Man's "fox hat" religion challenged

Man says DMV denied his license renewal because he wore 'silly fox hat'A man in Oregon says the DMV denied his license renewal because they thought he was wearing a silly hat in his photo. However the man says that was a violation of his religious freedom--and a judge agreed.

The man, who goes by the name 'Bishop' is a practitioner of a Native American religion, in which each person has a wild animal totem. His is a fox--hence, the hat he wears wherever he goes.Comment:  I'm guessing this man's "religion" is probably a joke. Getting a "spirit animal" or "animal totem," usually in a "vision quest," may be the biggest stereotype of Native religion.

Yes, some Native religions have a practice vaguely like this, but as far as I know, it doesn't require wearing anything. It's even less likely that a Native religion would require wearing a children's plaything, or whatever "Bishop" has on.

Offhand, I'd guess that this guy doesn't wear his fox hat everywhere. That he isn't a member of a tribe and can't name the tribe whose religion he supposedly practices. That he got the idea from Johnny Depp's crowhead, or something equally silly, and copied it. In short, that his beliefs are insincere.

For more on the subject, see Rowling's Magic in North America.

Demon spirits in Totem Topple

A description of the new Totem Topple game for Nintendo:Build your totem pole up into the sky and stars beyond in Totem Topple, a fresh twist on the tower defence genre!

Wolves, bears, deer and more--stack different totem heads on your tower, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Add protective wings and arrow-firing bird beaks to fend off the demon spirits trying to knock your totem pole down!And a review:

Totem Topple Review

By Alex SeedhouseThe publisher over promises in saying that Totem Topple presents “a fresh twist on the tower defence genre,” falling way short of achieving such admirable ambition. Players are tasked with defending a totem pole from demon spirits hell bent on knocking it down, which is certainly a concept that most won’t have come across before. But the underlying game mechanics lack refinement, resulting in an experience that overwhelms in the challenge hidden by its otherwise simplistic facade.

The structure is easy enough to understand, with players left to steadily construct their totem pole by selecting from beak, wing and head components. These fire arrows, grant protection and increase your totem’s height respectively, and managing your resources to create them becomes a focal challenge. Supplies are earned through defeating demon spirits, and the cycle completes in which you either strengthen your defences or rapidly move to replace anything that has been destroyed.

Comment:  The reviewer doesn't mention any problems with basing a game on a totem pole, but I will.

1) The game treats the totem pole as a decorative object, an accessory, not as important part of Native culture and religion. I don't know if Natives would consider poles sacred or not, but they may be akin to Christian icons or paintings. You generally wouldn't turn those into angry games.

2) The nasty faces, sharp beaks, and black color of the totem pole suggest that Native culture is dark and violent. Actually, the totems on a pole represent clan stories and origins. They aren't meant to scare people.

3) I guess the "demon spirits" are the little round objects with eight spikes. Those actually look like sun symbols. In any case, they reinforce the idea that Native religion is demonic and evil, with deadly forces lurking in every shadow. Actually, Native religions are no worse than Christianity, with Satan influencing every decision. They're probably a lot better, on average.

For more on totem poles, see Miss Canada in a Totem-Pole Loincloth and Cultural Appropriation of Totem Poles.

Below:  I'm not sure what this human pterodactyl has to do with Totem Topple. Is it supposed to be a thunderbird? Whatever it is, it's scary!

Face of Death in Cisco Kid

I recently caught an episode of The Cisco Kid, an old TV Western that aired before my time. If you're not familiar with the Kid, here's the story:

The Cisco KidThe Cisco Kid is a fictional character found in numerous film, radio, television and comic book series based on the fictional Western character created by O. Henry in his 1907 short story "The Caballero's Way," published in the collection Heart of the West, as well as in Everybody's Magazine, v17, July 1907. In movies and television, the Kid was depicted as a heroic Mexican caballero, even though he was originally a cruel outlaw.Face of Death--Season 3, Episode 6--aired Oct. 19, 1952. You can watch it here.

The basic plot:Cisco and Pancho try to avenge the murder of an archaeologist who was murdered when on the verge of discovering the tomb of an important Aztec.Details

** spoiler alert **



In a prologue cut from the version I saw, an Aztec priest named Quetzal leaves a treasure under the watchful gaze of a god-like "Face of Death."

In the present, a professor type helps a couple of desperadoes locate the treasure somewhere near the Mexican border. They're watched by Tecia, an Indian boy in an Apache-style shirt and headband. After killing the professor, the crooks enter a cave and encounter the Face of Death, which naturally frightens them to death.



Cisco and Pancho encounter the last dying crook and learn the story. Back in town, they tell what they know to the professor's daughter. She's kidnapped by more desperadoes who want the treasure, but Cisco and Pancho rescue her. They all converge in the cave, where they find the treasure and the Face.

A crook shoots at the Face before Cisco corrals him. Turns out Tecia was using the Face to imitate the Aztec god while guarding the treasure with blow darts. He sadly dies and Cisco decides to seal the cave with explosives.



The Native aspects

With his weird beard, Quetzal looks like something out of the Bible. I'm not sure Aztec priests ever wore a vulture headdress like his--but I'm not sure they didn't. At least Quetzal isn't a Plains chief or a generic Indian.

The northern Mexican location isn't a bad place for the Aztec to hide their last treasure. It was within their sphere of influence but away from the Spanish invaders. It's a plausible premise on which to base a story.

Although Tecia appears only briefly, he's a noble character. There's nothing especially savage about him. He dies honorably to protect his people's heritage.

The "Face of Death" is by far the silliest aspect of this episode. It looks more like an African idol than anything Aztec. It conveys the stereotypical idea that Native religion is ungodly and evil by definition.

All in all, Face of Death was a decent effort for television in 1952. We've seen things in the last decade or two that were much more stereotypical.

How accurate is Longmire?

How accurate is the portrayal of Native Americans in the series of books by Craig Johnson featuring the character Walt Longmire, and the television show Longmire?

By Robert P. CollinsMy impression is that the series has gotten better over time, as some of the Indian characters have become more central to the plot. At first, the character of Henry Standing Bear, Sheriff Longmire's Cheyenne friend, was too much like a sidekick: an updated Tonto to Walt Longmire's Lone Ranger. Some of what we learned about Henry during Season 1 seemed to draw on stereotypes. For example, I laughed out loud at the revelation that Henry was a natural born tracker. The idea of Indians as having a mystic ability to follow tracks is an old, dumb stereotype that rests on a notion that Indians are less fully human than whites, closer to wild animals, with heightened senses. It’s not as if Henry were the greatest outdoorsman around. He earns his living by running a bar.

I also felt that the first season was too formulaic in making Henry the "friendly" Indian who helped the white lawman, while Matthias, the reservation police chief, was "hostile," always erecting obstacles to the white hero's progress. But this too has gotten better over time.But:White people who hear of the sun dance are liable to be impressed (as I was at first) with the apparent macho exhibitionism of this ritual. That's certainly how Longmire played it: After Walt finds that his only child, Cady, is in the hospital in critical condition, he feels personally responsible and resolves to do something. White people (like me) are known for being spiritually indifferent until disaster strikes; then we try to make a deal with God. Walt decides to make a deal with the Great Spirit. He'll do a sun dance in exchange for his daughter's life, and he'll do it right now, because he needs results. And he'll do it solo, because he's a cowboy and that's the way he rolls.

But white people are wrong about the sun dance. It is not a macho exhibition, and it can't be done solo. A sun dancer needs to prepare himself, and he needs the support of many others or it is believed the ritual won't work. So a sun dancer can't just cowboy-waltz up to a pole and lash himself to it. He has to fast for days, pray with a pipe, and have others pray with him.

So it was hard to believe that Walt's Cheyenne best friend would encourage him not only to perform a sun dance, but to do it now and to do it solo. Sure, I know that Walt is supposed to be the ultimate rugged individualist. But this is ridiculous.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Review of The Cold Dish.

Designer uses sacred Navajo symbols

Navajos calling for apology from London designer who used sacred symbol in Fashion Week showcase

By Stephanie ClaytorIndigenous designs being showcased at New York Fashion Week has many in the Navajo Nation upset. They're calling for the designer, Marjan Pejoski, to apologize.

Pejoski's show included a dress with a Yei Bi Chei. Navajos consider the Yei Bi Chei sacred and holy, and not to be used as a fashion statement.

"I was appalled," said Jana Pfeiffer, a Navajo woman. "I was shocked to see something that I hold so sacred in our culture, to see it on the fashion runway."And:"It's an atrocity to see this designer misappropriate our cultural imagery of such an important holy being," said Morgan.

Both ladies said even they do not have the right to draw a Yei Bi Chei. Pfeiffer said Navajos have to be ordained before they can depict them on sand paintings or rugs.

That's why both of these women want the designer--Marjan Pejoski--to apologize for stealing a sacred piece of their culture.Comment:  For more fashion faux pas, see KTZ Copies Sacred Inuit Robe and Jennifer Lopez Wears "Tribal" Outfit.

Mishipeshu in Grimm

** Spoiler alert ** for this Native-themed episode of Grimm.

'Grimm' fan recap: The legend of the Mishipeshu

By TeamTSDSeason 4 | Episode 18 | “Mishipeshu” | Aired Apr 17, 2015

NBC’s Grimm borrowed from real Native American mythology this week and tackled the legend of a well-known water being, the Mishipeshu.

Wesen of the week.

The Mishipeshu is a real legend among Great Lakes and Northeastern Woodlands Native American tribes, notably linked to the Ojibwa. It’s also referred to as an “Underwater Panther,” and Mishipeshu directly translates to “The Great Lynx.” In Native American mythology, the Mishipeshu is a serpent-feline mix with cat-like paws, scales all over its body, horns, and spikes on its tail. Descriptions of its size and appearance vary, and some even say the tail or horns are made of copper.

Our Grimm case of the week begins when a school janitor is found mauled to death. When Nick, Hank, and Wu question the principal, they find out that the janitor was most likely to blame for scrawling racial slurs on a former Native American student’s locker. The student was Simon George, who we learn watched his father be beaten to death when he was five years old. Hank and Janelle head to the reservation to find Simon, but are informed by a man named Hector that he’s currently on a power quest. What does this mean exactly? It means Simon was dropped off alone on a mountain to find his guardian spirit (an animal) and he’ll stay there for days probably starving, scared, and lost. No, this spirit quest is not the same as your two-day Daredevil marathon accompanied by agonizing internal conflicts over what to feed yourself (not that we’d know what that’s like.)

When another person is murdered at a car-repair shop, and another man is nearly killed in his home before Nick & Co. save him, the gang realize these three men all knew each other well. They also realize that Simon is being possessed by the Mishipeshu and is looking for revenge.

Vision Quest.

At the reservation, Hank, Janelle, and Nick are told by Hector that in order to find Simon, they need to enter the “dream world” and view Simon’s past. Hank drinks a mystery liquid (kids, don’t try this at home) and starts sweating and having visions.

In the vision, he is Simon, and he watches his father get beaten to death. Surprise! The men who killed Simon’s father are the three victims that the Mishipeshu mauled (although one is still alive). Meanwhile, Janelle gets too high and is kicked out of the wigwam. Bye, Janelle!

Hank, still linked to Simon, starts running through the woods toward the father’s burial spot. Unfortunately for Hank, he runs across Simon and the Mishipeshu decides to possess Hank instead. Body swap! The Mishipeshu wants to finish what he started and kill the third man. Nick, Simon, Hector, and Janelle reach Hank in time to keep him from killing the guy and expel the Mishipeshu from him. Everyone knows that this douchebag killed Simon’s father, but without evidence, they can’t arrest him. It’s totally fine though, because later that night, Janelle (voluntarily?) gets possessed by the Mishipeshu and kills the last murderer herself. Case closed.

Rob's review

Mishipeshu is another mixed episode of a network TV show. These days you can almost bet on "mixed," "average," or "mediocre" being the verdict. TV shows are rarely exceptionally good or bad where Natives are concerned. Mediocrity rules.

Let's review:

The tribe is unnamed but in the Portland, Oregon, area. It has hints of a Pacific Northwest culture. Oregon may be too far south for such a culture, but at least it's in the right vicinity. The episode gives us a culture that's regionally correct, at least.

The actors, Gregory Cruz and BooBoo Stewart, have some Native blood. They look like reasonable choices for their roles.

The Mishipeshu or underwater panther is a creature from Ojibwe mythology. A book shows us the legend's source.

But the episode has to stretch for an explanation of why the Mishipeshu is in the Northwest: because it came with Simon's Ojibwe mother. It left its underwater home and traveled across half a continent...well, because.

In fact, a quick search doesn't show anything about underwater panthers leaving the water, traveling long distances, or possessing humans. Other than getting its origin right, Grimm turns the Mishipeshu into a typical death-dealing demon.

Simon goes on a "power quest" to find his "spirit guardian." In other words, a vision quest to find his spirit animal.

Alas, I don't think Pacific Northwest tribes practice vision quests. The made-up terms don't justify the pan-Indian stereotyping.

Similarly, I don't think Pacific Northwest tribes practice sweat lodges. Which is what the "dreamworld" ceremony is--a modified sweat-lodge ceremony.

It comes across as pure rubbish. For starters, a tribal practitioner in Oregon wouldn't know anything about contacting a Great Lakes spirit. It would be like a Celt contacting a Greek god or a Greek contacting a Celtic god...ridiculous.

And no way would Hector enlist two non-Natives to enter the dreamworld and seek the Mishipeshu. Like brain surgery or an exorcism, this isn't something done by amateurs. A medicine man or "shaman" would do it only by himself, after years of training.

So the look and feel of the tribe is decent. The use of real Native mythology--and not the overused wendigo--is decent. But the Mishipeshu's spree of possessing and killing people, and the phony ceremony to stop it, are stereotypical. The special effects are nice, but they're not enough to save the story.

White Man's Magic in Lone Ranger

I recently started watching a TV channel with old shows, so I'm catching up on some episodes featuring Indians. Here's one from The Lone Ranger (airdate: July 13, 1950):

White Man's MagicTonto finds the body of an Indian belonging to a local tribe. The Ranger and Tonto decide foul play is involved and follow a set tracks leading back to the reservation. Independently we discover the local Indian police Sergeant Pala working with the owner of the Empire Land Company to convince the Indians to rebel and lose their land. Tonto and the Ranger discover a weapons cache left by Pala, and disable the weapons. The Chief of the tribe White Eagle is poisoned causing the expected uprising. Pala realizes Tonto knows too much and tries to kill him. The Ranger intervenes, apprehending Pala. The pair then race to where the Indians are massing for their attack. When the Indians try to attack their guns miss fire. Believing it is the spirit of White stopping the guns, the Indians decide to give upThe setup

First, let's note the episode's setup.

Chief White Eagle is a good Indian who will stay on the reservation to keep the peace. Medicine man Red Moon is a bad Indian who wants to leave the reservation and cause trouble. What kind of trouble? Killing, raping, plundering...whatever a savage does.

This is a common setup. It's similar to the setup in many Western movies of that era. Indeed, it may be the most common setup involving Indians. Good Indians stay on the rez; bad Indians try to leave.

Left unstated are the conditions that created this setup. The white man waged war on the Indians...killed or starved them into submission...locked them into an area with the promise of food and supplies...then left them to suffer and die. It was manifestly corrupt and immoral, but movies and TV shows don't mention that.

This setup is like saying, "Good prisoners stay in jail; bad prisoners try to escape." Well, who are these prisoners? Who put them there, and why? Those questions rarely get asked or answered.

White Eagle has a stereotypical warbonnet. His people live in stereotypical tipis. Red Moon has the stereotypical buffalo headpiece of medicine men. Everything about them fits a predictable pattern. White = good, red = bad. Chief = good, medicine man = bad.



Sergeant Pala is of course a half-breed, the worst kind of Indian. He wants to be a white man, but his reddish skin makes him a lowlife thug and miscreant. No matter how hard he tries, he can't wash away the taint of savagery in his blood.

As for the premise, I guess Geronimo's band of Apaches rebelled from "captivity" on a reservation. Did any others? If so, I think it was rare.

Sure, white farmers, ranchers, and miners forced Indians off their land--the Trail of Tears being the most famous example. But did white speculators trick Indians into violating their own treaty? And getting themselves expelled? I've never heard of a case.

Anyway, the premise is a little complex for a half-hour TV show, but it's reasonably plausible. It could've happened even if it didn't.

The other element not mentioned in the summary is Antonette "Toni" Carver, a white artist who's traveling alone. She sneaks onto the reservation in defiance of Army regulations to paint White Eagle. Every element of this rings false. I haven't heard of white women traveling alone and seeking Indians during the Indian Wars.

It pretty much goes without saying that Jay Silverheels is the only Native actor in the episode. The others are played by white actors with a history of "redface" (portraying Indians).

Tonto immediately launches into his stereotypical Tonto talk: "Me do this, me do that." How does he speak passable English but not understand "I" vs. "me"? As usual, he exists primarily to set up the Lone Ranger with questions: "What we do now, kemosabe?" Oh, and to get captured, so the Ranger has someone to rescue before the big finish.

The plot

The story starts with Standing Tree finding a cache of guns and Sergeant Pala killing him. He then tells Ira Boles, head of the Empire Land Company, what's happening. Pala is in charge of stirring up the bad Indians--giving the guns to Red Moon and his followers. Boles tells Pala he wants results now, not later.

The Indians love White Eagle too much to follow Red Moon, so Pala plans to poison him. Notably, Pala will blame White Eagle's death on Carver's painting of him. The Indians are a superstitious lot. They'll believe that Carver's painting stole his soul and thus killed him.

Sure enough, White Eagle sips some stew and keels over. Tonto recognizes the food as poisoned, but Pala and Red Moon blames the chief's death on the painting. Tonto tries to run, but Pala's men capture him and take him to town. They leave Carver for Red Moon to sacrifice by burning her at the stake.

This is ridiculous for several reasons. Photography is the medium that's supposed to steal souls, not painting. Judging by all the photos of Indians, I don't think many Indians believed that. Judging by all the paintings--several decades' worth before this time--I don't think any Indians believed painting was some magical rite.

And sacrificing the evil sorceress? By torching her? Holy Joan of Arc, Batman!

No doubt Indians occasionally believed white people performed "black magic." And occasionally sacrificed white people. I don't know for sure, but I'm betting it never happened for painting a portrait.

Finally, the Lone Ranger rescues Tonto and they arrive to stop the sacrifice. The Ranger previous disabled the guns, but now claims he can make them stop working with his great magic. When the guns click, the Indians believe he's a powerful spirit and surrender.

Again, superstitious nonsense. Were the Indians going to use guns without knowing how they worked? How about testing them rather than trusting a shifty white man? How about attacking the Ranger and Tonto with their backup weapons: bows and arrows, knives, or whatever?

At that point, Indians had been using guns for centuries...but they were so childishly ignorant of mechanics that the Ranger could fool them? It does not compute.

All in all, White Man's Magic is a poor representation of Indians. Worse than the usual '50s-era movie or TV show, which sometimes are mediocre or even decent. The only good point is invoking an evil land company rather than an evil rancher or Indian agent. Land theft was a joint operation by government, business, and individuals, not just the work of a few "bad apples."

Watch the whole episode here:

White Man's Magic

For more on the Lone Ranger, see Review of Lone Ranger: Vendetta and Fetching in Enter the Lone Ranger.

Native stereotypes in Journey's End

Some talk about the non-political aspects of the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Journey's End:

The Ars staff picks our least-favorite Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes

Turns out Trek isn't like pizza—when it's bad, it's just really really bad.

By Ars StaffThe plot feels like the result of hours of sleepless brainstorming by a bunch of people on a rapidly approaching deadline—as if, at about 3am the morning the script was due, someone yelled out "GUYS, I've got it: let's do a deep criticism of colonialism and national policy by drawing a parallel between a Federation-Cardassian dispute and government land-grabs of the late 1800s!"

And then, instead of shooting the idea down, someone else yelled "And we should have actual for-real Native Americans in it! We've had Nazi planets and Roman planets—we need a Native American planet!" And then instead of a third person punching the first two people in the face, they banged out the screenplay and turned it in and then all fell asleep at their desks.

Actually, the person most directly responsible for this episode is none other than Ronald D. Moore, who also wrote some of the greatest TNG episodes (along with, you know, Battlestar Galactica and stuff). Moore's touch shines through in a few places—the scenes with Wesley and Picard are actually quite good!—but it's hard to understand what the hell he was trying to accomplish with the colony that looks like a hastily built My First Adobe Village on a soundstage. The planet's inhabitants are a pastiche of 1950s-era "Cowboys and Indians" antagonists, and once they start nagging Wesley about pantheism and how he needs to get his Space Peyote on and do a "vision quest," I was ready to pull the eject handle and bail out.

Tim Lynch Star Trek Reviews Wiki: Journey's EndI liked the two major guest stars after Wes and Nechayev, those being Tom Jackson as Lakanta and Ned Romero as Anthwara. Both did a good job being enigmatic and frustratingly calm; while I'm not sure it's particularly realistic, it really _did_ work for dramatic purposes. (George Aguilar as Wakasa, the most hostile member of the council, however, has to go. Bleh.)

I do think the whole "look, we're including Native Americans, aren't we wonderfully multicultural!" angle of the show was a bit overdone, however. First, it stuck out like a sore thumb--I'm all for keeping cultural differences alive, but not when every scene featuring these people is saying "Look, we are a separate culture--a culture that's not yours and that's separate, got it?" That's more or less what was here; thankfully, it was rarely the majority of any given scene, some of the early ones aside. Second, I'm not certain it's a particularly accurate portrayal; I don't know why, but I have that feeling. (My own contact with Native Americans has been exceedingly limited, however, so I'd appreciate comments from those with more experience than I on how well it worked.) As I said, it worked beautifully for dramatic purposes, and since I don't know enough of the reality to comment, that's all I can really talk about.Pan-Indian mishmash

I talked about the problems in Dorvan V's relocation conflict. Here are some problems with the Indians themselves:

The Indians mostly have long hair. They wear hybrid Native-meets-Renaissance clothing. They speak normally--perhaps a bit too formally--with a smattering of spiritual mumbo-jumbo.

In other words, they're not quite modern like the Federation visitors, but they're not quite stereotypical either. In fact, they're like almost every other "alien" race in Star Trek. Their faces and hair, clothing, and mannerisms diverge slightly from the Federation norm--enough to mark them as different without requiring any real effort.

Dorvan V's tribe isn't named and has no specific culture. Are these people Cherokee, Navajo, Haudenosaunee, Ojibwe, or what? These tribal groups aren't the same thing--in fact, they're quite different--so it matters.

The colony may be a pan-Indian agglomerate of several cultures. But then the people wouldn't act in unison, as if they had one set of sacred beliefs, so that isn't plausible. I imagine the colonists were meant to be a single culture, but the writers were too ignorant or scared to come up with something specific.

The village does look like "My First Adobe Village," but that's pretty much true of every alien race visited by the Federation. Presumably the budgets required that every outdoor scene looked like it was filmed on a "primitive village" set.

Probably the worst bit is the so-called "vision quest" in the Habak--whatever that is. One, the room has a jumble of Native artifacts from different cultures. That's flatly wrong. Two, vision quests typically involve going off into the wilderness and fasting for four days. They're not the same as any supernatural event involving Natives and visions.

Vision quests aren't a part of every Native culture. And they don't occur in four-walled rooms with artifacts. The whole thing is patently phony.

Compounding the problem, the Indian leading the vision quest, Lakanta, turns out to be the non-Native Traveler. This implies Native religion is the same as or similar to alien science-magic. It belittles such religion by suggesting a sufficiently advanced alien could imitate or even become a Native spirit.

If a Christian prophet performing miracles turned out to be an alien, would that be an acceptable commentary on Christianity's authenticity? Because this is kind of the same thing.

In terms of stereotyping, Journey's End is fair to poor. The Indians aren't much better than the ones in 1960s Westerns like Bonanza, which also portrayed them sympathetically.

Indeed, I'd say the relocation debate is more interesting than the pseudo-Indians. It might've been better to invent a fictional culture rather than give us this mishmash of Indian ideas and concepts.

For more on Star Trek, see The Native Spock and Critique of Journey's End.

Religion on the way out

Religion may not survive the Internet

There's a reason churches are struggling to maintain membership, and it has nothing to do with Neil deGrasse Tyson

By Valerie TaricoIn all of the frenzy, few seem to give any recognition to the player that I see as the primary hero, or, if you prefer, culprit—and I’m not talking about science populizer and atheist superstar Neil deGrasse Tyson. Then again, maybe I am talking about Tyson in a sense, because in his various viral guises—as a talk show host and tweeter and as the face on scores of smartass Facebook memes—Tyson is an incarnation of the biggest threat that organized religion has ever faced: the internet.

A traditional religion, one built on “right belief,” requires a closed information system. That is why the Catholic Church put an official seal of approval on some ancient texts and banned or burned others. It is why some Bible-believing Christians are forbidden to marry nonbelievers. It is why Quiverfull moms home school their kids from carefully screened text books. It is why, when you get sucked into conversations with your fundamentalist uncle George from Florida, you sometimes wonder if he has some superpower that allows him to magically close down all avenues into his mind. (He does!)

Religions have spent eons honing defenses that keep outside information away from insiders. The innermost ring wall is a set of certainties and associated emotions like anxiety and disgust and righteous indignation that block curiosity. The outer wall is a set of behaviors aimed at insulating believers from contradictory evidence and from heretics who are potential transmitters of dangerous ideas. These behaviors range from memorizing sacred texts to wearing distinctive undergarments to killing infidels. Such defenses worked beautifully during humanity’s infancy. But they weren’t really designed for the current information age.

Tech-savvy mega-churches may have twitter missionaries, and Calvinist cuties may make viral videos about how Jesus worship isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship, but that doesn’t change the facts: the free flow of information is really, really bad for the product they are selling. Here are five kinds of web content that are like, well, like electrolysis on religion’s hairy toes.Another article says religion has outlived its usefulness and the Internet is only one force hastening its decline:

The Internet isn’t killing religion—religion is

Instead of asking why people aren’t religiously affiliated anymore, we might ask why they ever were

By Elizabeth DrescherWhat is missed, however, in the churning of this internet-killed-religion yarn is, first of all, that changes in complex phenomena—like being human or practicing religion in institutionalized membership-based groups—cannot be reduced to one factor or even a set of factors, no matter how diverse. Because I was a humanities major (I just had that one statistics class. Twice.), I turn to the novelist Margaret Drabble to explain what I’m getting at here:You can’t learn everything from the laboratory, that’s what he used to say. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, he told us. The whole behaves differently from the parts, and has different properties. That’s what he taught us, and he was right. It’s out of fashion to say these days, when we spend our time scrutinizing the interactions of eukaryotic microbes, but it’s true, nevertheless. It’s still true. (The Sea Lady)More significantly, the trouble with efforts that seek some root cause for what we have come to think of as an increasing decline in religious affiliation but which, when considered across a wider historical time span, turns out to be something of a normalization in affiliation patterns, is that it gets the question backwards.

That is, instead of asking why people aren’t religiously affiliated anymore, we might ask why they ever were. This question, which brings with it questions about what constitutes “religion” and “religious affiliation,” opens enquiry into the social and political construction of religious groups and the pressures borne upon ordinary people, often violently, to attend worship rather than, say, sitting in the park with family and friends enjoying the warmth of the sun, the smell of the grass, and perhaps the otherwise unlanguagable sigh of the human heart in certain moments of connection, contentedness, and wonder as a sweet piper’s tune sings into the air. It allows us, following Talal Asad’s critique of William Cantwell Smith’s conception of “faith,” to consider what elements of human experience are deliberately and incidentally left out of whatever it is we might understand as “religion” in its institutionalized forms, and why. Who is served by the various exclusions and inclusions of institutional religion? To what ends? And who is harmed?

What we might consider, then, with much more nuance and complexity than mere data manipulation can possibly tell us, is whether the idea of religion along with the institutional and ideological structures this idea has sponsored, has begun to run its course in Western culture. At the least, we might look at they ways in which other social platforms—coffee shops, cycling groups, drop-in yoga classes, and, yes, online social networking sites—have begun to reconfigure and redistribute benefits traditionally correlated with (but not necessarily caused by) religion and to mitigate its associated harms (even if also accruing harms of its own).Yet another article addresses the claims in the first two articles:

Christianity’s faith-based freakout: Why atheism makes believers so uncomfortable

Rather than respecting the right of atheists to disbelieve, Christians are constantly forcing them to fake it

By Greta ChristinaReligion relies on social consent to perpetuate itself. It’s a bad idea, and can’t stand up on its own. But it can, and does, perpetuate itself through social consent. It perpetuates itself through dogma saying that asking questions about religion is sinful, and that trusting religion without evidence is virtuous. It perpetuates itself through dogma saying that joy and meaning and morality can only be found in religion, and that leaving religion will automatically result in a desperate, amoral, pointless life. It perpetuates itself through religious communities and support systems that make believing in religion—or pretending to believe in religion—a necessity to function and indeed survive. It perpetuates itself through parents and other authority figures teaching it to children, whose brains are hard-wired to believe what they’re told.

Religion relies on social consent to perpetuate itself. But the simple act of coming out as an atheist denies it this consent. Even if atheists never debate believers or try to persuade them out of their beliefs; even if all we ever do is say out loud, “Actually, I’m an atheist,” we’re still denying our consent. And that throws a monkey wrench into religion’s engine.

There’s a reason that rates of atheism have been going up as use of the Internet goes up. (According to the MIT Technology Review, the dramatic drop in religious affiliation in the U.S. since 1990 is closely mirrored by the increase in Internet use—and while correlation certainly doesn’t prove causation, this analysis factors out pretty much every other possible causation.) The Internet has created a massive worldwide forum for atheists to argue about religion, to give evidence against religion, to ask for evidence and arguments supporting religion and point out how ridiculously weak they are. But the Internet has also created a massive, worldwide forum for atheists to simply, you know, exist.

In my research for “Coming Out Atheist,” I read numerous stories of atheists who had stayed religious for years—simply because everyone around them was religious, and they never considered the possibility that someone could be non-religious. But this is becoming less and less common. It’s getting harder and harder to keep atheism a secret. If you’re a teenager in a tiny town in the Bible Belt, you can now find out about atheists. You can talk with atheists. You can argue with atheists. You can learn what atheists think and why they think it. And you can simply learn that atheists exist, and are basically good people who love life and find great meaning in it. And that, just by itself, just by denying consent to your religion, stands a good chance of putting a serious dent in it.Comment:  These analyses apply to other irrational beliefs such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. These beliefs are also on their way out for similar reasons. The world is slowly becoming more liberal and multicultural, and there's nothing conservatives can do to stop it.

For more on the subject, see Conservative Christians in Panic Mode and Conservative Christian Persecution Fantasies.

Native stereotypes in Mandala

The publisher or someone sent me the first issue of Mandala, a new comic-book series. They did it because they think Blue Corn Comics is a retailer, not a publisher. Wrong!

Anyway, Mandala features a Native subtext, so it's worth a look. Here's the official site:

MandalaARE YOU AWAKE?

Earth--here and now. Humankind is secretly enslaved by a global mind-control system called the GRID. Mike Morningstar and his spiritual spec-ops unit, the Thirteen, must alter time and take down the GRID before it's too late.

As fiction meets reality, the Thirteen need your help if they are to succeed in awakening humanity and changing the future...

Enter the Mandala...

And a couple of reviews:

Mandala by Stuart Moore and Bruce Zick

By Brad HawleyMandala is the story of Michael Patrick Murphy who has the potential to be a mythic hero, Morningstar, savior of all mankind, but often he is just Michael, a confused man, or even worse, he turns into his lower, demonic self. Borrowing a page from Michael Moorcock, author Stuart Moore has Morningstar drift from one reality to another, trying in each new plane of existence to fight the serpents and evil gods who control all humans in a post-apocalyptic world. He fights alongside the rest of “The Thirteen,” an organization made up of men and women similar to Michael Morningstar: They all have a human side and must learn to “wake up” their higher selves to unite and defeat serpents who are led by the evil Natasmia.

Moore borrows the time-traveling part of the plot from the Hawkman and Hawkgirl storyline at DC: Hawkman and Hawkgirl keep struggling to find each other again and again, but every time they do, they die and are reborn to seek each other out again—star-crossed lovers doomed by their rebirth-induced amnesia. Morningstar has his female counterpart in Mary Lozen Many Colors, or Raven. Raven’s Grandfather acts as spiritual guide for Michael and the rest of “The Thirteen.” He teaches Michael about the Empyrean and transformation, part of which has to be Michael’s willingness to be the “hanged man,” a familiar image seen in most Tarot decks.Evil Geek Book Report--Mandala

By C-MartMandala is the story of how human evolution has been stopped dead in it’s tracks by an invading entity know as Natasmia and the mysterious world enveloping energy field known as the GRID. The Mayans predicted that humanity would take a great leap forward in terms of development and evolution in 2012, but thanks to Natasmia, that leap forward never came to be. Natasmia has her sights set on ruling all of humanity for the rest of existence and as anyone who’s ever dabbled in mind control knows; it’s easier to control a simpleton than it is to control a highly evolved being.And:Michael’s more evolved form, known as the Morningstar, is a superpowered demon king, destined to lead a group of other superpowered individuals known as the Thirteen into battle against Natasmia. With the help of his love Mary Lozen and her shamanic grandfather, the Morningstar is awakened within Michael and slowly he learns to use his powers in an attempt to save different timelines from the invading evil.Moore Tackles a Multiverse's Nightmarish Future in "Mandala"

The Native aspects

Angels, shamans, mandalas, Tarot, prophecies...if that sounds like a New Age mishmash to you, you probably have the right idea. I'd say the above descriptions give you a fair notion of how sprawling and mixed-up the story is.

In the story's centerpiece, we meet Mary Lozen Many Colors and her grandfather Charlie Many Colors--both supposedly Hopi. First, the names...oh my!

For starters, Lozen is an Apache name, and the Apache were traditionally enemies of the Hopi. It's unlikely that any Hopi would use the name Lozen.

Then there's the last name Many Colors. Really?! That's even worse than the usual stereotypical names such as Grey Wolf or White Eagle. It reeks of trying to give the Hopi a multicultural flavor--as if they represent all the "multicolored" tribes of the world. In other words, pure New Age claptrap.

FYI, real Hopi names include Honanie, Humetewa, Masayesva, Selestewa, Batala, Talayumptewa, and Keevama. You can see they follow a style that does not include English phrases such as "Sitting Bull" or "Crazy Horse." The "Many Colors" kind of name is found mostly among Plains tribes, not Southwestern tribes.
Michael and Mary materialize on the Hopi reservation--to find themselves in an Anasazi-style dwelling under a cliff. No. The Hopi's ancestors used to live in such dwellings, but that was 800 years ago. Such dwellings are uninhabited ruins now--protected and off-limits. And there are no ruins this well-preserved on the Hopi rez.

The whole concept conveys the unavoidable impression that the Hopi people are prehistoric, not modern. Even the furnishings visible in one panel--a wooden chair and cot--could be pre-modern. There's no hint that the Hopi have done anything since the 18th or 19th century.

Then Charlie, Michael, and Mary descend a ladder into what could be a giant underground kiva. Let's hope it isn't one, because that would be a gross violation of Hopi religion. No one's supposed to know what happens in a kiva except the Hopi themselves.

What they actually find isn't a Hopi shrine, but rather a warehouse of religious icons from around the world. Including an Aztec sun stone, a Plains headdress, and a phony totem pole:



The message is that non-Western and indigenous religions are somehow related--part of the "nexus" or "multiverse" or interdimensional whatever. That they're not complete, standalone religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Instead, these religions are exotic, unfathomable, and otherworldly--perhaps literally. They're part of some vast, mysterious, cosmic sphere beyond the comprehension of modern minds.

This is a classic New Age belief, and it's an insult to all these religions. They're not exotic or unfathomable to their adherents. They don't require blood or virgin sacrifices to demons in the middle of the night.

Really, they're no stranger than the religions we're familiar with. To hide them away in an underground vault as some sort of dark secret is badly stereotypical. It's an Indiana Jones mentality from the racist era of tomb-robbing--but people should know better in 2014.

In a later issue, a Hopi sun god (below) leads the other "ancient" gods in holding hands and singing "Kumbaya." Or something. But don't expect the Christian God to show up and join them. Unlike these "mythical" gods, he's "real."



As the kicker, Charlie mentions a Hopi legend that a "true white brother" will appear to lead the everyone into the light. Yes, it's the "white savior" complex, uttered explicitly by a Native character, in 2014. Save us, Great White Father and Jesus Christ substitute! Only you are strong and brave and true enough to conquer evil.

I believe the Hopi do have such a legend. But it's one of many legends, not all Hopi believe it, and they certainly don't emphasize it. Author Stuart Moore easily could've avoided it and chosen some other legend to use. Instead, he's invented a pretext for why a white men should lead the "Thirteen," who are mostly nonwhite characters from non-Western cultures. Another white American to the rescue...yay!

I get a strong impression that Moore knows little or nothing about Native cultures. He probably skimmed a couple of books or websites before putting together this muddled stew of Hopi and Native lore. The result isn't much different from what you could read in any bad comic from the mid-20th century. If the scary masked figures and statues came alive and tried to kill our heroes, I wouldn't be surprised.

Like the previous image, the scene below wasn't in the issue I read. But it tells you all you need to know about Moore's ignorance. A Hopi "shaman" in a Plains headdress fighting a demon with a tomahawk: pure supernatural pan-Indian stereotyping.



This is something I might've done in the first few months of putting together my Peace Party comics. But I soon realized how much I didn't know and kept studying. It was only after years of research that I felt I had a solid concept that didn't violate or trivialize the Hopi culture.

If I were Moore, I'd go back to the drawing board and start over. But he's invested too much time and energy in this venture to do that, of course. So we're left with another wrongheaded take on Native cultures in comics.

Krauthammer: Scientific consensus = "rain dance"

Krauthammer: Climate Change Is 'Superstition' Like 'The Rain Dance Of Native Americans'

By Catherine ThompsonCharles Krauthammer believes climate change is a mere superstition, just like the "rain dance of Native Americans."

Appearing Tuesday on Fox News' "Special Report," the conservative pundit rejected the consensus of between 97 and 98 percent of scientists who believe climate change is real and is fueled by human activity.

"It's always a result of what is ultimately what we're talking about here, human sin with pollution of carbon," Krauthammer said. "It's the oldest superstition around. It was in the Old Testament, it's in the rain dance of Native Americans--if you sin, the skies will not cooperate."Fox News devolves from climate denial to rejecting all science

Witness the spectacular collapse of the right-wing mind

By Lindsay AbramsAs for the consensus of 97 percent of scientists who say man-made global warming is a real phenomenon, Will contends that “they pluck these things from the ether” (as Chait points out, the number actually comes from this report), while Krauthammer just dismisses the idea of a scientific consensus. “Ninety-nine percent of physicists convinced that space and time were fixed until Einstein working in a patent office wrote a paper in which he showed that they are not,” he says. “I’m not impressed by numbers. I’m not impressed by consensus.”

Thus begins the point at which Krauthammer completely gives up on science, Chait writes:It is hard to dispute this except to note that Krauthammer here has taken a radically skeptical position not merely on climate science, but on all science. His argument implies that no scientific argument merits respect. Given the provisional and socially constructed peer pressure driving the consensus theory of aerodynamics, it is amazing that he is willing to travel in an airplane.Comment:  For more on climate change, see LaDuke Endorses Obama and First Stewards Symposium at NMAI.

WBC to picket Alaska Natives

God Hates Alaska Native Culture Says WBC

By Jeanne DevonFred Phelps, the founder of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas is dead and gone, but the institution of intolerance and hatred is still on the march, and headed to Alaska. WBC has a long history of organizing anti-gay protests, and picketing military and other funerals with crude and offensive signs.

Now, Westboro Baptist Church has announced plans to picket the Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage on the morning of June 1. Why, you ask?

A news release posted on GodHatesFags.com, replete with Bible quotations, states two reasons for protesting the Alaska Heritage Center.“…you make a religion out of the pagan idolatrous practices of past generations. There is nothing appealing or holy about the “heritage” of the eleven “distinct cultures” or “diverse population” of Alaska. They walked in darkness and served idols of every kind, contrary to the direct commandment to have no gods before God.

“… you fail to give God the glory, instead of the traditions and gods of the past… Stop worshiping dead cultures, man-made idols, and the sinful traditions of past generations. Put the resources into teaching and learning the Bible instead, and warning your neighbor to stop sinning before it’s too late, and he’s sinned away the last day of grace.”Westboro Baptist Church protesters unlikely in Alaska, watchdog says

By Tegan HanlonAs a local group made plans Tuesday to counter-protest a Westboro Baptist Church picket in Anchorage, an expert with the Southern Poverty Law Center said it's unlikely that Westboro protesters will actually show up. Their announcements are often publicity stunts, he said.

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the Topeka, Kan. church, known for controversial protests at funerals and other public events, has a long history of scheduling pickets, but actually attends less than half of the events.

"Typically, they will call the local press, get a scary story about these awful people coming to town and not show up," Potok said. "And what sometimes happens is you'll be expecting 50 people and a man and two small children show up."

Westboro Baptist Church has announced two protests in Anchorage over the past three days, one at ChangePoint, a non-denominational church, and the other at the Alaska Native Heritage Center, a nonprofit in Muldoon with a mission to share and preserve Alaska Native culture. Both pickets are planned for Sunday, June 1.'God Hates Native Culture': Westboro Baptist to Picket Alaska Natives

By Vincent SchillingShortly after the announcement of the protest by the WBC, a No Westboro Baptist Protest at our AK Native Heritage Center! Facebook page was created to offset the protest. Though the Facebook page had over 600 members on Monday evening, it had doubled in size by Tuesday afternoon to well over 1,200.

According to the ‘No Westboro’ Facebook pages’ mission statement posted by Donna Willoya:

‘We are uniting as Alaskans to honor and embrace our cultural diversity, to preserve our heritage and to teach future generations the importance of acceptance & respect for all people.’

Willoya also posted in the group that though people may get angry at the WBC members for wanting to protest, she wishes the Native community not to respond with violence and sink to their level.Photos of the Native Culture Center 'God Hates'

Comment:  Last I heard, the WBC called the protest off. Good thing for them, since Natives would've shown them up badly.

But I wonder how this came about. Did the idiots read about Alaska Natives in a hunting magazine or something? Did they decide these must be the last Natives left?

Did anyone tell them hundreds of tribes have been practicing their religions for centuries? It's kind of late to stop their "idolatry." What's next...supporting the Spanish Inquisition against the Jews?

For more on the Westboro Baptist Church, see Pix of Comic-Con 2010.

Conservative Christians in panic mode

The dying right: Why Christian fundamentalists are in panic mode

The religious right knows that time is running out—and that makes them even more dangerous

By CJ WerlemanLike a cornered animal, which turns instinctively to confront pursuing predators, the Christian Right, knowing it represents the views of an ever shrinking number of Americans, is engaged in an existential fight to the death. Veto or no veto, Arizona’s anti-gay bill is just another of its many efforts to transform America’s secular democracy into a tyrannical theocracy.

The Christian Right’s dirty little secret is they are acutely aware that changing demographics are running against them. While they may believe the earth is a mere few thousand years old, they’re not complete idiots. They can read polls, and the data tells them this: millennials are abandoning religious belief. According to a recent Pew survey, one in four Americans born after 1981 hold no religious belief, which is nearly double the national rate of atheism. Other studies confirm this trend, including a recent study by the Public Religion Research Institute showing more than half of non-religious Millennials have abandoned their childhood faith.

With this in mind, the nation’s radical religious fundamentalists see an ever-shrinking window to impose their Bronze Age worldview on the gay, atheist, liberal, immigrant, heathen, and science book-reading masses. The American Taliban is as deeply troubled by the thoughts of a gay man “sneaking a peak” of a heterosexual man in an NFL locker room as much as they’re freaked out over seeing Cam and Mitchell, the gay couple on “Modern Family,” adopt an Asian child. For the intellectual infants of the American species, progressive culture is nothing more than a 24/7 infomercial for gay sex and abortion. That frightens our unfriendly theocrats because biblical fundamentalists are more concerned with the goings on in the bedrooms of others than they are within the guilt-ridden, sexless confines of their own.

Brian Beutler writes that measures like Arizona’s SB1062 bill have emerged in a number of states out of “a wellspring of conservative panic about the country’s abrupt legal and cultural evolution into a society that’s broadly tolerant of gay people.” He adds, “Rather than deny the shift, or stop at trying to reverse it in legislatures, the courts and at ballot boxes, conservatives are instead attempting to erect a legal architecture that will wall them off from the growing portion of American society that supports equal rights for gay people.”Some examples of the conservative Chrisitan freakout:

The religious right’s 5 most demented persecution fantasies

Anti-Christian oppression takes many forms, apparently: Hipsters. Paperwork. Johnny Weir's wardrobe.

By Amanda MarcotteYou could call it chutzpah, except they’d probably claim that word oppresses them: Conservative Christian film production companies are making not one, but two movies this year called Persecuted, to promote the myth that conservative Christians have reason to fear they are being oppressed by an evil, secularist government. At least one of them is set in the Soviet Union (clearly analogized to the modern United States), but the other is a stretch that puts even the goofiest science fiction to shame, featuring an imaginary American government that requires religious broadcasters to “present all religious points of view when presenting their own point of view.” ( There are over 4,000 religions, easily, in the world, to give you an idea of how little thought went into this script.)

It’s easy to laugh at how ridiculous these fantasies of persecution are, but what other choice do they have? Attempts to create real-life examples of anti-Christian or anti-conservative oppression are, if anything, even more laughable than the lurid attempts to come up with hypotheticals. Indeed, looking over conservative complaints about persecution, either against Christians or just against conservatives, one gets the distinct impression that what oppresses them the most is other people having basic human rights or just doing their own thing without asking conservative permission.For those who still aren't clear on the religious freedom issue, here's an explanation:

A Quick Explanation of “Religious Freedom” for These Conservatives Who Seem Unable to Understand What it Means

By Allen CliftonFreedom of religion, as per our First Amendment, gives a private citizen the right to practice whatever religion they like during their personal time. If someone wants to attend church 7 days a week, read the Bible every single day, pray at every meal and send their kids to a religious school–they’re absolutely free to do so!

However, a business is not allowed the freedom of religion. While an individual might have a friend come over and pay them $5 per hour to do some work around their house, a business is required to adhere to certain labor laws which mandate that they pay workers a minimum of $7.25 per hour.

See, when you decide to open a business, your business doesn’t operate under the same Constitutional protections that an individual has.

As an individual, you can hang a Nazi flag inside your home and never once associate with someone who’s of a different race than you are. But as a business, to discriminate against a customer based on race is illegal.Comment:  For more on conservative Christians, see Conservative Christian Persecution Fantasies and Satanic Statue Shows Christian Hypocrisy.

Conservative Christian persecution fantasies

A couple of postings on conservative Christian persecution fantasies. First, what these Christians do--namely, play the victim card:

Why the Christian right’s persecution fantasies are so dangerous

Religious conservative groups invest an insane amount of energy in the myth that they're an oppressed minority

By Amanda MarcotteChristian conservatives feel aggrieved and they want to be heard. The problem is that their specific grievance—that everyone else hurts their feelings by not admitting we’re inferior—kind of sounds, well, hard to sympathize with. They need something snappier, a reason to claim that they are being oppressed by “anti-Christian bigotry”. The only problem with that is that in a majority Christian nation, most people are actually pretty accepting and even admiring of Christianity. Even if they disagree with right wing Christianity, they don’t do so because it’s Christian but because it’s conservative. Being a Christian is a privileged position in American society; that makes it really hard to claim you’re being oppressed.

Inevitably, then, the temptation to fudge starts to seep in, to exaggerate slights or invent paranoid conspiracy theories about how not getting enough praise and accolades for being Christian is an attempt to shove them out. But when that doesn’t work, well, sometimes it helps to deliberately provoke a situation where someone pretty much has to confront you, so that you can lie and say it’s because you’re a Christian. Indeed, it’s starting to become a pattern that goes something like this:

1) Enter into a community that is, by its nature, inclusive of people of various faiths and beliefs.

2) Break some common rule everyone is expected to follow.

3) Get corrected or punished for breaking the rule.

4) Squeal about how it’s because you’re a Christian and they’re bigots and oppressors.

5) By the time the truth gets out, your story will be an urban legend spread far and wide, and your fellow conservative Christians will never really know the facts.And:Time and time again, Christian right stories of oppression turn out to be bunk. A kid who was disciplined for fighting is turned, in the Christian myth machine, into a kid who was punished for quietly praying to himself. A track athlete is disqualified for disrespecting a teacher, but the Christian media says it was because he thanked God. A Southern Baptist website is blocked for accidentally distributing malware, but in the hands of the conservative press, it’s oppression. They need to be victimized. No one can really bother to do it for them. So they have no choice but to do it for themselves.Second, why they do it:

A Common Thread Among Young-Earth Creationists, Gun Enthusiasts, Marriage Exclusivists, and the 1%

By GrafZeppelin127That's been the recurring motif on issue after issue, in speech after speech, in Fox News segment after Fox News segment, ever since. We are the Good People who have done everything right and believe in all the right things, They are the Bad People who wrongly benefit at our expense and don't deserve our help. Not only that, but We are not getting the respect and admiration we deserve [from the Bad People] for being the Good People, indeed We are Being Attacked for it [by the Bad People]. They "hate" Us, when They should admire Us.

I couldn't help but notice a connection.

What these young-earth creationist folks were basically saying is that they feel insulted by the idea that Man is not as unique and special as the Book of Genesis would have us believe. Quoting Darwin, "Man ... thinks himself a great work, worthy of the interposition of a deity." There was even some talk in the documentary about pride; paraphrasing, Man should be proud of being Man, of being God's most highly favored earthly creation. That's the self-congratulation part. The resentment comes from being told that perhaps that feeling might not be entirely justified.

Pride is supposed to be one of the Seven Deadly Sins, after all. But, quoting Darwin again, "Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen--though not through his own exertions--to the very summit of the organic scale." Yet somehow, in some people, that pride has grown into a sort of grotesque and exaggerated sense of self-admiration. There are those who admire themselves so much that even an idea that might undermine the basis of that self-admiration becomes profoundly threatening.Comment:  As I've said many times, these debates are all about maintaining white Euro-Christian power and privilege. The methods include creating a perpetual "war on terrorism," deregulating Wall Street, pushing mining and drilling projects, cutting taxes on the wealthy, slashing the safety net, blocking bills and nominations, demonizing the black president, opposing healthcare reform, curtailing voting rights, denying global warming, and on and on. If conservative Christians have done anything that doesn't benefit the rich white captains of industry first and foremost, I must've missed it.

For more on conservative Christian hypocrisy, see Conservatives Dream of White Christmas and Christian Conservatives Play Victim Card.

Indiana Jones in Saturday Night Live

After much controversy, Saturday Night Live hired Sasheer Zamata, its first black woman in years. She made her first appearance January 18, 2014.

Somewhat ironically, the same show featured a somewhat racist skit, described thusly:Audience member Rahat gets confused after being invited on stage for the Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular.

Rahat was supposed to be some sort of ethnic person, probably Middle Eastern. She wasn't just "confused after being invited on stage." She was apparently confused by everything. She had no idea what an amusement park show was despite being at an amusement park.

That alone is arguably racist. But then SNL inserted Rahat into the most racist aspects of the Indiana Jones movies.

Drake played the tour guide who introduced the Indiana Jones scene. He described it as a "forbidden temple" with a "priceless ancient artifact." Okay so far.

Then Kenan Thompson appeared in a grass skirt as a witch doctor or some other primitive savage. At least Drake called him a "native" rather than a "savage." And Rahat's reaction was to hug him and say "my friend." But still, SNL was repeating the worst stereotypes: Indians as lost races with hidden treasures that they'll protect with unholy violence. As if the problem is their defense of their religion and not the white man's destruction of it.

It got worse when Drake tried to get Rahat to grab the artifact. Instead she bowed down and prayed to it. So she's so ignorant that she doesn't have her own religion and meekly adopts whatever's presented to her. And her idea of Native religion, which is also the show's idea, is nothing more than idol worship.

Finally, two "evil temple guards" appear. They seem to be turbaned South Asian Indians from The Temple of Doom. No one informs us that these particular Indians were members of a death cult and thus extremely atypical. The message is that all "foreigners"--Rahat, the native, and the guards--are strange, exotic, and ignorant or evil.

Conservatives want to legalize discrimination

The GOP’s Birth-Control Trojan Horse

The right wants to use religion as an excuse to legally discriminate against gays and unmarried women—and, ultimately, anyone who doesn’t share their Christian faith.

By Amanda MarcotteWhile stoking right-wing resentment over other people’s sex lives is a great way to sell the attacks on Obamacare to the masses, the real question is about whether employers have a right to discriminate if they claim to have religious reasons for doing so. Should employers be able to take away earned benefits from employees because they disapprove of the employee’s private decisions? Or does an employee’s right to religious liberty mean a boss can’t use compensation packages to try to force compliance with religious dictates?

The answer to the question is about way more than contraception. Indeed, there’s strong reason to believe that the battle over the contraception mandate is just part of a nascent conservative legal strategy to give business owners broad rights to discriminate against people—both customers and employees—on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender. The right’s hope is to create a legal structure where business owners can cite religious objections to weasel out of a variety of legal obligations, from the obligation to pay employees what the law says they’re due to the obligation to treat all customers fairly. The attempt to sidestep a federal law stipulating that female employees get basic insurance benefits, including contraception, in exchange for the work they do is just part of this larger movement.

In fact, attacks on the right of gay customers to be served without being subject to abuse or discrimination is just as big a fight as the one against the contraception mandate. In many states, the battle over gay marriage is morphing into a battle over what conservatives say is a “right” to discriminate based on sexual orientation, so long as you claim Jesus is your reason for doing so. Across the country, right-wing Christian business owners are testing anti-discrimination laws by claiming that they have religious objections to doing things like baking wedding cakes or performing wedding photography for gay couples getting married.

So far, the pro-discrimination forces have been losing out as judges find that laws barring businesses from discrimination are not suspended just because of religious reasons. However, if the Supreme Court eventually finds that businesses such as Hobby Lobby can discriminate against their employees by refusing to offer federally-mandated health benefits because they disapprove of non-procreative sex, that could dramatically change the legal landscape. After all, it’s going to be hard to say that a business can’t refuse customers on the basis of disapproval of their sexual choices when the same business is allowed to deprive an employee of part of her earned compensation package because they disapprove of her private sexual choices.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Excerpts from Dog Whistle Politics and Satanic Statue Shows Conservative Hypocrisy.

About Alone Yet Not Alone

With its Oscar nomination for best song, people are wondering about the obscure film Alone Yet Not Alone. I hadn't heard of it either, so I did some research. Here's the story:

Introducing 'Alone Yet Not Alone,' the year's most obscure Oscar nominee

Yet again, the Best Original Song category turns up a shocker

By Guy LodgeIf you already knew what the movie was when the nomination was announced, give yourself a pat on the back, since it doesn't seem a stretch to call this Christian drama the most obscure feature film nominated for an Oscar this year. As I scoured the Internet to find out what exactly it was, not a whole lot came up: there is no trace of the film's existence on Metacritic, while its Rotten Tomatoes page features not a single review. Okay, so it's not the critical radar, but how about commercially? I'd like to tell you, but Box Office Mojo hasn't heard of it either.

Turns out the film received a limited release in September, specifically within the Christian market. Production company Enthuse Entertainment describes themselves as producing "God-honoring, faith-based, family-friendly films that inspire the human spirit to seek and know God." A true-life historical drama set in 1755, it tells the story of two young sisters captured by native Americans during a raid on their family's farm. As the poster informs us, a "forced marriage" and "desperate escape" ensue. (I really hope this isn't as politically dubious as it sounds.) Cue the titular song, a family hymn that provides them with solace and inspiration during their ordeal.Christian Movie 'Alone Yet Not Alone' Receives Surprising Oscar Nomination

By Morgan LeeReleased in theaters in late September 2013, "Alone Yet Not Alone," is based on a book of the same name, and tells the true story of two German settler girls who attempt to hold onto their Christian faith after being kidnapped by Native Americans.

Since its nomination was announced, some critics have criticized the movie, claiming that it gives a negative and demeaning depiction of Native Americans.Sources for the movie

The ads say Alone Yet Not Alone is based on a true story. Well, sort of. It's apparently based on a novelization of a true story:

Alone Yet Not Alone: Their faith became their freedom

A reviewer didn't think much of this novel:From School Library Journal

Gr 4-6. Barbara and Regina Leininger were from a family of German immigrants who were living in the Blue Mountains of Pennsylvania in 1755, and they were captured by Indians during the French and Indian War. This novel, based on their experiences, focuses on the faith that sustained them during their captivity. Given to different tribes, the sisters are separated and do not see each other again for close to 10 years. Although Barbara is treated well by Galasko, the Indian brave who wants to marry her, life is hard. She never loses her determination to escape, and after several years, she and three other captives manage to flee successfully. What could have been an interesting story of survival is diminished by the book's simplistic tone and lack of nuance. The settlers are beautiful and compassionate, while many Indians are unattractive, cruel, and troubled because they don't believe in one god. The depiction of them is beyond biased and there is no attempt to provide any historical background or explanation for their actions. It will be difficult to find an audience for this book.I guess the novel is based on the following historical narrative. It seems to be a pamphlet of the girls' adventures as told to a minister or some other official:

"The Narrative of Marie le Roy and Barbara Leininger, for Three Years Captives among the Indians"

If the pamphlet is accurate, the movie isn't totally off-base. The girls weren't hurt but did witness others being tortured, and they suffered from privation, primarily hunger. They never accepted captivity and dreamed of escaping, but thought they'd be "roasted alive" if the Indians recaptured them.

Of course, the pamphlet's accuracy is a big "if." The girls could've exaggerated their travails, or the official could've exaggerated them. I wouldn't give much credence to a settler's account of Indian life.

The actual events

Here's the massacre in which the girls were taken captive. The Wikipedia entry is presumably more neutral than accounts by the participants. It provides some background but doesn't tell us what the captives endured:

Penn's Creek Massacre

Even the background is lacking. Did the British and French have any legal right to settle on the Indians' land? Were any agreements ratified by the whole tribe or just a friendly "chief"? How many Indians were killed by the settlers' guns and diseases? Etc.

Without more information, we have to wonder if the movie is more false than true. Indians did commit crimes, but they were defending their land, not rampaging for no reason. It was a like an early version of "Stand Your Ground": They had the right to kill anyone who threatened them.

Oklahoma license-plate challenge dismissed again

Judge rejects minister's claim on Oklahoma plate

By Sean MurphyAn image on the Oklahoma license plate of a young Apache warrior shooting an arrow skyward doesn't convey an overtly religious message, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in rejecting the claim of a minister who said the image was an affront to his Christian beliefs.

U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton dismissed the claim filed against the state by Bethany pastor Keith Cressman.

The image was inspired by the late Chiricahua Apache artist Allan Houser's "Sacred Rain Arrow" sculpture, but there is nothing about it that suggests to the casual observer that the man is praying or that the arrow he is shooting is sacred, the judge wrote.

"Viewed by itself, all the disputed image involves is a depiction of a Native American shooting a bow and arrow," Heaton wrote. "There is nothing about the image that suggests he believes in one god, no god, or several."Open Letter to pastor Keith Cressman of St. Mark’s United Methodist Church in Bethany, OklahomaDear Pastor Cressman,

I sincerely hope the God whom you preach will open your eyes and enable you to see absurdity of your claim. I am appalled by your lack of accord for cultural heritage of indigenous American population and I sincerely believe suing the state of Oklahoma for an innocent Native American symbol on its license plate is below pathetic.

I don’t know if you are aware that the very name of the state in which you live and preach is derived from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning “red people.” Do you plan to request changing the name of Oklahoma because it violates your own religious beliefs by reminding you of “pagan” religion?

I find it necessary to remind you of the fact that the land you live on was taken away from those okla humma people and that having Native Indian symbol on your state’s license plate is a symbolic way to show them due respect. After taking their land away from them and forcing them to live in reservations don’t you see that having their symbol on license plate is symbolic way of saying “sorry”? Why do you see it as a problem?

Did it ever occur to you that instead of pretending to be a victim due to your hurt feelings you might show some compassion for people who were taken to the brink of extinction by your ancestors?

I sincerely hope your God will forgive you your ignorance and lack of compassion.

Sincerely yours,

Jura Nanuk,
Founder & President of
Central-European Religious Freedom InstituteComment:  For more on the subject, see Oklahoma License-Plate Lawsuit Reinstated and Oklahoma License-Plate Challenge Dismissed.

Satanic statue shows Christian hypocrisy

Why this satanic goat statue has the Christian right so freaked out

The pagan idol reveals the hypocrisy at the heart of so much fundamentalism

By Amanda MarcotteHilarious as the statue is, it was designed to make a serious point. Christian fundamentalists in Oklahoma managed to get a Ten Commandments monument placed on capitol grounds in 2012. Though the supporters of the monument deny it, it’s an obvious attempt by fundamentalists to get the state government to endorse Christianity above all other religious beliefs, in a direct violation of the Constitution’s ban on state establishment of religion. The ACLU of Oklahoma has sued, arguing, “When the government literally puts one faith on a pedestal, it sends a strong message to Oklahomans of other faiths that they are less than equal.”

No doubt the Satanists expect Oklahoma to reject their petition, which is the point, of course. By rejecting the petition, the legislature will make it clear they really are elevating one religion over another, strengthening the ACLU’s case against the state.

Naturally, conservative politicians are confident the statue will not end up on capitol grounds. Rep. Paul Wesselhoft told CNN that the statue wouldn’t be disqualified because of Satan, but because the statue has “no historical significance for the state of Oklahoma.” It is worth noting that neither do the Ten Commandments, which are believed by Christians to have been written somewhere in the Middle East. Rep. Bob Cleveland was more overt, admitting that the difference between the statues is one endorses his favored religion while the other does not.

“In my opinion this Satanist monument does not meet with the values of Oklahomans,” he said, basically admitting that the Ten Commandments statue is an endorsement of the “values,” i.e. faith of Christianity.

Rep. Don Armes was even more blunt in making it clear that the Oklahoma state legislature rejects religious pluralism and is only interested in elevating Christianity as the only legitimate religion. “I think we need to be tolerant of people who think different than us,” he said, but of course there’s a “but.”

“But this is Oklahoma and that’s not going to fly here.”

In other words, we need to be tolerant of other people, but they are expected to sit down and know their place. Unsurprisingly, the Oklahoma legislature has already taken a major pre-emptive strike against the possibility that any other religion or belief system but Christianity get representation on the capitol grounds. After receiving requests for monuments not just from Satanists, but from Hindus and animal rights activists, the legislature decided to place a moratorium on the building of monuments. The message is crystal-clear: The Oklahoma state legislature is not interested in reflecting the diversity of Americans, but only wants to elevate Christians above everyone else.Satanic group mocks Oklahoma lawmaker for pushing new Ten Commandments bill

By Scott KaufmanAccording to the Associated Press, in the wake of the Satanic Temple’s plan to erect a goat-headed Baphomet figure sitting cross-legged on a stone slab on public land, Republican state Representative John Bennett authored a bill that would declare “historically significant documents [to be] treasures that should be displayed proudly and resolutely in public buildings and on public grounds.”

The bill specifies that “[t]he Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Constitution of the Great State of Oklahoma, and other such historically significant documents are recognized throughout the world,” and are therefore worthy of display.

Satanic Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves told Raw Story that this “unlettered little bill” is an attempt to “codify certain opinions into law.” After acknowledging that Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf is a “historically significant document” that meets Representative Bennett’s criteria for displaying on a monument, Greaves said that this is yet another attempt to establish the Ten Commandments as something “uniquely American” that played a “pivotal role in the establishment of the Constitution and constitutional law.”

The problem is that, here as elsewhere, Bennett fails to cite any material that would support that presumption. “It’s like it needs no citation—it’s just assumed that the Ten Commandments were somehow primary to the development of American law,” Greaves said.If it's not clear how conservative Christians feel about other religions, a Fox fanatic made it clear:

Guest on Fox Business Says Satanists Should Be Shot, Fox Refuses to Comment

By Bob CullAppearing on Fox Business News’ “Mensa Meeting” on January 9, Bernard McGuirk opined that the members of the Satanic Temple who want to place a statue of Satan in the Oklahoma Capitol building, “should be able to put the statue up, and then they should be shot right next to it, and then we take it down.”

While not in total agreement, the other panelists seemed supportive of his remarks for the most part.Comment:  I presume the same thing would happen if Natives tried to raise a statue to one of their deities. Many Christians consider such deities "Satanic."

For more on conservative Christian hypocrisy, see Robertson Says What Conservatives Believe and Teabaggers Seek White Christian Rule.

Alive video stirs controversy

This music video titled Alive has generated controversy in Indian country.



An article provides some background:

'Alive' Director: Blackfeet Thought Rez Drug Abuse Story 'Needed to Be Told'

By Vincent SchillingThe music video for Chase & Status' dance track "Alive," directed by Welsh filmmaker Josh Cole, has inspired a tremendous reaction from Indian country. Just read through the comments on the ICTMN Facebook page and you'll get the picture--some viewers have praised the clip for its tale of drug abuse on the rez and spiritual redemption, while others feel it's exploitative and disrespectful of the ceremonies it depicts. The video, which shows dramatized drug use, crime and ceremony, was shot on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. Cole has received considerable attention in Indian Country.

Cole filmed the video on the Blackfeet Reservation in Browning, Montana, and worked with Blackfeet tribal members during the course of its creation.Dueling responses

Chase Iron Eyes waxing self-righteously on FILMING THE SUNDANCE CEREMONY, WTF?!Now the Blackfeet music video is a bit more complex because it involves legitimate “Indian subjects.” I hope the video goes global because of its raw power in portraying the struggles we face coming up in an imposed poverty culture. The protagonist of the video succumbs to the ills that are a symptom of this imposed poverty (substances and violence) only to find salvation through the sober, clear life of ceremony that his ancestors sacrificed their own lives for. Yet, we cannot fail to pass criticism on the filmed portrayal of the sundance ceremony if we are to be morally upright in our ability to hold that position with respect to the sanctity of ceremonial practice world-wide or at least with respect to the ceremonies that the Creator trusted us with.

We should not film sacred ceremonies. What is sacred? You know; your spirit knows. You know when you are stepping over the line. Filming an actual sundance is clearly stepping over the line. If you want to spectate at the act of piercing or sun dancing you should not be able to do it on a god damned computer or any digital media for that matter. Haul your ass to an actual sundance; and when you're there don’t spectate, participate even if you consider yourself in the “audience” (support circle). Although we cannot fully incriminate the creators of this video because it’s not patently offensive as is the film of the actual ceremony, we still must state publicly, for the purpose of guiding the future of Indigenous country that filming or even dramatizing (in human form for the purpose of filming) the conducting of sacred acts and ceremonies such as the offering of a connected pipe and the sundance should never be taken lightly and altogether avoided. We only do these things to connect to the universe, not to make objects of them.Other than that, though:[T]o see those images (even in dramatized form) is unsettling but I love your video--it’s pure badass.When You Look in the Mirror, What Do You See? Are You Free to See an Individual Who is Free? A Response to Chase Iron Eyes Sundance Ceremony Column

By Sophia MarjanovicThe take away message of the “Alive” video is that it is ok to view just another dead Indian girl and boy. I know death at an early age happens on our reservations more often than anyone is comfortable. While the artists who filmed the video want to help, just like the case of the Mastodon attempt to help us, don’t help. As an outsider, you are not aware enough of the dynamics through which we are dealing in our struggles. You have come along lately and see some disturbing things, but you are not raising awareness among us. If you think you are helping us by merely sharing the narratives of despair to show what colonization has done to some individuals in our communities, you are not helping. By turning addicts into rock stars, you are not helping our communities heal. Instead, you are showing people that it is ok to be an addict because we will eventually get our 15 minutes of fame to cry a river over our plight. You are exploiting the poverty and the altered state of mind among some vulnerable members of our community for your personal gain, usually as a sympathy ploy to get others who sympathize for us to give you something in return. This is not ok. Our vulnerable individuals in their struggles deserve better than that. Indian Country does not need a Sally Struthers crying for us and asking for donations to charities that too often do not get back to the communities who need them.Filmmakers defend video

The people involved in making the video have defended it. First, Vincent Schilling interviewed Josh Cole, the Welsh director:How did you first come up with this concept of using a Native Reservation story for this video?

As a reformed drug addict I follow stories around the world where the worst drug abuse is common. It’s my mission with my career to try to steer people into recovery as a thanks to those that helped me with my own addiction. As such I was shooting a story about a reformed Hispanic gangster turned graffiti artist in LA and I met a Native American rapper who grew up on a reservation.

I was shocked to hear stories about the reservations--in Europe there is no concept generally about contemporary Native Americans. I then started researching and put together a story based on the stuff I was told about. I decided I would really like to tell Europe how difficult it is for Native Americans in modern America because most people have no idea who they are. All my work is about the beauty that comes from hardship and I wanted to tell the story of the spiritual awakening of a drug addict in a Native American community.

What were the reactions about this young man turning toward good then becoming a “martyr” as you put it?

I felt that the film needed an emotional finish. When people are moved they remember what they have seen. Plus it actually is somewhat of a happy ending because he is reunited with his girlfriend in the afterlife. There's also a message in there about the way your past follows you--that no matter how much you reform you can't always avoid who you were before. I have lost many many friends to the illness of addiction and this is often my experience.

Many Native people are concerned about using Native Americans in a romantic way as a form of poverty porn or sensationalism, what is your response?

I strive against this type of imagery myself and I don't think my work inspires pity at all. Everywhere I shoot I work very closely with the actual community to tell their story in the most authentic and meaningful way possible. Everywhere I've ever shot I can go back to and work again.Cole also posted this interview in his blog:

Alive VideoThere has been some controversy surrounding the video and one of our collaborators, Sterling HolyWhiteMountain wanted to have his say...

1. What did you do for the Alive video? How should we describe you?

I was the casting director, a production assistant, one of the primary in-community contacts, occasional truck driver, and loudest laugher on the set.

2. Why did you get involved in its production?

I got involved because I wanted to be part of this video that was going to be shot in my homeland, in the place that made me and is always with me no matter where I go or what I do. But also because I thought I might be able to offer advice / provide ideas regarding authenticity–and I mean that in the broadest sense. I'm fully aware of the difficulties American Indians face when it comes to issues of misrepresentation, and so if I can do something to alleviate that I will. Also, because this is a world where people need work to survive, I needed a temporary job to get me through the end of the fall semester.

3. What did you think of the storyline when you saw it? How do you think it portrays your community?

The storyline brings up a difficult question for me, and that is–how would I like our community to be seen? From an internal, on-rez perspective (namely mine), I think the story is eminently familiar, in part because various types of addiction are a serious problem in many reservation communities. Ours is no exception. And the juxtaposition of the healing power of traditional ceremony with these difficulties is also familiar–it's relatively easy to find people on the Blackfeet Reservation whose lives have been turned around in a good way through ceremony. I think this is a really important aspect of the narrative–that this young man, lost in drugs and violence, turns his life around through involvement in ceremony. People might say, Well, yeah, but he dies in the end–but everyone dies in the end, the question for me is how you lived the time you had. One of the difficulties, I think, comes in that this issue of addiction and poverty and violence on reservations is, in a way, a common story in Indian Country. Some Indian people are going comment that they want to see another aspect of our various communities represented–because reservation communities are in fact very diverse, and very complex, and there are many things, some quite beautiful and some quite banal, that get very little attention when it comes to national or global media. And I agree–these things do need to be shown. I want them shown as much or more than others. I’m a writer–my head is full of stories I think need to be told, and all of them are stories from Indian Country, and all of them are stories I want told as truthfully as possible. And sometimes truth hurts, but also in my experience healing usually begins with the pain of recognition.

So herein lies one of the great difficulties of the social demand for "realistic" representation vs. artistic/narrative demand. While there is shared space between the two, they are, I think, fundamentally different perspectives with ultimately different goals. The social demand is one of improved human rights, improved living conditions, better political and legal representation, etc.–and all of these things without ambiguity. There’s no way for me to call myself an American Indian and not be concerned with these things. On the other hand, the artistic demand is primarily a demand for successful art, and that demand falls into the realm of aesthetics–a realm that, for what it's worth, is almost always immediately thrown out when discussions like this come up. If the video weren't aesthetically successful, I'm not sure we'd be having this discussion at all, because it wouldn't be worth our attention. But because Josh Cole et al. shot a successful video, we’re having this dialogue which has nothing to do with the aesthetics of the thing. Ironic, to say the least. This is also why the goals of agents of social change are not necessarily going to line up with the aims of an artist, native or non-native. And this difference is why there is likely always going to be a degree of conflict between their disparate aims. Long story long, what I'm saying is that while the content of the video may in some ways be a relatively common story in Indian Country, to say that kind of story should not be shown simply because it's common is ridiculous. The answer to the problems of misrepresentation is not to stop representing difficult things that are still happening in Indian Country–the answer is more and more representation of the many different things that are happening.Some discussion of these issues on the Native Appropriation page in Facebook, with my comments:

I think a problem with HolyWhiteMountain's position is that it doesn't address Cole's intent. What did Cole say his intent was: to expose conditions on the rez, or to make successful art? If Cole had any desire to fulfill a "social demand," then all the criticism about "poverty porn" is on point. And HolyWhiteMountain is missing that point by suggesting we can't judge art by social or political standards.

No more dead Indians

Native filmmaker Elle-Máijá Tailfeathers isn't buying the Alive defense. In her blog, she addressed Cole and his arguments:

"Alive" or Better Off Dead?You mentioned in your interview with ICT that you wanted to “tell Europe how difficult it is for Native Americans.” That’s a great idea and all but let me try and put this into context for you. Poverty, lateral violence, substance abuse and addiction are all a daily reality for Indigenous communities across this continent. These issues come as a result of a violent colonial history and a violent colonial present. But many non-Indigenous people cannot or will not put two and two together. Instead, they choose to view these issues as inherent to native people.

The problem with the story you chose to tell is that it is a narrative that has been told time and time again. It depicts a losing battle with poverty, addiction, and violence. It’s a narrative about the dying race, the vanishing Indian. And who does this narrative blame for the death of a people? The Indians themselves. This narrative ignores the complexities of colonialism and all those implicated within the colonial narrative. In telling the story this way, you ignore the reasons behind this young man’s addiction and his community’s struggles.

Again, as you mentioned, several of the CrazyDogs connected with the script because it was similar to their own story. In fact, the story is quite like my brother’s story. However, he is now acing his second year of university, he is the president of the Native American Students Association at this university, and he is actively involved in the Sundance societies. He is also expecting his first child with his beautiful Blackfoot partner who is attending university as well. You see, he didn’t end up dead and neither did those CrazyDogs you worked with. So I find it quite interesting that the song is titled “Alive” yet you leave us with a dead Indian at the foot of Chief Mountain, one of our most sacred sites. Was it really necessary to kill your main character? Wasn’t one dead Indian enough for you? You sure do make the afterlife look appealing in comparison to reality and your statement on this being a “happy ending” is a bit too simplistic. I hope you understand that your choice in ending plays into another very familiar narrative for us–that our people are better off dead. That “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Our people don’t need to see another dead warrior. What you could have shown is a story like my brother’s or all those living and breathing members of the CrazyDogs. A story that give us hope and that doesn’t leave us feeling completely defeated.

We should also discuss Indigenous representation. You see, native people have been represented and misrepresented onscreen since the time the very first moving picture was made. We’ve seen the stoic Indian, the drunk or strung-out Indian, the helpless Indian maiden, the broke Indian, and the dead Indian a thousand times before. We get it. We’ve got problems that need fixing but it’s not your job to fix them.