Stereotypes turn Indians invisible

In response to Ecoffey's and Davies's downplaying of racism, I posted:

How do people not get this? Mascots and stereotypes => no understanding of Indian country => lack of laws, services, jobs, etc.

The following article explains the direct connection between stereotypical thinking and lack of philanthropy:

Implicit Bias and Native Americans: Philanthropy’s Hidden MinorityAccording to Michael Roberts, a member of the Tlingit tribe and president of First Nations Development Institute, a nonprofit institution and grantmaker that has been a fixture in philanthropy for almost 35 years:

“I would say that American Indians are mostly invisible to philanthropy, and where there is some semblance of awareness, that there is definitely implicit bias. [For] most foundation program officers, most of what they know is what they were taught in school. Generally, Indians are examined in one of two ways, that they are either relics of the past (lived in tipis, hunted buffalo and were either savages or at one with nature; the mythical Indian), or that the study of them is like a tourist visiting a culture.”

Rick Williams, a member of the Oglala Lakota tribe and former president of the American Indian College Fund, the largest and arguably one of the most successful Native nonprofits, noted:

“The current myth of wealthy Indians not needing help relates directly to misguided media presenting only information about [Native] nations that have done well financially and have casinos. The other myth is that we no longer exist. And if we do exist, it is easy to ignore our plight. Implicit bias carries all the stereotypes and subconsciously influences one’s actions. I often see/feel that bias even when it is unintended or sublimely disguised.”The invisibility problem is closely related to the issue of stereotypes. How? As many have said, people expect Indians to look like savages--dressed in leathers and feathers, living in teepees, etc. When they don't see any stereotypical savages, they assume Indians are dead and gone. They overlook the modern-day Indians all around them--thus rendering them invisible.

Going back to Ecoffey and Davies...if my formulation doesn't explain the lack of laws, services, and jobs, what does?

A paucity of media coverage? Who's been running newspapers such as the Lakota Times, Indian Country Today, and Native Sun News for the past few decades? Not me. If the operators are incompetent as journalists, how is that anyone else's problem?

Again, are Ecoffey and Davies seriously arguing that two weeks of Adam Sandler coverage is responsible for a century of the "Indian plight"? What, was the NY Times about to print a killer expose of the problems? And it got bumped because of Sandler?

How stupid can you get? Like other pop controversies, the Sandler coverage only increases awareness of Indians. Therefore, it's good, not bad.

Duhhh.

For more on the invisibility of Indians, see America Constructed to Erase Indians and Tarantino: "Indians Have More or Less Disappeared."

Ecoffey and Davies downplay racism

A couple of Native journalists took activists like me to task for focusing on such "minor" issues as Adam Sandler's racist movie. Here's round 1:

Evaluating our priorities in the Native media

A note from the editor’s desk

By Brandon EcoffeyOver the past couple of weeks social media has been going absolutely nuts over an incident involving a group of Native actors walking off a Adam Sandler run movie set due to their objections to the famous actor’s grotesque depictions of Native people and culture. Although I applaud the courage of these Native actors to risk being black balled by Hollywood due to their protest, I do not understand why this particular story gained so much traction when there are real and far more pressing issues on reservations that the Native media has brushed aside.

Where is the outrage over our young people dying weekly? Where is the outrage over the absence of any type of functioning economy on reservations? Where is the outrage over the fact that many many children in Indian Country do not have access to safe drinking water? These are third-world issues that are pushed to the back page in favor of stories about people dressing up like Indians, or acting like us, or doing whatever it is that they do.

Many say that the misappropriation of our culture impacts the self-esteem and self-image of our Native youth. This may be true. But what impacts those aspects of our children even more is waking up to homes filled with mold, or abusive parents, or extreme poverty resulting from decades upon decades of failed federal policies and exploitation at the hands of predatory investors.

Although I agree that cultural appropriation is wrong I would just hope that others in the Native news industry reassess their priorities and react accordingly.My response:

"Where is the outrage over our young people dying weekly?" It's hidden by the invisibility of Natives in the mainstream media. This invisibility is shredded when an issue such as Sandler's racist movie gains traction.

Ripping apart this cloak of invisibility is a necessary precursor to generating outrage about endangered Native children. If no one knows they exist, there can be no outrage.

The MSM's choice isn't between covering the Sandler controversy and covering endangered Native children. It's between covering the Sandler controversy and doing nothing.

Only after that, when people become more aware of Indian country's ongoing problems, will the MSM turn its focus to them. Awareness comes first, and the Sandler controversy has helped raise that awareness.

Others chimed in:Rob Schmidt hit the nail on the head.

I'm sorry but many of us are outraged by all those issues as well. Many of us are fighting to better our communities also. I get so upset hearing Native people saying things like this because it makes the fight harder for ALL Native issues. We shouldn't be picking and choosing what issue to fight but we should be upset and fighting on all fronts!

You can do both. I work with Native health but still think mascots et al. are whack and should be eliminated.Right. Most of us are just reading and sharing articles. Even if you're deeply into these issues, they take up only 5% or so of your time. The rest of the time, you're working on whatever it is that you consider important.Hi. I just read the article and your question, so I'd like to share my perspective, at least in terms of mascots. A friend once said something similar. "We have more important issues to address," but it is my belief that this is one of the reasons that we have so many other issues to contend with. The dehumanizing effects of misrepresentation of our people via mascots and the various forms of appropriation have been effective enough to impact the way society views us. This in turn makes it so much easier for mainstream society to turn a blind eye to our multifaceted challenges. The cage of oppression consists of many wires, but in addressing the symptoms, we must also be diligent in addressing the root cause.
Round 2

Another column from the Native Sun News implied that movies, mascots, and related issues are a waste of time:

Indian Country must face the man in the mirror

Stop being thin-skinned busybodies

By James Giago DaviesInstead of focusing on every perceived slight, why not pour all that energy into the actual nuts and bolts reality plaguing almost every reservation—violence, poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse. Face these ugly truths, fight these ugly realities, honor the actual heroes, point fingers at the actual villains, and then if you have any energy left, and you damn well shouldn’t have energy left, knock yourself out being all offended over Johnny Depp’s Tonto.

Acculturation has left Indian America with deep, debilitating wounds, and these wounds compel Indians to hurt other Indians, to create bogeymen to hate and attack so they don’t have to face the man in the mirror. There are plenty of actual evil people hating on Indians, we don’t have to fabricate fresh ones to deflect our righteous indignation from the disheartening task of fixing what’s actually broken.

Indian culture has been oppressed to the point Indians no longer need the Wasicu to beat them down. Indians have spent the last century becoming experts at beating themselves down. Time to man up and start living in the 21st Century. Time to develop the skills and knowledge to protect the culture from destructive outside forces like Rand Paul, who wants to abolish the BIA, and even more destructive internal forces, misguided spiritual leaders, corrupt tribal administrations, bad parents neglecting and terrorizing vulnerable children.

If we could just spend one year doing that, then we would have the social gravitas forcing others to listen, then when Bill Maher said another stupid thing about Indians...well, he never would again say such a stupid thing, because it would be common knowledge all you crazy Indians are as funny as all get-out.I posted comments to Davies's column, leading to this debate with him:

Isn't Tim Giago a big advocate of eliminating stereotypical mascots? Which is the same issue as eliminating stereotypical movie portrayals. Have you told him to stop wasting his time on "trivial" issues--to "man up and start living in the 21st Century"?

Go ahead and tell him, then let us know what he says. Maybe he can explain the importance of fighting racism and stereotyping against Indians. Because clearly he understands the issue.

Are you seriously arguing that most Indians are focusing on Johnny Depp and Adam Sandler rather than the serious problems facing Indian country? Because it's the other way around, obviously.

A century of addressing these problems has yet to fully solve them. That's partly because most people think Indians have vanished into history.

And that's because of media portrayals--or the lack thereof. No one cares about Indians because movies such as Depp's and Sandler's tell us they're primitive people of the past. As far as most Americans are concerned, Indians and their problems no longer exist.I don't think you actually know anything about Indians, or growing up on welfare and food stamps in an Indian ghetto. Check it out.I know what Tim Giago has said about Hollywood's racism and stereotyping:

Tim Giago: Few Roles for Indians in Hollywood

Giago: Hollywood slow to tear down racist barriers against

He's argubly the most famous journalist in Indian country, and he's spent decades on these issues. I'm guessing he knows more about growing up Indian than you do.

Didn't you just spend a few hours writing about a racist nurse's video in Rapid City? How many Natives did you rescue from welfare and food stamps with that column? Why are you wasting time writing about a video when Native children are suffering and dying?

Unless you're delivering food and medicine yourself, don't bother lecturing anyone else on the subject. Nobody who's a journalist is saving lives directly.

More criticism of Davies

I love the idea of writers lecturing other writers about the pressing needs facing Indian country. If you believe what you're saying, Davies, stop writing and start helping. Get away from your computer. Get out of journalism altogether.

Instead, become a social worker. Go door to door bringing food and medicine to suffering people. Because if you don't do that, you're a flaming hypocrite.

To state the obvious, your words aren't saving lives. Therefore, quit wasting your time lecturing us about our words.

Again, others chimed in:I'll be damned if my girls or nieces have to put up with gross 'jokes' on the playground from boys who learned that those are funny things to say to native women. In this particular article, Mr. Davies forgets the fact that he is not a native kid in school and those are the people that will have to put up with the reintroduction of these disgusting stereotypes. It's already hard being a kid with a Native last name, without Adam Sandler adding fuel to the 'OMG Indian names are soooo funny and weird' fire.

There are many ways to help, and many means, if everyone would just do a little or lot wherever they are planted. If everyone quits their job to bring food and medicine to the suffering, they are gonna run out of food and medicine pretty quick. But there is always someone to help, wherever you are--journalism, computer, reserve, city core, or grocery store. (And part of life is also using what gifts and tools you have to hand and have been given, in the best way you can…to help not hurt.)

As I said, you can do both. ... I work with ancestral foods as a health measure, since we have terrible diabetes rates (and everything else) and we didn't have these rates pre-commodities. I'm putting work into improving Native health and infrastructure, but that's not easy or quick. But while I'm helping rebuild, I'd like for people to not continue to get dehumanized and made into jokes by the likes of Adam Sandler.

That’s what cracks me up about people like this Davies fellow. He’s complaining about how we are not focusing on the “real” issues, yet I wonder if he is doing anything about those issues himself? He seems pretty content to sit on his ass and belittle other Natives on the computer.All the academics, the museum personnel, the people working on cultural and language preservation, the artists and storytellers...none of you are saving lives directly. All of you must be wasting time, according to Ecoffey and Davies. Reevaluate your priorities!

Not to mention the 70% of Indians who live away from the reservation. Whatever you're doing, you're probably not protecting the endangered children of Pine Ridge. What's wrong with you? Don't you care?!

</sarcasm>I think we should be allowed to punch ANY idiot who pulls the 'more important issues' crap.Yes, the "more important things" argument is so stupid. It's mainly used to derail whatever issue is being discussed.

If you can't address the issue, spend an hour telling us what we should be doing instead. What you'd be doing if you weren't lecturing us about what we're doing.Y'know, I would love to hear Suzan Harjo's response to these "more important issues" Native guys who literally act like this is a brand new issue. Or Clyde Bellecourt or Kevin Gover's response. I mean, it's been tackled by every major NA organization since the 1960s. It's like this has caught them by surprise. Where have they been for 50 years? Or how can they dismiss the persistent and constant efforts of our leaders?Good point. Tribal leaders have protested movie portrayals for a century. AIM and the NCAI have protested mascots for half a century. Marlon Brando and Sacheen Littlefeather, Pocahontas, the Time magazine "expose" of casinos, Little House on the Prairie, the Outkast video, etc., etc.

In fact, I could list hundreds of controversies and protests without even touching the last ten years. Including those of Tim Giago, uncle of James Giago Davies, who's denounced boarding schools, mascots, and other examples of racism for decades. You could say Giago's whole career has been "talking" about problems rather than solving them hands-on.

It's just so laughable when someone says, "Why are you focusing on this 'trivial' Adam Sandler issue? None of our people ever cared about racism or discrimination against us. We were too busy saving lives.

"Now you've hijacked the news and nobody's talking about anything but Sandler. All the resources devoted to dying children are going to him instead. The media and the government would be swarming over Pine Ridge, but you've told them 'real life' doesn't matter. So a century of neglect is your fault."

As I said, this is stupid and ignorant. Funny to hear Indians dismiss or downplay racism as a serious issue confronting their people. Funny, but wrong.

For more rationalizations of racism, see Black Columnist Excuses "Redskins," Genocide and Shawnee Professor Justifies Tonto's Stereotypes.

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.

All politics is identity politics

A posting on the concept of "identity politics"--something Natives are often accused of:

All politics is identity politics

By Matthew YglesiasThe implication of this usage (which is widespread, and by no means limited to people who agree with Chait) is that somehow an identity is something only women or African-Americans or perhaps LGBT people have. White men just have ideas about politics that spring from a realm of pure reason, with concerns that are by definition universal.

You see something similar in Noam Scheiber's argument that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio went astray by emphasizing an "identity group agenda" of police reform at the expense of a (presumably identity-free) agenda of populist economics. For starters, it is actually inevitable that a New York City mayor would end up spending more time on his police department management agenda (something that is actually under the mayor's control) than on tax policy, which is set by the State Legislature in Albany.

But beyond that, not addressing a racially discriminatory status quo in policing is itself a choice. Indeed, it's a kind of identity group appeal—to white people, whose preferred means of striking the balance between liberty and security, in many contexts, is that security should be achieved by depriving other people of their civil liberties.

This is where the at-times tiresome concept of privilege becomes very useful. The truth is that almost all politics is, on some level, about identity. But those with the right identities have the privilege of simply calling it politics while labeling other people's agendas "identity."Comment:  Accusing someone of "identity politics" is a great example of white privilege in action. Minorities have to prove they're not just a "special interest" group arguing for their own benefit. That other people should care about them. That their arguments are relevant to everyone.

White people don't face that burden. If they argue for voting laws or tax loopholes or immigration policies that overwhelmingly favor whites, no one forces them to justify the universality of their proposals. To these Americans, "universal" means whatever maintains the (white) status quo.

For more on the subject, see Whites Have Institutionalized Racial Power and Whites Are Blind to Their Privilege.

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.

Rob vs. "Tribal Guerrilla Warfare"

Something I tweeted December 16:

I made someone's list of "Who should Natives be wary of?": 2) White people like Rob Schmidt who disguise their financial interest. Beware!

Some responses from Facebook friends:Really?! Hahahaaaa...wow...

You have financial interests and you're not sharing them with me?!

You're white?

Lol idiots.What it's about

Without asking me, someone added me to a listserv (e-mail group) with a bunch of angry Indians. I responded to a few of their unsolicited messages. Then I received this--the full list of people Indians should be wary of:In general, who are Native Americans most wary of? I'd say three groups of people -

1 - Leaders of border town organizations who are opposed to local tribes. Examples would be heads of Water Departments, local heads of Forest Service or border town city mayors who have strong vested interests against local tribes.

2 - Whites who have very strong commercial interests in Native Americans but effectively disguise that pure commercial/financial interest with Native activism and speak for Indians all the time. One example would be Rob Schmidt of Blue Corn Comics who writes on Indian and gaming issues, and writes for Casino Journal, Indian Gaming Business, and Indian Country Today besides speaking for Indians on websites, blogs, Facebook and Twitter.

3 - This is a little controversial and I am sorry for that. To this list, I would add leaders of Indian organizations who are white-looking but enrolled members of Indian tribes while lacking any cultural Indian experience. Examples would be white-looking Indian professors who argue that there was no genocide of Natives (yes, there are a few of those) and white-looking leaders of NDN organizations like the NCAI, Assembly of First Nations (AFN), etc who speak for other Indians.

SanchezNot quite, Sanchez. I don't write for gaming magazines anymore and I speak about Indians, not for them.

Yes, I make a living working with Indians. So do millions of other people--including you, presumably.

Does that mean none of us can address Native issues? Does working in Indian country render the opinions of doctors, lawyers, teachers, and journalists invalid?

Idiocy.

I've effectively disguised my "pure commercial/financial interest" so well that I can't even see it myself. The money pouring in from my hours of blogging, posting, and tweeting is completely invisible to me.

In fact, I'm probably a millionaire now with the blind trust I set up called "How to Exploit Indians." I'll probably be able to retire to a tropical island soon and laugh at everyone who supported me.

What a pathetic joke.

People not to be wary of?

People who didn't make Sanchez's list for some reason:

1) Federal and state politicians, especially conservative ones.

2) Courts that rule against tribes and tribal sovereignty.

3) Corporations that seek to exploit Native land and resources.

4) Schools that teach only about Indians in the past tense.

5) Entertainment that treats Indians as costumed savages.

6) The media that report only on Native poverty and crime.

7) Racists of all stripes.

Other than that, great list, Sanchez!

Incidentally, if you're a Native who disagrees with Sanchez, you're probably a "white" Indian who has only a few drops of Indian blood and culture. According to his group, the only opinions that count are those of dark-skinned Indians who live on reservations. Unless they oppose mascots, that is--in which case they're stooges and sellouts too.

I guess Sanchez didn't like it when I called him a racist for saying "white Indians" weren't real Indians. Oops, my bad.

P.S. Sanchez's e-mail includes the phrase "tribalguerrillawarfare." It's meant to describe him and the listserv. Hence the title of this posting.

Media bias enables prejudice

Blaming the Victim, Excusing the Powerful: What Real Institutional Media Bias Looks Like

By Reed RichardsonTo fulfill the promise of a free press in our democracy journalism can’t be satisfied with assuming the posture of looking down on the powerless. Instead, journalism, at its best, should be—must be—about punching up at the powerful.

Most, if not all, individual journalists wholeheartedly agree with this ideal. And yet, time and again it’s easy to find examples of an institutional media bias that undermines this ethos. By consistently favoring the status quo and reflexively deferring to authority, news organizations that should be exposing and condemning abuse, prejudice and corruption all too often end up excusing, justifying and perpetuating it.

As a result, celebrities, corporations and government officials all command an outsized influence in the traditional media. This phenomenon isn’t new, but the magnitude certainly is. As never before, these entities are able to mobilize a veritable army of handlers, lawyers and flacks to soothe, shape and, spin the press into accepting their version of reality—no matter how tenuously related to the truth it might be.

This fundamental bias marks the central thread that runs through the coverage of everything from Bill Cosby to Ferguson to the US drone strike program. Stripping away each of those storylines’ unique details reveals the same flawed core: a media that grants the benefit of the doubt to the establishment and that saves its cynicism for the voiceless. In a way, this bias acts as a kind broad enabler of all prejudice, allowing whatever latent inequalities exist in the status quo to go unchallenged, if not outright defended. Thus, institutionalized sexism, racism and militarism enjoy a sympathetic ear in the press precisely because they are institutionalized.Comment:  This is another nail in the coffin of the myth of the liberal media. A truly liberal media would demolish conservative lies about the "war on terrorism," climate change, tax cuts, and so forth. Instead, every issue is smothered in faux evenhandedness. Contrary voices are muffled and the status quo continues unchallenged.

CBS announcers may skip "Redskins" name

CBS Announcers Can Choose To Stop Saying ‘Redskins’ During NFL Broadcasts This Season

By Travis WaldronEven as the debate over whether the Washington Redskins should change their name continues to escalate, the team has had at least one mostly safe space in which the word Native Americans say is a “dictionary defined slur” is still merely the name of a football team: the broadcast booth. With one notable exception, the league’s broadcast partners—CBS, NBC, ESPN, and FOX—have remained out of the fray about the name.

Could that change this season? Asked about the issue in a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter, CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus said that the network hadn’t talked to announcing teams about using the name during broadcasts, but he indicated that during the upcoming season individual announcers and production teams could make their own decisions about whether to say it, and that the network is cognizant of the ongoing controversy.

“We haven’t talked to (our analysts) yet,” McManus told THR. “Generally speaking, we do not tell our announcers what to say or not say. Up to this point, it has not been a big issue for us. Last year, it was simmering; now it’s reaching a hotter level. But we probably will not end up dictating to our announcers whether they say Redskins or don’t say Redskins.CBS Sports chairman confirms 'Redskins' stance in front of Roger Goodell

By David Leon MooreCBS Sports chairman Sean McManus again told the media that CBS announcers and production teams will likely be allowed to not use the name of the Washington NFL club this season if they so choose.

Interestingly, however, this time he said it while sitting on a panel discussion along with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.

End Race Based Law Inc.

The initial report about the "Got Land?" shirt controversy relied on quotes from Michelle Tittler. It described her thus:Tittler, from Vancouver, is a co-founder of a non-profit political organization called End Race-Based Laws, or ERBL Inc.Sounds more or less benign, right? Well, Native activists got into a Twitter war with Bonnie Allen of CBC, who published the article:

Tanya Kappo ‏@Nehiyahskwew Jan 17
#CBC interviewing a woman who spews vile hatred at First Nations is like asking the KKK in the 60s their opinion on civil rights. #GotLand

Bonnie Allen ‏@bonnieallenCBC Jan 17
@cmyrden when there are allegations of harassment, I try to find out who might be behind it and why. It's what journalists do.

Coty S ‏@cytolysis Jan 17
@bonnieallenCBC @cmyrden journalists also properly disclose these groups for what they are, which is not 'political activists'

Sandy MacDonald ‏@SandyMacDon4ld Jan 16
@bonnieallenCBC Thought you might be interested in the hate group run by your "Got Land?" interviewee:
https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAW/posts/445849455517293:0

Bonnie Allen ‏@bonnieallenCBC Jan 16
@SandyMacDon4ld I'm well aware of her campaign. That's why we interviewed her.

âpihtawikosisân ‏@apihtawikosisan Jan 17
@bonnieallenCBC @RMComedy @SandyMacDon4ld Hear that hate groups? CBC will give you a free platform if you've got an anti-Native campaign.

Bonnie Allen ‏@bonnieallenCBC Jan 17
@SandyMacDon4ld I was referencing her campaign to email & phone the school division; journalists MUST speak to people. That's our job.

Martin Lukacs ‏@Martin_Lukacs Jan 17
@bonnieallenCBC @apihtawikosisan @RMComedy journos should also critically couch interviews. Identify that she promotes racism & hate.

Taiaiake Alfred ‏@Taiaiake Jan 17
.@bonnieallenCBC Does @CBCNews give equal air time to Holocaust deniers & neo-Nazis when doing stories on Israel? Of course not. #hypocrite

âpihtawikosisân ‏@apihtawikosisan Jan 17
The idea that it is somehow balanced journalism to get a virulent racist on one side and a 13 year old native child on the other, is FUCKED.

Rachel Ann Snow ‏@RachelAnnSnow Jan 17
@bonnieallenCBC @apihtawikosisan @RMComedy then put in Tittler's full background and vested interests - do your due diligence.

Tittler's record

What racism and hatred are the activists talking about? Well, they uncovered Tittler's Facebook page:

End Race Based Law inc."END RACE BASED LAW" is a dedicated to the discussion and process of reopening the Constitution to abolish race based law. One Nation, One law for all.A long thread on the shirt controversy.

A Google doc that shows someone with the same last name--perhaps her husband or father--owns an oilsands company. Many Natives are vehemently opposed to harming the environment by dredging the oilsands.

A sentencing record for what looks like harassment--fear of injury/damage by another person--by Tittler of others.

For all we know, Tittler may be the only member of End Race Based Law. If she files a complaint with Canada's human rights commission, I guess it's news even if she's a lone crank.

But her critics have a point. What qualifies her to be the spokesperson for anyone who has a problem with the shirt? And "co-founder of a nonprofit" is much too mild for someone who sounds like other anti-Indian activists. I.e., someone who wants to end tribal sovereignty and eliminate tribes as separate entities.

Incidentally, journalist Suzette Brewer notes the basic problem with the notion of ending "race-based laws":For the Record: Federal Indian Law is NOT race-based. It's treaty based--the treaties that were signed giving Indian tribes access to health care and education, among other things, when they were forced to give up their lands. These organizations are very real and their language has started filtering into Supreme Court decisions.By "these organizations," Brewer means the conservative Christian groups who fought to remove Baby Veronica from her biological father. Like ERBL, these groups want to end tribal sovereignty so they can divide, conquer, and Christianize Indians.

SF Chronicle drops "Redskins"

The San Francisco becomes the biggest media outlet (I think) to banish the word "Redskins."

S.F. Chronicle to stop using 'Redskins'

By Hadas GoldThe San Francisco Chronicle will stop using the name "Redskins" for the Washington, D.C., NFL team, managing editor Audrey Cooper confirmed to POLITICO.

"Words are powerful, and so is how we choose to use them," Cooper said in an email. "Our long-standing policy is to not use racial slurs—and make no mistake, 'redskin' is a slur—except in cases where it would be confusing to the reader to write around it. For example, we will use the team name when referring to the controversy surrounding its use."

Cooper said she doubts any regular reader of the Chronicle or website SFGate.com would have noticed the choice to use "Washington" instead of the team name, and that they are choosing to use another word that "accurately describes what we are writing about."

According to reports, the change was announced internally on Oct. 25.The Chronicle's own explanation of the change:

On not using epithet for NFL team's nickname

A report tallies the number of media outlets banning the name so far:

Redskins Boycott: 76 Media Outlets and Journalists Oppose Name of Washington NFL Team

Comment:  These decisions are sending a powerful message about what Americans will and won't accept in polite society. They're helping to ratchet up pressure on Dan Snyder, the Redskins, and the NFL.

What will these businessmen do when hundreds of media outlets refuse to use their name? Nothing? No, they'll bow to the pressure and make the right moral, political, and economic choice.

Media frames Elsipogtog as "clashes"

While the Mi'kmaq in Elsipogtog discuss the next phase of protest:

Elsipogtog regroups as chief ponders new anti-fracking leadership

Others are discussing what the protest tells us about Canada's relations with its First Nations.

First, some key points about the legality of the police action:

Op-Ed: Heavy-handed response to the Elsipogtog blockade in New Brunswick

By Peter Raaymakers On Thursday morning, RCMP officers were deployed with rifles, non-lethal bullets, pepper spray, and dogs to enforce a court injunction and attempt to disperse a blockade of protesters on New Brunswick Route 134, about an hour north of Moncton. At least 40 people were arrested for continuing a protest against natural gas exploration in the area, which comprises traditional lands of the Mi’kmaq people.

Perhaps it can be seen as an extension of the Canadian “pioneer” spirit mentioned by Governor General David Johnston in the most recent speech from the throne. That spirit, according to the current government, pushed settlers to build “an independent country where none would have otherwise existed.”

Of course, Canada wasn’t depopulated when settlers arrived here from Europe. Our country’s wealth and prosperity has been built through the persistent and usually violent removal of First Nations from their traditional lands in order to make room for resource development—and, as we saw Thursday, that’s as true today as it was centuries ago.And:The Mi’kmaq people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, including the Elsipogtog First Nation, have never signed a treaty relinquishing authority to the land on which the Route 134 blockade stands today, or that on which SWN Resources is conducting exploratory testing. They signed a Peace and Friendship Treaty in 1761, which was re-affirmed in 1982 with Canada’s Constitution Act and then again in a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision, but that agreement included no mention of the surrender of any lands. Although the federal and New Brunswick governments are currently engaged in exploratory discussions to address issues of land ownership, rights, and sovereignty, there has been no agreement yet.

Given this reality, SWN Resources’ exploration permits aren’t legitimate. Nor was the court injunction criminalizing the blockade, and the police action was ridiculously illegitimate, not to mention unjust, unreasonable in its heavy-handedness, and terribly bad public relations for the RCMP.

In the above-mentioned Supreme Court case, the federal government was encouraged to negotiate with all First Nations in Canada in order to resolve the many outstanding issues and fulfill its treaty obligations. The negotiation process takes a lot of time, but that’s the point. It’s designed to be a meaningful engagement to avoid violent confrontation and find a mutually acceptable solution to these complex issues. If we hope to avoid more destructive events like that which took place on Thursday in New Brunswick, negotiation is the only way forward.Activist Communique: Mi'kmaq and Elsipogtog First Nations resistance like a bright sunriseOpponents of fracking contend that it takes an estimated 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job and 40,000 gallons of chemicals. That is a lot of pollution.

So essentially, if you drink water, then fracking is an issue you should be concerned with.

Digging deeper into the relationship between First Nations communities and the government--which should be a nation-to-nation relationship--Indigenous rights activists contend that the territory in question was never ceded to Canada.

It also should be noted that, “ever since 2010, when New Brunswick handed out 1.4 million hectares of land--one-seventh of the province--to shale gas exploration, opposition had been mounting.”Media bias

Next, some points on the framing done by the mainstream media, which generally protects corporate interests and the status quo:

After Police Assault on Unarmed Crowd 34 Tribal Chiefs Meet in New BrunswickThe blockades are an attempt to express frustration with the energy conglomerates attempt to control all land and resources. This is already clearly understood both in Canada and here in the US. What is even more discouraging is the apparent control through large sums of money by these oil corporations of not only political parties but the media. If it were not for courageous journalists and social media, most of us would be unaware of the insidious machinations destroying our legal rights in so many areas.Elsipogtog EverywhereCanadians will hear recycled propaganda as the mainstream media blindly goes about repeating the press releases sent to them by the RCMP designed to portray Mi’kmaw protestors as violent and unruly, in order to justify their own colonial violence. The only images most Canadians will see is of the three hunting rifles, a basket full of bullets and the burning police cars, and most will be happy to draw their own conclusions based on the news–that the Mi’kmaq are angry and violent, that they have no land rights, and that they deserved to be beaten, arrested, criminalized, jailed, shamed and erased.Elsipogtog: "Clashes" 400 Years in the Making

Corporate media coverage creates ignorance, which enables violence"NB protest turns violent," a CBC headline solemnly proclaims. 1,280 news stories about anti-fracking protests in Rexton, New Brunwick, indexed by Google use the word "clashes." Most stories are decorated with photos of burning police cars.

All this points to one thing: the way that Canada's corporate media discusses Indigenous protests is fundamentally broken.Elsipogtog solidarity is spreading across CanadaIt’s a growing grassroots response similar to that of the IdleNoMore movement. Groups across the country are mobilizing Thursday after violence broke out on the anti-fracking protest line in rural New Brunswick.Serving a Corporate Agenda: Canada’s RCMP Brutalize Indigenous People for Opposing Fracking on Their Land[W]hile the mainstream media will go far to paint this as a “Native” issue, it is vital to remember that the blockade, until yesterday, had been supported by various allies from across the province. It is also key to note that an original 28 groups, representing New Brunswickers from all walks of life, had demanded an end to all shale gas exploration or development.

Reilly misquoted Blackfeet father-in-law

Remember Rick Reilly's column defending the Redskins? I summarized it and the responses it received in Reilly: "White America" Hates "Redskins."

Turns out he lied misspoke about what his father-in-law Bob Burns, a Blackfeet Indian, said. Burns wrote an op-ed to correct the record:

Blackfeet Elder Says Rick Reilly Misquoted Him; Wants ‘Redskins’ Banned

By Bob BurnsYou can imagine my dismay when I saw my name and words used to defend the racist Washington Redskins name. My son-in-law, ESPN’s Rick Reilly, completely misunderstood the conversation we had, quoting me as saying “the whole issue is so silly. The name just doesn't bother me much. It's an issue that shouldn't be an issue, not with all the problems we've got in this country."

But that’s not what I said.

What I actually said is that “it’s silly in this day and age that this should even be a battle--if the name offends someone, change it.” He failed to include my comments that the term “redskins” demeans Indians, and historically is insulting and offensive, and that I firmly believe the Washington Redskins should change their name.

When Rick’s article came out, it upset me to be portrayed as an “Uncle Tom” in support of this racial slur. I asked him to correct the record. He has not, so I must do it myself.Will Rick Reilly Be Fired By ESPN For Misquoting Father-In-Law In “Redskins” Column?

By Ty DuffyEither Reilly horribly misremembered a conversation, and never bothered to double check it (and wasn’t fact-checked). Or, he misquoted and exploited his father-in-law to support a lame column premise and then refused to retract it when asked. We could break down on the journalism ethics, but the human ethics may be the graver issue.If Reilly's father-in-law is Blackfeet, doesn't that mean his wife is also? I'm wondering what she thinks about all this.

Anyway, here's another problem related to Reilly's column:

Reporter Defends ‘Redskins’; Doesn’t Mention Dad Is Team’s Crisis Manager

By Rob CapricciosoWhen it comes to the ongoing “Redskins” name-change controversy, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree for one well-connected family.

Seth Davis, a basketball reporter for CBS Sports and a Sports Illustrated writer, posted a flurry of tweets in recent days supporting a column by ESPN’s Rick Reilly in which Reilly made several arguments supporting his belief that the name honors American Indians. Reilly, despite much readily available contrary evidence, wrote that he believes the main people who are outraged by the name are white sports reporters and columnists. To back up that claim, he reported that his father-in-law, a Blackfeet Nation citizen, doesn’t mind the name, but his father-in-law, Bob Burns, has since told Indian Country Today Media Network that Reilly misrepresented his views, and he does indeed feel ‘Redskins' is offensive and should not be used.

Despite the holes in Reilly’s thesis, Davis wholeheartedly agreed with it, linking to the Reilly column and writing on Twitter September 19, “Unless I missed it I don’t see a groundswell of protest from Native Americans against ‘Redskins.’”

Indeed, Davis “missed it” by ignoring American Indian protests of the names that started as early as the 1950s and continued to this week with a well-attended D.C. symposium sponsored by the Oneida Indian Nation. Oneida Nation Enterprises is the parent company of ICTMN.

Until recently, Davis also missed the opportunity to disclose to his 150,000-plus Twitter followers that his dad, Lanny Davis, has been working for the past few months for Daniel Snyder, owner of the team, as a crisis manager and lawyer as pressure has intensified for Snyder to change the name. On October 9, a few weeks after a Twitter user asked him if he was biased in this situation, Davis linked to a Washington Post article that highlights a recent radio interview with Lanny Davis, in which the lawyer explains his relationship with Snyder. “This is why I am so proud to be the son of @LannyDavis. Agree or not, he speaks respectfully and with civility,” Seth Davis tweeted.Reilly's response

Reilly tweeted his response to the controversy:While I stand by the reporting in my Sept. 18 column about the Washington Redskins nickname controversy, and felt I accurately quoted my father-in-law in the piece, clearly he feels differently. This is an incredibly sensitive issue, and Bob felt he had more to say on the subject after that column was posted on ESPN.com. We've spoken and cleared this up. I admire Bob and respect his opinions, and he's welcome to express them. Bob and I are good and I'm looking forward to my next steak with him.As you can see below, no one thought this was an adequate response:

Rick Reilly's Father-in-Law Says He Was Misquoted...By Rick Reilly

By Matt YoderWell...that changes things, doesn't it? It's one thing to misquote an athlete or a team executive or even someone in the media...but your own family member?!? Yikes. Especially considering how much attention Reilly's column has drawn (positive and negative) this is just about the worst-case scenario for him.

Beyond correcting the record from his son-in-law's quotation, Burns left no room for interpretation of where he truly stands with the Redskins nickname with this piercing, thought-provoking conclusion to his column:“Redskins” is part of that mentality from colonial times when our people were hunted by soldiers and mercenaries who were paid for the scalps of our men, women and children. How can anyone claim this is a proud tradition to come from? The labels, racism and hatred that Indian people continue to experience are directly tied to those racial slurs.

Let me be clear: The racial slur “redskins” is not okay with me. It’s never going to be okay with me. It’s inappropriate, damaging and racist.And:While it's nice that Thanksgiving at the Reillys doesn't look like it's going to turn into a Jerry Springer special, I have a hard time reconciling these two statements. Rick Reilly stands by his reporting and feels that he quoted his father-in-law accurately...but his father-in-law says he misquoted him entirely?!?

The question that hasn't been answered is what kind of response ESPN will have to this embarrassing situation. Given the terse response from PR yesterday, the Bristol suits have to be furious that first Reilly's column and now his inaccuracies have put ESPN in such a negative light. This looks really bad for the columnist, with Burns' column for Indian Country Today very forceful in opposition to the way he was portrayed by his own son-in-law.

ESPN had the opportunity to avoid all of this, but they re-signed Rick Reilly to a new contract earlier this year. They had it coming.Blackfeet Elder Refuses to Be Son-in-Law Rick Reilly’s ‘Uncle Tom’

By Dave ZirinDamn. While this is all certainly coated in schadenfreude, more interesting than whether Reilly is “good” with Bob Burns is why he chose to hear what he heard and write what he wrote.

Ray Halbritter from the Oneida Nation said to me that he wonders the same. “There has been a concerted effort by those who want to keep using this racial slur to pretend that the targets of the slur support their agenda. They enjoy the privilege of not being denigrated with a word that has been used as a epithet against Native people for decades. The most disturbing question about Rick Reilly and [team owner] Dan Snyder is why are they so devoted to continue slandering Native Americans with this racial slur?”

This personal and professional disaster for Reilly is a microcosm about the harmful effects of mascoting. The argument made for decades by Native Americans is that their ubiquitous presence as sports mascots enables the dominant culture to see them only as stereotypes and not as a living, breathing, visible part of this country. Here is Rick Reilly and he is so focused on defending the right of teams to have the freedom to practice minstrelsy that he is not actually hearing the Native American man under his own roof. When that same man asks for a correction, Reilly still will not hear him, and he has to write his own response.

This country has always been more than comfortable with Native Americans as brands on sports teams and military hardware such as Apache helicopters, and Tomahawk cruise missiles. It is not comfortable with actual, real-life Native Americans like Bob Burns. This is the legacy of conquest: you glory in the fighting prowess of the noble savages you vanquished because it indirectly is a way of praising your own sense of muscular manifest destiny.Finally, if it's still not clear who's telling the truth about Reilly's conversation with Burns, here's a note from a Facebook friend:I personally spoke with Bob Burns several times and Rick Reilly is being disingenuous. He breached the ethical boundary imo by cherry-picking and twisting words to suit his agenda. He did not include all the things Bob Burns said about his opposition to the name and that it should be changed. His so-called apology is no better. No respect, Reilly, and we're calling you on it.

"Redskins" on Meet the Press

Oneida Nation’s Ray Halbritter on 'Meet the Press' for Redskins Controversy

By Rob CapricciosoMeet the Press, NBC’s longtime Sunday morning political news show, is the latest large media outlet to cover the controversy over the name of the Washington, D.C. NFL franchise.

This morning, the program featured an interview with Ray Halbritter, Oneida Indian Nation representative and CEO of Nation Enterprises, parent company of Indian Country Today Media Network, shot on the tribe’s homelands in central New York at the Shako:wi Cultural Center.

“Any other group or ethnic group would not tolerate this kind of language being used about them that’s so denigrating and dehumanizing,” Halbritter said on the program.

During a brief round-table after Halbritter’s comments, U.S. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) argued that the name should be changed. Fudge is part of a growing group of U.S. Congress members who are urging team owner Daniel Snyder to change the name.Another political talk show, ABC's This Week, also discussed the controversy:

Stephanopoulos: Bigger problem might be 'Washington,' not 'Redskins'

By Jennifer EpsteinVeteran TV newswoman Cokie Roberts says she has some issues with the Washington Redskins, but the biggest one isn't with the team's name.

"My big objection is they lose," Roberts, a Redskins season ticketholder, said during a discussion of the team's name Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

More seriously, though, she added: "We wouldn't call a team the Yellowskins or the Brownskins. It would be absolutely unacceptable. And if people who are Native American are offended by it, we should pay attention to that.”

The debate over the team's name--controversial because of its reference to Native Americans in a way that seems insensitive to some--heated up this week after President Barack Obama said he'd "think about" changing the NFL team's name if he were its owner, given the widespread objections to it.

Soledad O'Brien, the former TV anchor, said that someone walking into a bar "would find that people have strong opinions about it” and that "the people who are offended are offended." Even if that's not a majority of Americans or Native Americans, "I think that matters," she said.Meanwhile, the NFL repeated what commissioner Roger Goddell said:

NFL reiterates “respect” for opposition to Redskins name

By Mike FlorioIn the wake of President Barack Obama’s suggestion that the name of the Washington NFL team should change and the team’s response via statement from an outside lawyer, the NFL has reiterated the position Commissioner Roger Goodell raised recently.

“We respect that people have differing views,” the league tells PFT via statement in response to Saturday’s events. “It is important that we listen to all perspectives.”A statement usually means an official position approved by the organization in writing. It sounds like the NFL is keeping its options open in case a change becomes unavoidable.

Letter: No "special status" for Natives

Nanaimo newspaper letter draws First Nation's criticismThe Nanaimo Daily News is facing criticism once again this morning for its decision to publish a letter to the editor criticizing First Nations people.

In the letter titled "No groups in Canada should get special status," Nanaimo resident Bill McRitchie writes "I always have difficulty coming to grips with the condemnation of 21st Century Canadians by aboriginals for injustice suffered in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century."

Later he accuses aboriginals of clinging to their tribal system, and refusing to evolve as equal Canadian citizens.

Chief Douglas White of the Snuneymuxw First Nation responded on Twitter by saying,"Hundreds marched at [Vancouver Island University] on Friday and 70K marched in Vancouver yesterday and all @NanaimoDaily prints is another racist letter. Disgusting."Comment:  I'm not sure what Canada's constitution says, but we hear the same arguments in the US. The responses are probably the same too:

1) "Special status" means equal status as governments. It's enshrined in the US constitution, if not the Canadian constitution. If you don't like it, amend the constitution or get the hell out of the country.

2) Natives mostly condemn Canadians and Americans for the injustices they experience today: inadequate funding, hostile court decisions, racism and stereotyping, etc. If the government and society tackled these problems, it would end many Native complaints.

As for past injustices, many are due to broken treaties that are still "the supreme law of the land." Why should Indians accept the loss of their lands, minerals, or trust funds when the US and Canadian governments could reverse their decisions and start honoring the treaties?

3) Why do Americans cling to their Founding Fathers, religions, memorials, holidays, flags, guns, mascots, etc., etc.? Why don't they just get over things like the Civil War, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11?

It's especially funny hearing the people who can't give up their racist words and images talk about Indians clinging to things. What they mean is, "Why don't nonwhites give up everything that makes them different and become white like us?"

I posted a long rebuttal to the "cling" argument in Should Indians Cling to Reservations? Check it out.

Why publish racist letter?

Beyond the specific arguments is the propriety of publishing a letter whose arguments have been discredited for decades. Would the Nanaimo Daily News also publish a letter saying Canada was founded as a white nation, blacks should know their place, or Jews are trying to take over? How is this letter any different?

The only difference is that mainstream society doesn't challenge people's racist beliefs about Indians. It's still acceptable to say Indians are greedy for "special rights," angry over the "distant past," or incapable of being "equal citizens." All these are coded ways of saying Indians are still uncivilized and savage.

For more on newspaper racism, see Racist Nanaimo Letter Sparks Outrage, Letter: Natives Aren't "Modern Citizens," and Racist Comments in Canadian Newspapers.

Below:  "Last May, the mayor of Nanaimo joined about 100 people protesting outside the offices of the Nanaimo Daily News after the paper published a letter to the editor that many found racist."

Peter King website bans "Redskins"

Peter King’s ‘The MMQB’ No Longer to Use ‘Redskins’ Nickname

By Chris LingebachPeter King’s website, the Monday Morning Quarterback, will no longer publish the name “Redskins,” Robert Klemko told Chris Moore of CBS Sports Radio on Thursday.

“I know that our site, we’ve talked about it, and we’re not going to use Redskins in our writing,” Klemko said on CBS Sports Radio’s MoJo with Chris Moore and Brian Jones.

“We’re going to say ‘Washington football team,’” Klemko added. “And it’s not something we’re going to publicize or write about. We’re just not going to do it.”

TheMMQB.com, an offshoot of Sports Illustrated, is a preeminent source for NFL news, and collectively, its feature writers–made up of Robert Klemko, Greg Bedard, Jenny Vrentas and the site’s founder, Peter King–account for more than 1.2 million Twitter followers. So there’s strength in numbers on this one.Sports Illustrated’s ‘MMQB’ site apparently won’t use the Redskins name any more, either

By Jay BusbeeSlate made news a few weeks ago by noting that it wouldn't refer to the Redskins by name. But that's a different media outlet, one with little reason to cover an NFL team. MMQB isn't in the belly of the beast, it IS the beast, part of the media machine that keeps the NFL atop the sports news cycle every minute of every hour of every day. If a site with the imprimatur of King, one of the most established voices in the NFL, can make this change, it sends a definitive signal to the team, the league and to fans: it's time to take a hard look at this name.

Regardless of what team owner Daniel Snyder and a vocal group of pro-Redskins-name fans hope, wish or believe, the name issue's coming to a head. Somebody sometime soon is going to ask Robert Griffin III, point-blank, if he supports the use of the name "Redskins." And the way he answers will determine the shape of this story for the immediate future. If he thinks the name should go, it'll eventually go. And if he thinks it should stay? Then Snyder has all the court-of-public-opinion weight he needs to fend off any critics.

This story's not going anywhere, folks, like it or not.Approaching a tipping point

A Facebook friend and I briefly discussed this development:Don't know if you had seen this, but a pretty significant development in the 'Redskins' controversy. Peter King is about as influential as they come. If SI itself picks this up, I think you'll be able to say the tide has officially turned.Yeah, I saw it a couple of hours ago. But I didn't realized exactly who King was, so I didn't grasp its significance.

I wonder how Dan Snyder thinks this will end. After decades of protests, is he going to repeat the "honor" and "tradition" argument one more time? After a thousand times of dismissing this argument, will every activist, pundit, and publication suddenly reverse themselves?

"Oh, honor and tradition? Now we get it. We're sorry we criticized you so many times over the last few decades. Now that we understand your position, we'll accept the name without any further fuss."

I don't see any scenario in which all the "Redskins" opponents reverse themselves. There's no reason for them to do so--no argument that could change their minds.

This protest can go only in one direction. Namely, increasing pressure on Snyder until he caves in.

What's the over/under on how long he'll hold out? A year? If a publication such as the New York Times or Sports Illustrated changes its position, I'd say he's toast.In the world of sports journalism Peter King could probably be compared to Woodward and Bernstein. A smart move would probably be a barrage of supportive e-mails to Sports Illustrated on this. If they adopt this practice it would be the first domino and many other sports print media outlets are sure to follow. At that point the league would have almost no choice but to address it. This is one instance where honey almost certain to work better than vinegar."Chinks" = "Redskins"

A columnist provides some context:

The ugly truth about our love of ‘Redskins’

By Jonathan ZimmermanIn the 1930s, the good people of Pekin, Ill., decided they needed a mascot for their high school sports teams. Pekin was named for Peking (now Beijing), China, so they gave their teams a related nickname: the Chinks . At the start of every basketball game, a Chink and Chinklette—that is, a boy and girl dressed in Chinese attire—would walk into the center of the court and bow.

As the start of the NFL season draws near, I’ve got a question for you: How is the Chink any worse than the Redskin, the feather-clad mascot of Washington’s pro football franchise?

It isn’t. The only difference is that the Redskin purports to be American Indian, not Chinese. And unlike any other ethnic group, Native Americans remain fair game for bigotry on game day.And:Most Indian mascots date to the early 20th century, when white Americans worried that modern industrial life was eroding traditional masculine virtues: strength, stoicism and aggression. So college and professional sports teams named themselves after Native Americans, who seemed to embody precisely the qualities that white men had forsaken.

At the same time, though, the mascots also confirmed whites’ sense of superiority. With their headdresses and beads, their tomahawks and war whoops, the Indian mascots seemed like throwbacks.

Consider Chief Illiniwek, the University of Illinois mascot who made his first appearance at a 1926 football game with the University of Pennsylvania. A white guy in feathers, Chief Illiniwek performed an “Indian” dance and then shared a peace pipe with a drum major playing William Penn, the opponents’ mascot.

But Illiniwek was a warrior at heart. The second man to play him traveled to the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, where he bought new regalia for the chief from “an old Indian woman” who had allegedly helped mutilate George Custer after the battle of Little Bighorn.

“It was . . . appropriate that Chief Illiniwek, the embodiment of the Red Men who had vanished before the overwhelming waves of White Men, should return to the land of their fathers,” a University of Illinois booster wrote in 1952. “It was proper and pleasing that the Chief should strut his stuff and perform his ancient ritualistic dances . . . before the packed Stadium of contemporary Palefaces.”

There was only one problem: Chief Illiniwek never existed. Nor did Florida State’s Chief Fullabull or Marquette’s Willie Wampum. They were figments of the white imagination, bearing no connection or resemblance to actual Indians.The same applies to the Redskins' name and logo. These things are about confirming whites’ sense of superiority by making Indians seem like throwbacks. They are not about honoring real Indians.

For more on the Washington Redskins, see Slate and Mother Jones Ban Redskins and Samoan Delegate Denounces "Redskins."

Below:  Peter King.

Slate and Mother Jones ban "Redskins"

This article sums up the latest Redskins developments over the last day or two:

Slate.com, others to ban 'Redskins' name from their pages

By Lacey JohnsonThe online magazine Slate.com and two other publications have said they will no longer refer to the National Football League's Washington, D.C., football team as the "Redskins," a name Native Americans have condemned as offensive.

The Washington franchise has long declined to change its name in spite of criticism from Native Americans and others. A group of Native Americans has gone to court to void the federal trademark protections of the team's name.

"This is the last Slate article that will refer to the Washington NFL team as the Redskins," Slate editor David Plotz wrote on the magazine's website on Thursday.

He said the decision was about recognizing that "something that may seem innocent to you may be painful to others."

In response to Slate's announcement, New Republic editor Franklin Foer Tweeted on Thursday that his publication would follow suit.

The liberal magazine Mother Jones said on Friday it would also avoid using the name.

Other newspapers, websites and sports writers have taken similar stands, including The Washington City Paper, Washington online site DCist.com, the Kansas City Star newspaper and football writers at the Buffalo News and the Philadelphia Daily News.Comment:  For more on the Washington Redskins, see Samoan Delegate Denounces "Redskins" and Redskins Can Afford Name Change.

Indian Country Today goes digital

National Native American magazine going digital

By The Associated PressA weekly magazine that is a leading source of Native American news is abandoning print in favor of an online-only presence, in a cost-cutting move that worries some readers who fear they may lose access because of the switch.

This Week From Indian Country Today, a New York City-based publication owned by the Oneida Nation, will become an online newsletter starting with its July 17 issue.

“In the age we live in, technology is really advanced to a point that we’re trying to make sure we’re serving what our audience really needs,” said Indian Country Today publisher Ray Halbritter. Converting to an online newsletter that is emailed to subscribers will eliminate some of the lag time between when news happens and when it appears in writing, he said.

The magazine, which was started in 1981, provides a mixture of straight news stories and commentary by tribal members, and it is often a way for politicians to get their messages out to Native American communities. President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner have all done interviews or written opinion pieces.And:Sheena Louise Roetman, a 28-year-old Atlanta resident who is Creek and Lakota, describes Indian Country Today as a trustworthy source that she considers to be the “Native version of the New York Times.” She said she worries that by eliminating print copies of Indian Country Today, some tribal members—especially older ones—will have less access to the information.

Others think the digital-only strategy makes sense for tribal nations working to improve access to the Internet.

The Seneca Nation in New York, for example, has two reservations with basic dial-up Internet, but the tribal government is working to upgrade to broadband, said Samantha Nephew, a 23-year-old marketing specialist for a Seneca Nation-owned corporation. She said she’s a regular reader of the magazine.

“I think when that happens, the Seneca Nation members will have more incentive to check out (Indian Country Today) digitally,” she said.

Rhonda LeValdo, the president of the Native American Journalist Association, said Indian Country Today’s switch to digital-only could be seen as a positive step for Native communities because it may free up resources for more reporting and accelerate the push for greater access to broadband. And, she added, traditional tribal newspapers may see people who prefer print turning to them for their news.Comment:  Is delivering the news faster really the main issue? The Oneida Nation could publish the print magazine and an electronic newsletter if it wanted to.

For some reason, this article failed to mention the main reason most publications are going online: to reduce costs so the owners make more money. That point should be addressed in any article about a publication's canceling its print component.

LeValdo talks about freeing up resources, but it remains to be seen whether this will happen. With less advertising and subscriber revenue, I'd guess that ICTMN will do (even) less original reporting, not more.

For more on Native journalism, see Lone Ranger vs. Real News and Native Media Limited at Lone Ranger Premiere.

Below:  "Indian Country Today publisher Ray Halbritter poses with the last print edition of the magazine and its new online newsletter at his office July 11 in Verona, N.Y." (AP Photo)

Lone Ranger vs. real news

People have been talking a lot about Indians in the last week or so. Johnny Depp is defending his Flying Nun-style take on Tonto. The Washington Redskins are facing increasing pressure to change their ethnic slur of a nickname. Nik Wallenda crossed the Grand Canyon--or a gorge near the Grand Canyon, in Navajo territory. And the Cherokee baby Veronica is finally going home--or from one home to another.

Depp supposedly admires and respects Indians, but he hasn't alerted the media hordes following him to any of the real issues facing Indian country. Neither has anyone else who supposedly cares about Indians. With all the attention-grabbing spectacles, Americans are missing the real work happening in Washington DC to improve our tribal nations' well-being.

Not coincidentally, here's an article on that very subject:

The Everlasting Fantasy of Native Americans

By Lise Balk KingWhile everyone is focused on Johnny Depp's Tonto, debating the merits of donning "red face" in order to "... give some hope to kids on the reservations," the President of the United States has quietly continued his reparative work on the broken U.S. Federal Indian Policy to nary an audience.

The timing couldn't be more ironic, or telling, about how we choose as a nation to frame Native America. It is so much easier to add our $12 to the coffers of Disney and Depp in order to enter the debate about our fantastical American history.

What we really could, and should, be doing is paying attention to the real life and work being done to address our own historic holocaust. "This land is our land, this land is your land"? This land was their land, and how we choose to continue this sentimentalist view, and therefore keep our moral distance from responsibility, is right out of a Hollywood escapist fantasy.

Enter Depp to play Tonto, a "Native American" (quotes in deference to Native filmmaker Chris Eyre's observation on HuffPostLive, "I don't see anything Indian about him... what is it, the buckskin pants?") dreamed up by a white guy, and voila, everybody is talking about "Indians."

To wit, last week Obama signed an Executive Order establishing The White House Council on Native American Affairs. The establishment of this Council is to institutionalize the work done thus far by Obama and his top aides, including Jodi Gillette (Standing Rock Sioux), Special Advisor to the President on Native American Affairs and Charlie Galbraith (Navajo), deputy associate director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs in the White House Office of Public Engagement.The Last Real Indians group made a similar point on Facebook:Johnny Depp, we know you ain't Indian...we don't need you to be, we respect you as a human being. But if you want to do something that makes you adoptable by us, help us raise awareness of the 50-80% existing unemployment, the 48-52 yoa life expectancy, the $6,286 per capita income on some reservations and on and on...more importantly help us solve these problems. We can name scores of reservations straddled by federal bureaucracies who could use a partner that has generated $8 Billion (you are one of the most amazing-versatile actors EVER! Btw) Help us get back stolen sacred lands that American elites have enriched themselves from....There is a hell of a lot more you can do to do right by us than dress up like an Indian named Tonto...that identity was stolen by you, from a guy who stole that identity from us. Johnny Depp, you've been adopted by an indigenous nation but you've yet to earn your name...we support you in that journey.Comment:  Lise King is a friend who asked me about her article. I said it was fine but I'd would've opened with something like the two paragraphs at the beginning.

In other words, don't just say people are talking about Indians but not the right ones. Note the responsibility of those who supposedly care, like Depp, to point attention in the right direction.

For more on how Depp has or hasn't helped Indians, see Lone Ranger Benefit for College Fund and Why Doesn't Depp Buy Wounded Knee?

Below:  Johnny Depp shows he cares by making a welcoming video for the Gathering of Nations. Which cost nothing and took little effort.

Native media limited at Lone Ranger premiere

Disney courts Indian Country, ignores Native media

NAJA supports inclusion of diverse media in coverage of "The Lone Ranger"The Native American Journalists Association was informed that press junkets associated with the premiere of the movie "The Lone Ranger" have been well attended by journalists but not by Native journalists.

While Disney has attempted to reach out to Native American audiences with the film, they have curiously forgotten to invite media from Indian Country to cover it.

National Native News, a national Native American radio program based in Albuquerque, N.M., made several requests for access to a press event in Santa Fe, N.M., June 19, however, these were not granted. Disney did issue a response to NNN at the conclusion of the event.

A large portion of the film was shot on the Navajo Nation. While some Native media groups were contacted about attending the film's premiere in Oklahoma, the New Mexico premiere has Native media groups that should have also been included in press events. New Mexico is home to 22 tribes, nations and Pueblos, as well as many NAJA members and Native reporters.Native media deserves more than sidekick role

By Sarah GustavusIt has been widely reported that Johnny Depp, in his role as Tonto in the new film “The Lone Ranger,” wants to challenge stereotypes about Native Americans, but Native media was limited to the role of sidekick to other media outlets this week.

The staff of Native America Calling and National Native News, produced by Koahnic Broadcast Corporation (a New Mexico In Depth partner), have reported on the progression of the film in recent years. In the past month, our staff went through the proper channels to request interviews with the cast and crew for our coverage of the official release of “The Lone Ranger.” Our repeated requests were either passed on to other Disney contacts or received no response.

It was a complete surprise to learn on Monday that a major press junket was taking place only an hour from our studios, in Santa Fe. We were not invited, but immediately requested press credentials. Our staff received a response from Disney after the press conference saying we could not be accommodated for the event because it was over.

Our staff also requested access to the film’s premiere in Los Angeles. An exclusive event tied to the premiere will raise funds for the American Indian College Fund, but our requests for media access were not immediately granted.Comment:  Simon Moya-Smith, a columnist for Indian Country Today, was at the premiere. As far as I know, he was the only Native journalist there.

This is for a movie starring a Native character, remember. Do you think Disney would limit the black media at a movie about a black scientist, sports hero, or slave? I doubt it.

For more on Johnny Depp, see Depp Keeps His Ancestry Ambiguous and Skyhawk: Depp Is A Charlatan.

NAJA says no to Holder

Groups of Journalists Shun Holder

The NABJ, NAJA and AAJA have declined to meet with the attorney general.

By Richard PrinceCiting the stipulation that the meeting would be off the record, the National Association of Black Journalists, the Asian American Journalists Association and the news service representing black newspapers said Sunday that they would not attend Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s Monday meeting with journalists of color to refine guidelines on dealing with journalists during leak investigations.

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the Unity: Journalists of Diversity, Inc., umbrella group have said they would attend.

The Native American Journalists Association, also citing the off-the-record stipulation, has said it would not.

However, NAJA and AAJA would still be represented, since they are members of Unity: Journalists for Diversity, along with the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association and NAHJ.Comment:  For more on Indians and journalism, see Natives Protest Rapid City Journal and Natives "Filed Away" by Stereotypes.