columbus, Conquistadors, and Pilgrims are all situated in the past, but Native peoples are still here, are still alive, and still Native (and yes, cowboys are still alive, but they are not systematically oppressed and facing continued colonialism).And a commenter on Adrienne's blog added this important point:Is it a surprise this is tolerated, when the fact that it's a "clever" variant on "Bros and Hos" is taken for granted? Because of course that isn't VAST, GALLOPING MISOGYNY even without a racist component.Comment:  Yep...any time you use the "bros and hos" formulation, you're demeaning women and blacks as well as anyone else you're targeting. This is rarely if ever acceptable, and certainly not at a place such as Harvard.

For more on the subject, see Why Minstrel Shows Are Wrong and Stuff White People Do:  Indians.

Bloomberg, mosque, and frybread

Indian Comics Irregular #196:  Cowboys 'n' Terrorists in NYC

Paterson criticizes Bloomberg's remarks

Gov. Paterson slams Mayor Bloomberg over 'inappropriate' comments on getting cig taxes from Indians

By Kenneth LovettGov. Paterson this morning shot down as "inappropriate" a recent controversial comment by Mayor Bloomberg over the state's effort to collect taxes on the sale of cigarettes by Indian tribes.

Bloomberg suggested that Paterson stare down threats of Indian violence by standing on the state Thruway with a cowboy hat and shotgun while delivering the message the taxes will be collected.

"I love the mayor, but this is a very dangerous situation," Paterson said during his weekly appearance on the John Gambling show on WOR-AM'.

Paterson, who plans to begin collecting taxes on cigarettes sold by Indian nations on Sept. 1, said he is not looking to "raise the tension of a potentially dangerous situation with any kind of rhetoric."Comment:  For more on the subject, see Indians Rally Against Bloomberg and Senecas Denounce Bloomberg's Remarks.

Indians rally against Bloomberg

Oneidas protest Bloomberg’s ‘cowboy’ comments in NYCMembers of the Oneida Indian Nation were among those rallying on the steps of New York’s City Hall on Monday protesting comments made by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Two weeks ago, the mayor had urged Gov. David Paterson to “get yourself a cowboy hat and a shotgun” and enforce the state cigarette tax law that hasn’t been enforced for years.

On Friday, the Oneida Indian Nation called Bloomberg’s phrasing “offensive and hurtful” to Native Americans, who in many cases were driven off their land across America during a series of battles in the 19th century.

Oneida Nation Representative Ray Halbritter said Bloomberg’s imagery was as distasteful to his tribe as if someone urged Nazis to take action against Jews.Comment:  As with the Dudesons protests, I'm not sure this is the best way to actually change Bloomberg's mind. But it's a great way to show America that Indians aren't going to take racism and stereotyping any more.

For more on the subject, see Senecas Denounce Bloomberg's Remarks and Bloomberg Suggests Shooting Senecas.

Below:  "Representatives of Native American tribes and organizations call on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to apologize for racially insensitive remarks he made on John Gambling's Aug. 13 radio show. Local Onieda Nation members joined Monday's rally on the steps of City Hall." (Bryan Smith/N.Y. Daily News)

Senecas denounce Bloomberg's remarks

The Seneca Nation responds forcefully to Mayor Bloomberg's suggestion that New York state "cowboy up" against them:

Seneca to file human rights and hate crime violations against NY Mayor Bloomberg

By Gale Courey ToensingThe Seneca resolution authorizes Snyder to file a complaint alleging a human rights violation and a hate crime with the New York City and New York State Human Rights Commissions, the United States Commission on Civil Rights, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples.

“Bloomberg’s cavalier attitude and inflammatory remarks, by which he encourages armed conflict as a means for resolution, evidences tremendous disrespect to those nation members and New York State Police officers who, to this day, bear the scars and trauma of the actual--not hypothetical--conflict that has twice occurred on the nation’s territory, is considered by the council to be a hate crime and violation of human rights,” the resolution said.

It also contrasts Bloomberg’s position of support for religious freedom and the building of the Muslim community center and mosque with his attitude toward Indian nations.

“Mayor Bloomberg’s contradictory positions regarding the constitutional protections afforded to those involved in the Islamic Center and Mosque, versus those afforded to the nation and its members, are demonstrative of the continued ignorance of the nation’s own constitutionally protected treaties as the supreme law of the land, which provide the underlying protections for the nation’s tax immune status on which its economy is based,” the resolution states.

The resolution says Bloomberg’s “hypocritical” support of constitutional protections only occurs if the protections don’t impact the city budget.

That hypocrisy, “coupled with his uneducated and uninformed statements on the issue, serve to fan the flames of aggression, and undermine the potential for peaceful resolution of these matters, while perpetuating a long dormant policy of Indian termination which dates back to the days of General Custer’s failed Battle of Little Bighorn, the resolution says.

Based on Bloomberg’s “inflammatory and racially insensitive” remarks, the resolution calls on the mayor to resign immediately or to issue a formal written apology to the Seneca Nation and its citizens that provides evidence of his “tolerance and respect” for the nation’s treaties.Cowboys and Indians:  Bloomberg shoots from the hip

By David KimelbergImagine for a moment: New York Governor David Paterson finds himself in the 11th hour of a controversy involving an African-American group exerting its fundamental rights against the State of New York. He turns to Mayor Bloomberg for advice, thinking the mayor may have a promising diplomatic strategy to suggest. Instead, the mayor quips, “Get a white robe and piece of rope, and show them who’s boss--now that would be a great video!” Shock. Outrage from all corners. Marching in the streets. Political heads roll.

The real shock and outrage is that Bloomberg recently made essentially the same statements about Native Americans, and no one raised an eyebrow.And:After being forced and coerced to give up our vast tracts of lands, in exchange for immutable treaty rights to conduct commerce without state interference on the miniscule reservations we now call home, we found a way to eek out a living for our people through the tobacco trade. Native Americans have the highest rate of poverty of any ethnic group in the U.S. A visit to any Indian territory would be a true culture shock for most non-Natives. But New York state needs to shore up its widening budget gap. So, let’s shake down the Indians--an easy and defenseless target. While we’re at it, let’s threaten them with shotguns and cowboy hats, and remind them that we’re not that far from taking scalps.

In addition to being a citizen of the Seneca Nation and an Indian, my father is Jewish. This makes me doubly insulted by the mayor’s remarks. As two of the most persecuted groups in history, there are many parallels between Indians and Jews. It’s incredible that Bloomberg, as a Jew, would go so far as to conjure up images of an oppressor doling out rough shotgun justice on a minority ethnic group. Taking away economic livelihood by force was a strategy employed by Hitler against the Jews. This strikes a similar chord.

The mayor’s statements are shameful. They further the notion that Native Americans are not a distinct people deserving of respect. Instead, the mayor reduces Native Americans to an inferior group that can only be dealt with in one way--with the butt of a shotgun.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Obama = "Town Destroyer"? and Senecas to Collect Thruway Tolls.

Bloomberg suggests shooting Senecas

Bloomberg Tells Paterson To Cowboy Up, Crack Down On Senecas Selling Tax-Free Smokes On NY ThruwayMayor Bloomberg, channeling his inner Wyatt Earp, shot himself in the foot Friday.

The tough-talking mayor infuriated Native Americans by urging Gov. Paterson to handle a dispute over cigarette taxes by delivering some Dodge City-style justice.

"I've said this to David Paterson, I said, 'You know, get yourself a cowboy hat and a shotgun,'" said Bloomberg, blasting from the hip on his weekly radio show.

"If there's ever a great video, it's you standing in the middle of the New York State Thruway saying, you know, 'Read my lips--the law of the land is this, and we're going to enforce the law.'"

The politically incorrect crack--pitting cowboy Paterson against the state's Indians--drew a pointed rebuke from Barry Snyder Sr., president of the Seneca Nation of Indians.

"Regrettably, Mayor Bloomberg has made some reckless and insensitive statements to the people of the Seneca Nation, all Native Americans living in New York State and throughout the country," Snyder fired back.Comment:  At least he didn't say, "Gov. Paterson should scalp them before they scalp us."

Someone on Facebook commented:You'd think Jewish people would be sensitive to negative stereotypes and the rights of nation/states who are seen as the "minority."Yep. Imagine if Seneca president Snyder or anyone told Bloomberg, "Shape up or we'll throw you in the oven." That's roughly the equivalent of telling Indians you're going to sic a cowboy with a shotgun on them.

Bloomberg's "law of the land" argument isn't necessarily the final word. The Senecas claim their treaty right exempts them from cigarette taxes. The non-Indians disagree, and so far the courts have backed them. But the Seneca response seems to be: Our sovereignty trumps your laws and court decisions, not the other way around.

Underlying this, of course, is the savage Indian stereotype. Bloomberg is implying the Senecas are unwilling or unable to resolve the conflict peacefully. I.e., outside the bounds of civilization. Shooting is what you do to savages and other wild animals you can't negotiate with.

For more on the subject, see Obama = "Town Destroyer"? and Senecas to Collect Thruway Tolls.

Below:  Does Bloomberg want to crush the Seneca figuratively?



Or literally?

Indian in RETURN OF BRUCE WAYNE #4

Batman has been tripping through time in THE RETURN OF BRUCE WAYNE mini-series. I was wondering if he'd encounter any Indians. Answer: Yes, in issue #4.

Batman: The Return of Bruce WayneBatman: The Return of Bruce Wayne is a 6-issue American comic book limited series published by DC Comics beginning in May 2010, written by Grant Morrison and featuring a team of rotating artists starting with Chris Sprouse and Frazer Irving.

The series picks up from Batman and Robin #12. The series will detail the journey Bruce Wayne takes through the timestream of the DC Universe after being deposited in the distant past by Darkseid in Final Crisis. Wayne will have to overcome amnesia and "history itself" in order to make his way back to present-day Gotham City and retake his rightful place as Batman. The series will run for six issues, each covering a different time period. The time periods will be that of prehistory, the witch hunts, pirates at sea, the wild west, the noir era, and present day Gotham.The premise of #4:By the late 19th century, a group of Gotham criminals had incurred the ire of caped mystery horseman. So they hired the deadliest gunman in the Americas to defend them: the man known as Jonah Hex.Batman: The Return of Bruce Wayne #4--ReviewThe Story:  As he bounces through time, Bruce Wayne ends up in the Old West where he tangles with a familiar face.

What’s Good:  It was kinda cool to see a Batman-Lone Ranger mash-up.

What’s Not So Good:  What is the deal with the Native American guy? I found myself scratching my head a LOT while reading this issue and really didn’t enjoy the experience at all.

I also don’t understand why Jonah Hex needed to be in this issue. The movie already tanked! Since Morrison was completely neglecting the main story, why not do something cool and have Bruce and Jonah play a bit of cat-n-mouse in some old canyon? That would have been a lot more fun. And I thought Gotham was an east coast town? This whole thing is written as if it took place in 1870s Arizona.Blogger Greg Burgas adds:The Indian's switch from "bad" guy to "good" guy makes no sense, but he's a minor character so I don't worry about it too much.

I'm also not sure why Jonah Hex needs to be in this issue. He doesn't seem terribly necessary. I guess if a DC comic takes place in the Old West, even in an eastern city like Gotham, Hex needs to make an appearance!Comment:  Does RETURN OF BRUCE WAYNE #4 really take place in the Old West? Jonah Hex is a post-Civil War figure. If the story was set in, say, 1870, would Gotham City look like a Western town with a lot of single-story wooden buildings? Wouldn't it look more like the Chicago or New York of 1870, with a lot of brick and mortar buildings and nascent skyscrapers?

I think of the Old West as being pre-Civil War. I guess you could call the post-Civil War era the Wild West, though it grew progressively less wild. More to the point, A Wild West story has to take place in the West. Gotham City is an Atlantic seaport located in New Jersey or thereabouts. There's no such thing as the Wild East.

Since I'm not spending $4.00 for a single comic book, I glanced at this issue in the comic-book shop. The young Indian man appears on 4-5 pages. He has his long hair tied behind his head and is dressed like a respectable citizen in silk shirt and pants. Kudos for not making him look stereotypical, at least.

White man's history

In this series, we see how the myth-making process works. What historical representatives does writer Grant Morrison have Bruce Wayne meet and become? Cavemen, Pilgrims, pirates, cowboys and Indians, and gangsters and G-Men. If you were to look at comic strips or Halloween costumes of America's past, these would be five of the leading subjects. (Never mind that America didn't have any cavemen.)

To many people, this is a fair approximation of what American history is about. Morrison could've had Bruce Wayne interact with farmers, abolitionists, labor unions, suffragettes, or civil rights leaders. He could've had Bruce Wayne fight in the War of 1812, the Mexican War, or the Spanish-American War.

But that wouldn't have sent the right message about America. Instead, Morrison focused on some of our mythical heroes. These people embody our romantic vision of America, Morrison is saying, and Batman belongs among them.

In this context, it's unsurprising that an Indian appeared as a minor figure. It's even unsurprising that his role was morally ambiguous. This is kind of how we view Indians: as minor players in the white man's American history.

For more on the subject, see How America Became Cowboy Country and Movies Convey "America's Master Narrative." For more on Natives and comics books, see Comic Books Featuring Indians.

Indian wannabes = celebrity wannabes

Fame!  I Wanna Live Forever:  How Narcissism Conquered Reality

Our celebrity-centered culture plunges us into a moral void. It offers the illusion of immortality and promotes self-love over the common good.

By Chris HedgesSoldiers and Marines speak of entering combat as if they are entering a movie, although if they try to engage in movie-style heroics they often are killed. The difference between the celebrity-inspired heroics and the reality of war, which takes less than a minute in a firefight to grasp, is jolting. Wounded Marines booed and hissed John Wayne when he visited them in a hospital in World War II. They had uncovered the manipulation and self-delusion of celebrity culture. They understood that mass culture is a form of social control, a way to influence behavior that is self-destructive.

Neal Gabler writes in "Life: the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality" that the power of celebrity culture means we often seek to enact the movies that play inside our heads. We become celebrities, at least privately, to ourselves. Celebrity culture is so ubiquitous that it has established perverse interior personal scripts and modes of speech through which our relationship with the world is often constructed. Gabler argues that celebrity culture is not a convergence between consumer culture and religion but instead is a hostile takeover of religion by celebrity culture. Commodities and celebrity culture alone define what it means to belong to American society, how we recognize our place in society and how we determine our spiritual life. Celebrity culture is about the denial of death. It is about the illusion of immortality. The portal to Valhalla is through the celebrity.And:Celebrity culture encourages us to turn our love inward, to think of ourselves as potential celebrities who possess unique if unacknowledged gifts. It is the culture of narcissism. It is about the hyperinflation of the ordinary. The banal chatter of anyone, no matter how insipid, has in celebrity culture cosmic significance. This chatter fills the airwaves. Reality, however, exposes something very different. And the juxtaposition of the impossible illusions inspired by celebrity culture and our insignificant individual achievements leads to frustration, anger, insecurity and a fear of invalidation. It leads to an accelerated flight toward the celebrity culture, what Chris Rojek in his book "Celebrity" calls "the cult of distraction that valorizes the superficial, the gaudy, the domination of commodity culture."

This cult of distraction, as Rojek points out, masks the real disintegration of culture. It conceals the meaninglessness and emptiness of our own lives. It deflects the moral questions arising from mounting social injustice, growing inequalities, and costly imperial wars as well as economic and political corruption. Shamanism is not only the currency of celebrity culture; it is the currency of totalitarian culture. And as we sink into an economic and political morass, we are controlled, manipulated and distracted by the celluloid shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. The fantasy of celebrity culture is not designed simply to entertain. It is designed to keep us from fighting back, even, apparently, in death.Comment:  Interesting that Hedges refers to indigenous cultures when he writes:Shamanism is not only the currency of celebrity culture; it is the currency of totalitarian culture.If he's talking about the phony shamanism of New Agers and their ilk, I tend to agree. In other words, this worship of the superficial and phony leads to bad results.

How is Hedges's analysis relevant to Newspaper Rock? As I've said before, America has a cowboy culture. We celebrate the rugged individualist, and the cowboy is the epitome of that.

We don't honor other people who had equally tough jobs: farmers, miners, steelworkers, et al. We've made the cowboy of legend into a historical celebrity. He and his pioneering associates (Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett) are our national heroes.

In the same way, the Indian of legend has become a historical celebrity. Where the cowboy represents the mainstream culture, though, the Indian represents the counterculture. He's the celebrity of choice when you want to show how cool, hip, and rebellious you are. Indians fought the status quo and so do today's contrarians--at least in their own minds.

Thus we get students clamoring for their Indian mascots. Hipsters wearing Plains-style headdresses. New Agers and wannabes appropriating Native religion and culture. They're arguably all part of the same vibe, which goes like this:My life is boring and mundane. I want to stand out and be noticed. I want to be special. More important, I want people to acknowledge and celebrate my specialness.

Getting on American Idol is too much work, but anyone can put on a costume and become an Indian. So look at me with my Indian mascot/headdress/ceremony! I'm a savage, a shaman, a wolf person, a spirit being! Unlike you squares with your suits and jobs, I'm wild and free! No one can tell me what to do because, in my own heart, I'm an Indian!We see this most clearly when someone like Kesha dons a headdress and facepaint. She's practically screaming, "I'm not a two-bit pop star you'll soon forget. Look at me! See how daring I am to dress as an Indian? I'm a spectacle...a wild woman...a celebrity! I'm someone...remember me!"

Celebrities and (stereotypical) Indians are larger than life. They don't have to play by the rules. They're remembered for their greatness. Thus, Indian wannabeism = celebrity wannabeism. Not exactly, of course, but close enough.

For more on the subject, see Victor or Victim:  Our New National Anthem? and America's Cultural Mindset.

Below:  University of Illinois fans try to be something other than boring white people. I.e., to be brave and bold by proxy. "We're different...special...Indians!"

Cowboy defends Cowboy Day

A Nez Perce/Cayuse man and proud "Cowbindian" defends the National Day of the American Cowboy:The Cowboys of the cattle trails between 1866 and 1889 were mostly Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans not the John Wayne Hollywood stereotype you suggest. In modern times those of us that still work as "Cowboys" come in all colors, creeds and nationalities, we work long hours for low pay doing what we do and none of it has anything to do with "America's white, Christian philosophy of Manifest Destiny." As one who decries stereotypes I'm surprised to see you embrace this one so wholeheartedly. But then, propaganda and stereotyping is just the bending of an image to fit one's own agenda, isn't it?‎"Mostly" blacks, Hispanics, and Natives? Some were, but the majority? I doubt it.

"Modern times"? That's nice, but the resolution isn't solely about the modern cowboy. Read it again if you're not clear on that point.

The first part of the resolution says cowboys helped "establish" America. How exactly did they do that? Give me a rundown on all the establishing tasks they did that didn't interfere with Native land and treaty rights. Don't include the cattle drives you mentioned because those did interfere with Native land and treaty rights.

Even more than the cowboys of the past, the resolution is talking about the iconic, archetypal cowboy of legend. Not the actual cowboys of any era, including a narrow 23-year range in our 230-year history. This iconic figure was indeed a white male Christian who was indeed involved in the genocide of Indians, either directly or indirectly.

If the resolution were talking about real cowboys, it wouldn't describe how transcendent they are. It wouldn't talk about them in gushing terms reserved for Founding Fathers and other national heroes. It would talk about people with flaws and shortcomings as well as positive qualities, not saints.

In short, no sale. Try again.

Round 2I think, Rob, The term "celebrate" would indicate an acknowledgment and respect for the traditions of the skills, lifeways and work of the American Cowboy not their "flaws and shortcomings" as those are evident in all human beings. As a Nez Perce/Cayuse man and proud "Cowbindian," my family comes from many generations of the ranching cowboy life style. The resolution describes the cowboy as "transcending" ethnicity, gender, geographic boundaries, and political affiliations not as "how transcendent they are" and in my experience, this is true. I guess honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a strong work ethic, and patriotism, strength of character, sound family values, and good common sense, and being an excellent steward of the land and its creatures, living off the land and working to protect and enhance the environment are really crappy things to aspire to, in your point of view.

Not tryin' to sell you a thing, Rob. Just livin' the life and thought it was kinda nice that a nominal "National Cowboy Day" was called to recognize those that do.JRey Crow responds to this:This gushing and unqualified language of this "proclamation" suggests it originated on the desk of a lobbyist or public relations practitioner for a ranching related trade organization.

Marketers of every product, industry, etc. want to have a day, week, or month in "honor" of whatever they're selling. There are countless examples of successful efforts to this end.

It is no more reasonable or truthful to say that all "cowboys" (or any other group) possess "honesty, integrity, etc." by virtue of their membership in the group than it would be to say the opposite--that as a group, "cowboys" are dishonest, lacking in integrity, compassion, and so forth.

Though this proclamation is an example of an attempt to promote a "positive" stereotype, it's still stereotyping as I see it.

Likewise, claiming that ranching as an industry is "beneficial to all states," much less an excellent example of "stewardship" of land or animals, is highly controversial. I prefer strong wolf populations to private profit, for just one illustration.

My understanding is that, at most levels of government, these kinds of petitions are often granted, if for no other reason than they cause no apparent harm.

No offense intended to cowboys--who ever they are, who I admit I have no standing to judge as individuals.Good response, JRey. I agree.

Final thoughts

Our cowboy didn't address most of my points, but I'll add a few more:

Cowboy demographics are almost irrelevant to my argument. America has always had minorities and so has the subset of America known as cowboys. The presence of minorities doesn't negate the fact that white male Christians have dominated America since the beginning.

If people transcend things, they're transcendent by definition. Transcending ethnicity means cowboys existed in some transcendent state where their ethnicity didn't matter. Wrong.

Most cowboys were white and they contributed to America's white Christian philosophy of Manifest Destiny. They didn't transcend ethnicity, they were as ethnic as their fellow Americans. No doubt most of them believed in white superiority.

This proclamation isn't about what cowboys "aspire" to. It's about what they've already achieved. I'm challenging that propaganda message: that mostly white cowboys made America great by taming the land, turning wilderness into fenced-off ranches, and--not coincidentally--ignoring Indian treaties and rights.

I'm glad you're living your life, cowboy friend. If the proclamation had limited itself to today's cowboys, I probably wouldn't have criticized it. But it made sweeping claims about the cowboys' role in history and legend. Those I criticize.

Anyway, have a happy Cowboy Day, everyone!

For more on the subject, see How America Became Cowboy Country, Movies Convey "America's Master Narrative," and "Cowboys and Indians" Images.

Below:  Cowboys and Indians who failed to transcend their ethnicity or political affiliations.

National Day of the American Cowboy

A Senate resolution to honor the American cowboy:

National Day of the American CowboyWhereas pioneering men and women, recognized as `cowboys', helped establish the American West;

Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a strong work ethic, and patriotism;

Whereas the cowboy spirit exemplifies strength of character, sound family values, and good common sense;

Whereas the cowboy archetype transcends ethnicity, gender, geographic boundaries, and political affiliations;

Whereas the cowboy is an excellent steward of the land and its creatures, who lives off the land and works to protect and enhance the environment;

Whereas cowboy traditions have been a part of American culture for generations;

Whereas the cowboy continues to be an important part of the economy through the work of many thousands of ranchers across the Nation who contribute to the economic well-being of every State;

Whereas millions of fans watch professional and working ranch rodeo events annually, and rodeo is one of the most-watched sports in the Nation;

Whereas membership and participation in rodeo and other organizations that promote and encompass the livelihood of cowboys span every generation and transcend race and gender;

Whereas the cowboy is a central figure in literature, film, and music and occupies a central place in the public imagination;

Whereas the cowboy is an American icon; and

Whereas the ongoing contributions made by cowboys and cowgirls to their communities should be recognized and encouraged: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) designates July 24, 2010, as `National Day of the American Cowboy'; and

(2) encourages the people of the United States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.Comment:  This is standard pro-cowboy propaganda. Let's look at these claims:Whereas pioneering men and women, recognized as `cowboys', helped establish the American West;Yes, by dispossessing the Indians, destroying their cultures, and sometimes killing them outright.Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, a strong work ethic, and patriotism;I guess it was someone else who broke Indian treaties, hunted down stray Indians like dogs, and massacred them while they slept. Maybe it was America's cowboy Army or cowboy government, not its cowboy cowboys.Whereas the cowboy spirit exemplifies strength of character, sound family values, and good common sense;See above.Whereas the cowboy archetype transcends ethnicity, gender, geographic boundaries, and political affiliations;Yeah, because no one would dream of cowboys being involved in ethnic cleansing. I mean, who ever heard of "cowboys 'n' Indians"?

Funny, I think of the cowboy as the embodiment of America's white, Christian philosophy of Manifest Destiny. That has everything to do with ethnicity, geographic boundaries, and political affiliations.Whereas the cowboy is an excellent steward of the land and its creatures, who lives off the land and works to protect and enhance the environment;Water wars, range destruction, buffalo extermination, etc.Whereas the cowboy is a central figure in literature, film, and music and occupies a central place in the public imagination;

Whereas the cowboy is an American icon;I'll agree with that much. Unfortunately, what America stands for is the rugged individualist who takes what he wants without regard for others. In other words, the libertarian, the greedy capitalist, or the conquering "hero."

For more on the subject, see How America Became Cowboy Country, Movies Convey "America's Master Narrative," and "Cowboys and Indians" Images.

Below:  The ultimate cowboy.

How America became cowboy country

In his Stuff White People Do blog, Macon D. recently analyzed people who pose in cowboy drag. First he quotes Mel at BroadSnark, who perfectly encapsulates America's lust for its cowboy myth:

White America's Existential CrisisThere is a certain segment of the American population that really believes in the American foundational myths. They identify with them. They believe that America was built by a handful of white, Christian men with exceptional morals. Their America is the country that showed the world democracy, saved the Jews in World War II, and tore down the Berlin wall.

These people have always fought changes to their mythology. They have always resented those of us who pushed to complicate those myths with the realities of slavery, Native American genocide, imperial war in the Philippines, invasions of Latin American countries, and secret arms deals.

And we have been so busy fighting them to have our stories and histories included in the American story that we sometimes forget why the myths were invented in the first place.

No myth illustrates the sleight of hand behind our national mythology quite like the myth of the cowboy. In the mythology, the cowboy is a white man. He is a crusty frontiersman taming the west and paving the way for civilization. He is the good guy fighting the dangerous Indian. He is free and independent. He is in charge of his own destiny.

Of course, the real cowboy was an itinerant manual laborer akin to today's illegal immigrant. He didn't protect schoolmarms from outlaws, Indians, and other uncivilized animals. He did the dirty work of handling a smelly herd of cows.

From Pilgrims to cowboys

We can trace our national hero figure from the Pilgrim to the Minuteman to the frontiersman (Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Kit Carson, et al.). But how exactly did a cow handler become the next in line? Why not a farmer, rancher, surveyor, prospector, railroad man, oil driller, inventor, or someone else?

No doubt the usual tangle of dime novels, Wild West shows, and old Western movies played a role. But Macon D. of Stuff White People Do steers us to another source. In Rough Rider in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Desire, author Sarah Watts argues that Teddy Roosevelt turned the bovine's best friend into a John Wayne/Clint Eastwood tough guy:Roosevelt emerged as a central purveyor of the cowboy-soldier hero model because he more than any man of his age harnessed the tantalizing freedom of cowboys to address the social and psychological needs that arose from deep personal sources of frustration, anxiety, and fear. More than any other he sensed that ordinary men needed a clearly recognizable and easily appropriated hero who enacted themes about the body; the need for extremity, pain, and sacrifice; and the desire to exclude some men and bond with others. In one seamless cowboy-soldier-statesman-hero life, Roosevelt crafted the cowboy ethos consciously and lived it zealously, providing men an image and a fantasy enlisted in service to the race-nation.

In keeping with changing models of masculinity ... mass-circulation magazines began to feature a Napoleonic "idol of power," a man of action who used iron will and "animal magnetism" to crush his rivals and dominate nature. Biographers of plutocrats and robber barons encouraged readers to envision themselves in a social Darwinist world of ruthless competition where character alone appeared effeminate and sentimentalism dangerous. Earlier notions of manliness had counseled reason over passion; now the hero must unleash his "forcefulness."

Enter a new type of charismatic male personality after 1870, a cowboy-soldier operating in the new venue of the American West on sheer strength of will and physicality. Eastern readers instantly recognized him as more masculine precisely because he met the psychological desires in their imagination, making them into masters of their own fate, propelling them into violent adventure and comradeship, believing them at home in nature, not in the hothouse interiors of office buildings or middle-class homes.

Writers pitched the cowboy ethos against Christian values of mercy, empathy, love, and forgiveness, against domestic responsibility and the job demands that complicated men's lives and dissolved their masculine will. The cowboy was not interested in saving souls or finding spiritual purity or assigning meaning to death. His code of conduct arose as he struggled against the overwhelming wildness of men and beasts and carved out a prairie existence with guns, ropes, and barbed wire. Readers suspended ordinary morality as they fantasized about life at the margins of civilization and sampled forbidden pleasures of taming, busting, subduing, shooting, hanging, and killing.

No doubt Americans venerated Custer, Buffalo Bill, and other Western figures for similar reasons. But I'm willing to believe Roosevelt did more than anyone to popularize the cowboy ideal among the Eastern intelligentsia. Once they bought into the myth, it became our national storyline.

A century of cowboys

Since then, our heroes have generally fit into the cowboy mold. I.e., the rugged individual who lives by his own rules. Whether the figure is a cop, soldier, spy, race-car driver, pilot, spaceman, or president, he's basically a transplanted version of the American cowboy.

We could cast our recent political conflicts in cowboy terms too. Nixon and Carter weren't cowboy enough to handle their respective crises. Reagan and Bush Jr. obviously were cowboy enough to handle theirs.

"Real" cowboys don't let women, gays, or foreigners fight their battles for them. They take charge because it's only natural that "a handful of white, Christian men with exceptional morals" should rule. It was true of the Pilgrims and Founding Fathers, Americans believe, and it's still true today.

Finally, Mel of BroadSnark explains how this myth-making process has come up lame, like a horse throwing its rider, leading to white America's existential crisis:When you know the real history of the cowboy, it makes the selling of Reagan and Bush as cowboys seem like an inside joke. The mythological cowboy is the heroic figure that many Americans wish they were. The fact that the cowboy was actually an exploited worker is virtually unknown.

When Americans vote for a president, they want to see that heroic version of themselves looking back at them. They want to see that free cowboy of the mythology. No matter how poor or exploited white people were, they could always take subconscious comfort in the fact that, when they looked at the highest power in the land, they saw an idealized version of themselves.

And then came Barack Obama.

Pop.

It’s a powerful thing to be able to identify with the people who are your leaders, to feel like they are one of you. It’s a feeling that many people in the United States felt for the first time when Barack Obama was elected. It’s equally powerful when your elected leaders are clearly not like you, when the fact that they do not represent you is glaringly obvious.

I had my whole life to get used to the idea that the government was never made to really represent my interests. Many of these angry people are the very white, Christian, men that this country was supposedly built by and for. And this is the first time the myth of America has been unmasked for them.

Exactly. Obama is liberal, intellectual, and black. He doesn't fit the cowboy mold in any way. Yet Americans elected him over the doddering white war hero, John McCain. How could that be?

This can't happen in America, the legion of losers thinks. Cowboys can't let the presidential equivalent of a schoolmarm rule them. So we get the Tea Party movement claiming there's a conspiracy to overthrow democracy. This plot is led by a foreign Muslim terrorist who can't or won't produce a birth certificate. We have to take back America from the Obamas of the world: women and minorities, city slickers, liberal elites, and other non-cowboys. And give it to its rightful owners.

For more on our cowboy mindset, see Movies Convey "America's Master Narrative" and Cowboy Code Ignores Cowboy Crimes. For more on what the Tea Party stands for, see Conservative Worldview = Fear of Cooties and Paper-Checkers = Birthers = Teabaggers. For more on the subject in general, see America's Culture Roots and A Shining City on a Hill:  What Americans Believe.

Cowboy code ignores cowboy crimes

Texan receives standing ovation from stockgrowers for 'Code'

Wyo author says 'Code of the West' offers sanitized view of history

By Mead GruverIt's a high-noon showdown over the Code of the West, Wyoming's official code for living a virtuous life like the ideal cowboy.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed the Code of the West into law a few months ago as the official code for Wyoming. The 10 aphorisms--including "always finish what you start" and "take pride in your work"--by themselves aren't simple to disparage.

Yet the code has come under fire from author Samuel Western, who says it offers a sanitized view of history, as if all cowboys are virtuous and always have been.

"Many a cowboy was a great, wonderful, noble horseman. But there were just as many who were less-than-noble citizens," Western said Thursday. "I don't feel that it's really necessary to elevate the cowboy to any great standing, say, above a railroad engineer."The pro-cowboy view:Riding to the code's defense last week: The Wyoming Stock Growers Association, which invited author James Owen to speak at its convention in Casper. A retired Wall Street investor from Texas, Owen came up with the code for his 2004 book, "Cowboy Ethics."

America needs positive role models these days, Owen said in a phone interview after he received a standing ovation for his speech Thursday.

"Nobody is putting the cowboy on some pedestal," he said. "The cowboy is a construct. He's a symbol. I believe he's a symbol of the best of America."

Owen said he came up with the code after a year and a half that included reading 100 Western books and watching 25 classic Western movies.The anti-cowboy view:Western took aim again at the Code in a column for an online news organization, WyoFile, a couple weeks ago.

A problem with the code, Western wrote in the column, is people tend to "glom on to one-liners" and believe them literally.

"This relieves citizens of the hard work of looking at the past, acknowledging the ugliness, and, with any luck, learning how to avoid a repeat performance," he wrote.

America needs to get away from hero worship or idealization of anyone, "be they cowboy, soldier, roughneck or rector," Western wrote.Comment:  I agree with Owen that the cowboy is a symbol of America. I said as much in America's Cultural Mindset, where I labeled our worldview a cowboy mentality. Given what the cowboys did to the Indians, I don't consider that a compliment.

In other words, I really agree with Western. The whole idea of a cowboy code is pretty silly. If people can't obey Jesus's simple command to love thy neighbor as thyself, how are they going to follow the cowboy code? Let's see them acknowledge the Ten Commandments first--the sensible ones, anyway--before we give them another 10 items to memorize.

I especially agree with Western's point that the code is a way to avoid hard, critical thinking. "Take pride in your work," for instance, is shallower than a bumper sticker. Is that really going to stop people from cutting corners or seeking the big score? Let's ask the British Petroleum executives who have broken rules and violated laws if they took pride in their work.

Back in 2003 I criticized Gene Autry's Cowboy Code. This code sounds similar. It probably deserves the same criticism.

For more on the subject, see George W. Bush = John Wayne and Mighty Whitey to the Rescue.

Below:  The perfect example of the American cowboy. He'll do whatever it takes to get his man--including a preemptive war and illegal torture.

America changed with Davy Crockett

Continuing the discussion I began in Ups and Downs of Hollywood Indians. Here's more on how movie and TV portrayals of cowboys and Indians mirror the nation's political climate.

An Appreciation:  Fess Parker's Davy Crockett was a hero when we needed one.

The actor's character embodied courage and common sense in the uncertain '50s.

By Neal Gabler[E]ven Parker understood that Davy Crockett wasn't just manufactured by mass culture. It struck a much deeper chord in the American psyche.

Some at the time attributed its success to the country's need to assuage its self-doubt after the Joseph McCarthy red-baiting debacle earlier that year and during the struggle against the Soviets at the height of the Cold War. Others thought that Crockett was an example not of inferiority but of American self-confidence. He was courageous, resolute, plain-spoken, common sense, transparent--the perfect American to contrast with our wily Soviet enemies. Time magazine, surveying America in this period and extolling her virtues, even called it "Davy's Time."

And yet, if Parker had some John Wayne in him, he also had some Jimmy Stewart. Wayne had no modesty. Parker did. His Crockett was kind, temperate, sensitive, tolerant--less an Indian fighter in the Wayne mold than an Indian mediator. He was also something of a renegade, opposing authority and challenging the system. That enabled him to bridge political and ideological divides or, rather, to blur them.

Conservatives claimed him--and Parker was a conservative himself who was a friend and neighbor of Ronald Reagan--but so did liberals. He belonged to everyone.

In fact, after he left Disney because he was tired of being typecast as a frontiersman, Parker starred for one season, from 1962 to 1963, in a television version of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," which only showed the continuity between his Crockett and 20th century Frank Capra populism.Comment:  Before Davy Crockett, we had the classic era of Western movies, with Indian fighters in the John Wayne mold. The Indians were little more than predatory animals. Not coincidentally, we faced intractable enemies in the real world: Nazis, "Japs," and Commies.

"Davy's Time" coincided with the end of the McCarthy era--a diminishing fear of a Communist takeover. The Civil Rights movement gathered steam, as did the move toward revisionist Western movies and TV shows. Even John Wayne's characters became something akin to Indian supporters.

And in the '60s Camelot era, with JFK as president, we started getting urbane, sensitive cowboys like Ben Cartwright on Bonanza. Not to mention urbane, sensitive space cowboys like Captain Kirk. He usually stood up for the savage alien races he met, even if it meant overthrowing their superstitious religion (computer) and bringing them civilization (the Federation).

So cowboy characters (including proto-cowboys like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone) became more thoughtful and sensitive. And Indian characters became more complex and human. And this coincided with a decreased fear of foreign attack and an increased understanding of US minorities. Was this coincidence a coincidence? I think not.

For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies and TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Death on Sun Mountain in Bonanza

To handle this year's digital TV conversion, I had to purchase our local basic cable service. Fortunately, it hasn't been a total loss. Now I can watch old episodes of Hawaii Five-0, Get Smart, Star Trek: The Next Generation, the British spy series MI-5, and...Bonanza.

The second episode ever of Bonanza, the famed TV Western, tells a Native-themed story. Here are a couple of synopses:

Death on Sun MountainBen Cartwright finds out that Mark Burdette (Barry Sullivan) and Early Thorne (Leo Gordon) have been illegally slaughtering the antelope on the Paiute Indians' property, then selling the meat to the miners at an exorbitant price. To thwart the two poachers and protect the Indians' food supply, Ben offers to sell his own meat at a much lower price. Burdette and Thorne then hatch a scheme to foment a war between the Paiutes and the Cartwrights. First telecast on September 19, 1959, "The Sun Mountain Herd" (aka "Death on Sun Mountain") was written by Gene L. Coon and David Dortort, who based their teleplay on a true story. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide"Bonanza" Death on Sun Mountain (1959)Burdette and Thorne are selling native antelope meat to the "diggers of Sun Mountain" (the miners) at outrageous prices. The lack of their native food causes the Paiutes to steal Ponderosa beef. The Cartwrights decide to sell their beef directly to the miners, hoping to ease the tensions with the Paiutes and keep their herd from being rustled. This interferes with Burdette's business plan and he tells Thorne to stop the beef from arriving in Virginia City. Thorne and his men accomplish this by dressing up as Indians and killing all but one miner. Harris is left alive to tell everyone it was the Paiutes that ambushed them. Thorne then dresses a miner and kills Tukwa, one of the Cartwright ranch hands. An Indian war is imminent unless the Cartwrights can get to the bottom of this. They go to speak to Harris only to discover that he is too dazed to identify anyone and the only other person who knows Burdette is guilty, a saloon girl named Glory, has been kidnapped. They track Burdette and Thorne and their captive to the desert where a gunfight breaks out.When it comes to the Native aspects, Death on Sun Mountain is mostly successful. The Paiutes are a real tribe living in the Lake Tahoe area and Winnemucca was their actual chief. Because it was based on a true story, the Paiutes' dilemma is realistically non-savage. If the white man kills all their game, they'll have to rustle a few distressed cows or starve.

The Paiutes are dressed in regular clothes and Apache-style headbands, not "leathers and feathers." They speak good English, only slightly stilted, not Tonto talk. Bonanza occasionally shows them, along with Chinese "coolies," as background characters in town.

Another casting failure

The only real problem is the casting of non-Natives as Paiutes. Harry Bartell is Winnemucca and Ron Soble (Wyatt Earp in ST:TOS) is Tukwa. They and the other "Paiutes" don't look much like Indians.

It's interesting to see how Hollywood operated (and still operates?). Because these actors had vaguely "ethnic" looks, they got to play outlaws or Indians. Heaven forbid that a show might have starred someone who didn't look classically Anglo-American. That would've put pretty boys like Michael Landon out of work.

As you can see below, Winnemucca is an order of magnitude more "ethnic" than Bartell or Soble. It's clear he comes from an entirely different race. Casting someone who looked like Winnemucca would've been much more challenging to American viewers the the comfortingly familiar Bartell.

Bleeding-heart cowboys

One thing I didn't remember about Bonanza is what bleeding-heart liberals the Cartwrights were. Ben Cartwright worries that the Paiutes won't be able to continue living in harmony with nature. By selling meat directly to the miners, he's willing to forgo something like half his profits.

In another episode, when a mine collapses, Adam Cartwright doesn't care about the cost involved to safeguard the men. He cares only about the safety of the workers.

For more on the subject, see TV Shows Featuring Indians.

P.S. Gene L. Coon went on to write for Star Trek, of course. I wonder if this episode led to the casting of Ron Soble as Wyatt Earp.

Below:  Chief Winnemucca; Harry Bartell and Ron Soble in non-Paiute roles.