Ralphie May's rant against Indians

A round-up of articles about Ralphie May's anti-Indian rant:

Comedian Ralphie May Creates Twitter Firestorm After Rant on IndiansThe extracted audio clip of May’s comedy routine is from a CD entitled "Stealing the Sun Back." from the hip hop group Savage Family. In the video/audio clip, posted on YouTube, May goes into a rant about Indians.

“F--k a bunch of Indians. I am sick of hearing about it. Are we supposed to boo hoo over goddamn Indians that sh-t that was 120 years ago? F--kin’ get over it. Nobody 150 years ago was making you drink now. Dry up’ you buncha alcoholics and go get a real f--kin’ job.”And:May further explained on Twitter that the comedic rant was extracted out of context and that the rant was based on the fact he was angry that Dances with Wolves beat Goodfellas for the best picture Oscar in 1992.

Sanford Center taking heat for booking comedian after video surfaces

Bemidji cancels gig by shock comic Ralphie May
YouTube rant against Indians is cited as the cause.

Ralphie May's Bemidji concert officially canceled despite apologetic video from comedian

Conservative labels Callingbull a "monster"

Conservative director booted from riding board over comments describing ‘Indians’ as ‘self-loathing’

By Jorge BarreraJust recently, MacDonell posted a link from right-wing shock website The Rebel Media about Ash Callingbull, the Cree woman recently crowned Mrs. Universe. The article said Callingbull compared Harper to Hitler.

MacDonell wrote that Callingbull was an “entitled liberal pet” and a “monster.” After one poster said the pageant should take back the crown over the Hitler comparison, MacDonell blasted all First Nation people.

“From an Indian??? LOL!!!! They’re allowed to break every law we have and bankrupt the country,” wrote MacDonell.

MacDonell has also posted her own ideas about how to end racism.

“If Indians want to eradicate racism, then assimilate. Ditch the Halloween costumes…and adopt 20thCentury dress, leave the reserves, stop acceding to demands made by chiefs who live like millionaires while their subjects live in poverty, find unemployment, stop demanding money you haven’t earned, become educated and join our society,” she said in a Jan. 24 Facebook post.

MacDonell has been consistently posting comments along the same themes since as far back as 2012, according to several screen grabs obtained by APTN National News.

“Indians loathe us and have no self-respect,” said MacDonell, who referred to right-wing agitator Ezra Levant in her 2013 Facebook post.

NDP candidate Niki Ashton, who is the party’s Aboriginal affairs critic, said the comments were “disgusting” and “clearly racist.”Comment:  For more on Ashley Callingbull, see Beaverton Satirizes MMIW Crisis.

Rand Paul advocates Native assimilation

Rand Paul Thinks 'Lack Of Assimilation' Is Native Americans' Problem

"If they were assimilated, within a decade they'd probably be doing as well as the rest of us."

By Julian Brave NoiseCat"I think assimilation is an amazing thing," Paul said. "A good example of how, even in our country, assimilation didn't happen--and it has been a disaster for the people--has been the Native American population on the reservations. If they were assimilated, within a decade they'd probably be doing as well as the rest of us. But instead, seclusion and isolating them--we took their land, and then we put them all on small quadrants of land."

Ingraham did not point out Paul's historical revisionism, but Democrats and Native leaders did.

The Democratic National Committee said in a press release that Paul revealed a "shocking lack of historical and cultural awareness" about Native people.

This history includes warfare, forced removal, broken treaties and unkept promises, as well as the more recent, but often forgotten, record of abuse and cultural genocide suffered by Native American children through the boarding school system of the 19th and 20th centuries. That assimilation policy was designed to "kill the Indian and save the man."

"Sen. Paul's statements harken back to a disastrous era of federal policies that aimed to terminate tribal governments and eradicate Native American cultures," said PaaWee Rivera, a Pueblo of Pojoaque tribal member and the DNC's director of Native American engagement, in the press release.Rand Paul: Native Americans Don't Do Well Without AssimilationIn a tone-deaf statement, Republican candidate Rand Paul says Native Americans “don’t do well” because they failed to assimilate to settler American customs.

The statements are controversial and offensive to many, as they reflect a continuation of colonial settler ideology that sponsored assimilationist policies, which had horrible repercussions for Native and Indigenous communities throughout the Americas.Comment:  This is another variation on the stereotype of Indians as lazy, good-for-nothing welfare moochers. Which has been America's primary view of Indians since the Indian Wars.

"If only Indians would become Christians and capitalists," think conservatives, "all their problems would be solved." Never mind that Indians tried these approaches and they failed miserably.

Of course, conservatives never let facts get in the way of their fantasies. Like Dick Cheney, they create their own realities where America works perfectly for everyone.

For more on assimilation, see Ralph Lauren's "Assimilation Aesthetic" and Assimilation in 1950s Movies.

Apartment ad: "No natives please"

'No natives please': Kijiji pulls apartment ad for Prince Albert, Sask. after complaint

Advertisement says that 'being funded or a stay at home mommy are not jobs'A Kijiji ad to rent a three-bedroom home in Prince Albert, Sask., has been pulled after complaints of racism.

The title of the ad read, "3 bedroom east flat house, no natives please."

The title of an ad Kijiji deemed offensive read, "3 bedroom east flat house, no natives please." (Kijiji)

The text of the ad said newcomers to Canada were welcome, "but aboriginals will not be considered."

When Jeanne Labelle saw the ad, she was shocked and contacted Kijiji to complain.

"I just find it so offensive that somebody would not be able to see deeper than their own prejudices," Labelle said.

The ad, which was offering a 1,000-square-foot home for $1,200 per month, also insisted that renters be working and said that "being funded or a stay at home mommy are not jobs."
First Nations chief sees positive reaction to racist Kijiji ad

Interim FSIN chief Kimberly Jonathan says the response has been 'heartwarming'"We face this and it's reality out there," said Jonathan. "A lot of times we just say, 'Well we're not going to say anything because where will my complaint go?'"

Kijiji pulled the ad after a complaint. And there has been a torrent of feedback denouncing the ad.

"If you look at the post and look at the social media, the comments ongoing, people are saying, our society is saying, 'This is not OK.'"

Jonathan said the reaction has been "heartwarming."

"There may be a turning point in Saskatchewan where racism is not acceptable."Racist Kijiji ad a 'timesaver': aboriginal housing company CEO

Namerind Housing Corporation CEO says many aboriginal people face racism in pursuit of housingMany people have called a recent Prince Albert Kijiji advertisement racist and offensive, because its writer said they would not consider renting the home to aboriginal people.

But the president and CEO of an aboriginal-owned housing company calls it a "timesaver."

Robert Byers says many aboriginal people face racism when trying to find a rental home.

"It's frustrating, but it's just something that happens all the time," he said.Comment:  The stereotype here is that Indians are lazy, good-for-nothing bums who live on welfare.

For more on Indian as welfare recipients, see Economist's Bogus "Sloth" Claim and Congressman Calls Indians "Wards of Government."

Economist's bogus "sloth" claim

A recent Economist article stirred some controversy by claiming casinos make Indians poor. Specifically, it claimed that tribes with per capita payments from gaming are more likely to be mired in poverty.

People in the know scoffed at this claim, since they've seen with their own eyes how gaming has helped tribes. Now here's a rebuttal to the claim.

Of Stereotypes and Slack Reporting Standards: The Economist’s Claim that Native American Gaming Leads to “Sloth”

By Shawn Fremstad & Erik StegmanAn article in this week’s The Economist is a reminder that we haven’t put the bad old days of racially distorted coverage of poverty beyond us. The article claims “cash from casinos makes Native Americans poorer.” According to the author, a particular problem is that tribes distribute part of the revenues directly to members—typically known as “per capita payments”—which encourages “sloth.” The article is accompanied by a photograph of an American Indian man in front of a slot machine, a grin on his face and his arm pumped in the air.

Given research like Gilens’ and the long history of stereotyping American Indians as lazy, The Economist should have been particularly careful to ensure that it had solid evidence to back up its claim. In lieu of such evidence, The Economist relied on a few anecdotes and a single article by a private attorney published in a student-run law review.

We took a closer look at the law review article that The Economist relied on and were not impressed. It purportedly shows that poverty was more likely to increase in certain Pacific Northwest tribes that distributed part of their gambling revenues to members than in those that did not. But there were only seven tribes (out of a total of 17 that the article focused on) that did not distribute gaming revenues directly to members. The total reported decline in poverty among these seven tribes amounted to only 364 people. The study contained no controls for any of the many factors that affect poverty rates, nor did it take into account size differences in the tribes, differences in the size and structure of the per capita payments, or other relevant factors. In short, the study is absolutely useless in terms of providing meaningful evidence to support The Economist’s claim.

Even worse, The Economist failed to mention the existence of rigorous, peer-reviewed research contradicting the article’s thesis. Unlike the single paper cited in the article, this research uses methodologies designed to isolate the causal effects of per capita payments and generally finds that they have positive effects on poverty and other indicators of children’s well-being. For example, research by William Copeland and Elizabeth Costello, both professors at Duke University, uses longitudinal data that tracks both American Indian and non-American Indian children in western North Carolina. After the introduction of a per capita payment for American Indian families, they documented “an overall improvement in the outcomes of the American Indian children while those of the non-[American] Indian children … remained mostly stable.” Strikingly, educational outcomes for American Indian children “converged to that of the non-[American] Indians,” and the arrest rate of American Indian children fell below that of non-American Indians.Comment:  No doubt the original article was part of the right-wing agenda to demonize the poor. According to Mitt Romney and the "47%" lie, giving people "handouts" or "freebies" makes them lazy and shiftless.

Note that this doesn't apply to corporations and rich people who get billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies. They're good, hard-working Americans who don't waste their freebies on booze or drugs--or so they tell us.

People have been telling this lie about Indians almost since the beginning. We took their land, destroyed their cultures, gave them "firewater"...and surprise! They weren't as strong and independent as they once were. That's because we took their land and destroyed their cultures, not because they're inherently lazy.

Congressman calls Indians "wards of government"

Congressman’s Native American remark causes outcry

By Felicia FonsecaU.S. Rep. Paul Gosar’s reference to American Indians as “wards of the federal government” has struck a harsh chord with tribal members and legal experts.

The Arizona Republican stunned an audience gathered in Flagstaff last week with the comment that came in a discussion about a land deal that would clear the way for a copper mine.

Phil Stago of the White Mountain Apache Tribe says the phrase is antiquated and ignores advances made in tribes managing their own affairs.

A spokesman for Gosar says that wasn’t the intent. He says Gosar has been an advocate for strengthening tribes’ relationships with the federal government.

Congress maintains authority over Indian affairs. But the trend has been for tribes to take more control over things like crime, education and health care from the federal government.Republican Congressman’s Disrespectful Comment About Native Americans Stuns Local Tribes

By Allen CliftonApparently as Phil Stago of the White Mountain Apache Tribe voiced concerns over the proposal, Gosar belittled Native Americans by referring to them as “wards of the federal government,” claiming the government still has control over much of what they do.

“He kind of revealed the truth, the true deep feeling of the federal government: ‘Tribes, you can call yourselves sovereign nations, but when it comes down to the final test, you’re not really sovereign because we still have plenary authority over you,’” said Stago.

Naturally, the congressman has refused to elaborate further on what he meant by his comments, only stating through his spokesman Steven Smith that it was not the intent of the congressman to offend Native Americans.

Though I’m not sure how one would go about spinning a reference to Native Americans as “wards of the federal government” into any sort of positive compliment. It’s one of those statements that is fairly self-explanatory–there’s not a whole lot of leeway there.

But then again, is anyone really shocked to see a Republican make some sort of insensitive or offensive remark toward a minority group? That’s the sad state of affairs for the GOP nowadays. I’m not even sure if you can still refer to it as “headline news” for someone from their party to say something blatantly offensive about minorities.Natives respond

A Native reply via Facebook:THIS asshole says natives are "wards of the government." And I can tell you MOST people I talk to who are not part of my many community circles think so too. I mean this in terms of how you view native nations people as less-than, as unfortunates. Or viewing them jealously as if they are handed everything you want or have on a plate and they are getting the fat of the land. These are far from the truth, these varied assumptions.

Phrases such as "ward of the government" should be struck down viz colonized people whose lands, lifeways and original liberties were taken and were done so recently as to be storied in living memories yet. This phrase is a trap and a trigger.

If you utter crap like, "casino munnneeeeeee" or "free school, free health, free everything is what THEY get" and other shit that shows you have no concept of the forms that sovereignty now takes, the deleterious financial contracts binding many indian lands still, and other realities...you are also in great need of shutting the hell up and doing your best to listen next time you open a conversation with a native person. The information available to you is vastly more and quite different from the few scraps of cardboard supplied that are endlessly parroted in America (and everywhere else, frankly).Finally, Indianz.com explains why Gosar's assertion is wrong:

Rep. Gosar won't apologize for calling Native Americans 'wards'American Indians and Alaska Natives are not wards of the federal government. That era ended with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

The Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution recognizes tribal governments as sovereign nations. But they are often described in court decisions as "domestic dependent nations"--a term that was created to justify state encroachment and federal encroachment on tribal territories.

The distinction, however, does not apply to Native people themselves. To call them "wards" treats them differently than every other American.

"That's just not appropriate," former U.S. attorney Troy Eid told the AP, referring to Gosar's remarks. "In the heated context of what this represents, it's especially inappropriate to be resorting to what amounts to race baiting."

Blacks killed because of racist stereotypes

Ferguson reports raise questions on media criminalization of blacks

Twitter campaign #iftheygunnedmedown asks US media how they would choose to represent African-American victims

By Renee Lewis“The traditional narrative is that black people are no good—they’re out there selling dope and shooting each other. And Trayvon, they said he was a little thug … but it doesn’t matter. The Constitution said you can’t go shoot someone on suspicion.”

Kelley said such stereotypes have persisted decades after the civil rights movement because many Americans believe they live in a postracial society—which he said contributes to indifference.

“The fact of the matter is that whiteness presumes innocence and blackness presumes guilt, and you have to prove yourself otherwise,” he said. “This has become routine. We have studies from the Malcolm X Foundation that say every 28 hours a black man dies with his hands up. That’s not a small statistic. That’s incredible.”

Exacerbating the problem, Robinson said, are media portrayals of African-American men in narrow roles.

“A recent Pew Research Poll said most Americans get their news from local news coverage, and local news coverage of black men was relegated overwhelmingly—around 80 percent—to crime and sports,” he said. “The media has a responsibility to delve into stereotypes and debunk them.”

He said such coverage leaves an impression in many Americans’ minds of where different groups fit into the larger culture, and that affects the treatment they receive.

“It impacts how black boys are perceived as valuable or threatening in school. It determines treatment in courtrooms, treatment by police,” he said. “The media has to paint a true picture of society.”Does the Second Amendment Only Apply to White People?

By Keith BoykinWhen a white teenager named Steve Lohner was stopped by the police last month and refused to show his ID after carrying a loaded shotgun on the streets of Aurora, Colorado (the same city where a mass murderer killed 12 people and injured 70 others in a packed movie theater in July 2012), the teen walked away with nothing but a citation.

But when a 22-year-old black kid named John Crawford picked up a mere BB gun in a Walmart store in Dayton, Ohio last week, customers called the police, who then shot and killed him.

Here lies a racial disparity that's difficult for honest people to ignore. How can black people openly carry a real gun when we can't even pick up a BB gun in a store without arousing suspicion? The answer in America is that the Second Amendment doesn't really apply to black people.

Consider this. In the hours since the protests began in Ferguson, Missouri, gun sales spiked in the St. Louis area. It seems some whites are scared to death of violent black people, even though the only person who's been killed in the past week of turmoil in St. Louis was 18-year-old Michael Brown.

Imagine what might happen if black people started buying up scores of weapons at gun stores and posting pictures of ourselves carrying them on the streets to protect ourselves? We don't have to wonder. When the Black Panthers did this in the 1960s, California's Republican Governor Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of white conservatives, signed a law called the Mulford Act which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in a vehicle, or in any public place or street.

In defense of black rage: Michael Brown, police and the American dream

I don't support the looting in Ferguson, Missouri. But I'm also tired of "turning the other cheek" and forgiving

By Brittney CooperI believe that racism exists in the inexplicable sense of fear, unsafety and gnawing anxiety that white people, be they officers with guns or just general folks moving about their lives, have when they encounter black people. I believe racism exists in that sense of mistrust, the extra precautions white people take when they encounter black people. I believe all these emotions have emerged from a lifetime of media consumption subtly communicating that black people are criminal, a lifetime of seeing most people in power look just like you, a lifetime of being the majority population. And I believe this subconscious sense of having lost control (of the universe) exists for white people, at a heightened level since the election of Barack Obama and the continued explosion of the non-white population.

The irony is that black people understand this heightened anxiety. We feel it, too. We study white people. We are taught this as a tool of survival. We know when there is unrest in the souls of white folks. We know that unrest, if not assuaged quickly, will lead to black death. Our suspicions, unlike those of white people, are proven right time and time again.

I speak to this deep psychology of race, not because I am trying to engage in pop psychology but because we live in a country that is so deeply emotionally dishonest about both race and racism. When will we be honest enough to acknowledge that the police have more power than the ordinary citizen? They are supposed to. And with more power comes more responsibility.

Why are police calling the people of Ferguson animals and yelling at them to “bring it”? Because those officers in their riot gear, with their tear gas and dogs, want a justification for slaughter. But inexplicably in that moment we turn our attention to the rioters, the people with less power, but justifiable anger, and say, “You are the problem.” No. A cop killing an unarmed teenager who had his hands in the air is the problem. Anger is a perfectly reasonable response. So is rage.Resurrecting Apartheid: White Police and Politicians are Waging War on Black America

By Tim WiseIs it really a stretch to call it apartheid, even as one after another after another after another black male (roughly one every 28 hours)—and more than a few black women and girls—are gunned down by police or vigilantes in city after city and town after town, unarmed, or armed only with an air rifle in a Wal-Mart? And this, even as white men can point their guns at federal officials or parade around the streets, or in Target or churches or Chipotle, or bars (because guns around booze is always a great idea) or anywhere they damned well please with weapons—real ones, with bullets—and be left to see another day? Or in some cases even lauded as heroes and the new “freedom riders,” standing up for their constitutional rights?

Honestly, when a white man in a place like New Orleans can literally point his weapon directly at not one, not two, but three members of the New Orleans Police Department, and when told to drop his weapon, answer back, “No, you drop your fucking gun,” and remain a breathing, carbon-based life form—as was the case this past April for Derrick Daniel Thomas—then you know you’re dealing with a two-tiered law enforcement regime hardly different from the ones that existed under Jim Crow. Google the NOPD and check out their history if you harbor any doubts about how such an act as Thomas’s would have gone down had he been black.

Hell, when I lived in the city, one of my roommates was punched and bloodied by the NOPD just for giving side-eye after they accused him of robbing a white woman several blocks away. Even after she told them he wasn’t the guy—oh yeah, they shoved him in the car and took him over to her for an entirely improper sidewalk lineup—they still threw him back in the car and headed downtown to book him for resisting arrest. Because apparently denying culpability for a crime you didn’t commit is resisting arrest in apartheid America. It was only when Darryl informed the police that his uncle had been the city’s first black Lieutenant (and having named him, sufficiently scared the white grunt cops) that they resigned to letting him go.

Why should we refrain from the charge of apartheid when police departments like those in Ferguson, Missouri—scene of the latest sacrifice to the gods of white supremacy, and with a recent history of overtly racist leadership and racist brutality against folks of color—continue to patrol the streets of their town as if they were an occupying force in a foreign country? As they include among their ranks the kind of retread bigots who openly berate the people for whom they work as “animals?” This is Sharpeville, 1960 or Soweto, 1976, only with lower body counts (so far). This is Birmingham, 1963, Selma, 1965, only with a midwestern accent, rather than the southern type we’d long been told to expect. Fifty years later and white law enforcement officers are still behaving as if the ruling in Dred Scott—that blacks “have no rights which the white man is bound to respect”—were still operative. Because sadly, and no matter what the Constitution may say, it appears that it is, so much so that it may well become the new motto for police around the country, soon to replace the “protect and serve” emblems on their patrol cars.Comment:  So blacks are killed because of negative stereotypes, but Native stereotypes have nothing to do with crime or violence? That's ridiculous on the face of it.

In fact, Natives experience stereotyping similar to blacks, and it leads to similar problems. For example:

"Natives are criminals"--cheating people via casino corruption, tribal scandals, or phony historical claims. So Americans oppose extensions of Indian gaming, government programs, and federal recognition bids.

"Natives are terrorists"--threatening the "American way" by blocking mining and drilling efforts. So Americans ignore their objections rather than taking them seriously.

"Natives are welfare queens"--living off casino income and government handouts rather than getting jobs. As with other minorities, Americans refuse to fund social services for these "lazy, good-for-nothing bums."

And of course Natives are shot by the police, ignored in hospitals, beaten and raped, left to die in the snow, etc., etc. Again, this happens in part because the mainstream sees them as second-class citizens. As less deserving of justice than white folks.

In other words, as redskins, injuns, and squaws--a kind of subhuman species halfway between civilized man (Caucasian) and mindless ape. Very much like Neanderthals and other primitive cavemen, with which they're occasionally associated. In short, savages.

The point again is how media representations matter. Frank LaMere, Winnebago, put it well:People say that Indians have bigger problems than mascots and use of Native American images, but I disagree. If you can't see me as an individual, then how can you understand the problems we have as a people?

Steeves tries to explain wife's racism

Gord Steeves defends wife, tries to explain racist comments

Gord Steeves holds presser 4 days after wife's racist Facebook comments surfaceWinnipeg mayoral candidate Gord Steeves said his wife's racist comments were made out of fear and anger.

"My wife was scared and she was very angry and she reacted," he told reporters on Tuesday, after starting his press conference with an announcement about zoning. “The comments were not my comments. I support my wife, and I love her and I stand with her, and she made the apology, and I support her.”

The zoning announcement prompted many confused expressions and caused people on Twitter to wonder what Steeves was doing.

He was also heckled by people at Bonnycastle Park, where the press conference was made.And:She has since apologized for the comments, but Steeves took four days to address the matter.

Despite calls for him to drop out of the mayoral race, Steeves said on Tuesday he will not do that.

"I'm a candidate in the mayoralty race but I'm also a husband and a father," he said. "She did something in poor judgment, and she acknowledges that and she apologizes. She is a good, caring, wonderful person, a great mother and a wonderful wife."​

Steeves also said the comments were made after an incident in which “one of the pandhandlers jumped up, put his finger in her face and said words to the effect of, ‘What’s the matter? Don’t you like native men?’”

Steeves said the story didn’t excuse the Facebook post, though.

“I only tell it to give it some context,” he said.Winnipeg tweets: Steeves' address lambasted on Twitter

Comment:  Lorrie Steeves may have been scared on the downtown streets. But she went home, logged onto Facebook, and posted a rant about how she's tired of giving handouts to drunk Natives. More to the point, how Natives are lazy bums who need to stop mooching and get a job.

So I'm not sure how her alleged "fear" is an issue. Or her anger, unless you mean her anger against the entire Native population. She's sick of Natives as a whole, not just the few individuals who harassed her. It's a perfect example of racism in action.

Natives slam Steeves's comments

Spouse's comments spark big reaction

By Nick Martin and Randy TurnerManitoba Treaty Commissioner Jamie Wilson was stunned Friday by the comments posted on Facebook by Lorrie Steeves, wife of mayoral candidate Gord Steeves.

So were a lot of other people.

"I would never paint an entire ethnic group on the actions of one person--that's how racism starts," said the aboriginal educator, who works downtown. "I see racism as a huge part of the problem.

"It does nothing to help our city," said Wilson, especially coming the day after about 150 community leaders announced their annual sleepout to raise awareness about the homeless.

"I see the same four or five guys (downtown), I'm respectful to them, they're respectful to me," Wilson said.

As for Lorrie Steeves's apology: "I thought she was apologizing for being caught."And:A lot of people commented on Facebook and Twitter:

Ryerson University Prof. Pam Palmater: "racist stereotyping hatred fails 2 reflect appreciation 4 her privileged life based on colonization n dispossesion of FNs"

Megan Benedictson: "The problem is with those who refuse to see all human beings as people."

Wab Kinew: "Tweet me when Gord Steeves does the right thing and drops out of the race."Bannock lady challenges Gord Steeves, wife to help homeless

Aboriginal activists upset with Lorrie Steeves' 'drunken native guys' Facebook commentsGuiboche said Saturday Steeves' apology isn't good enough.

"Come and help me feed some of those people you called down," Guiboche said. "You know, I personally wouldn't want to go through what it takes to wind up on the street and keep surviving on the street."

Guiboche, who is known as the Bannock Lady because she regularly hands out food to Winnipeg's homeless, said she will be at the corner of Dufferin Avenue and Main Street Sunday at 3 p.m.

Guiboche said if the apology is sincere, Steeves should back it up with action.

"That's just completely abhorrent that somebody would post comments like this and then try to be professional after [by saying] 'Oh I'm sorry I said that.' No. No. It's too late for 'sorry.' You said it. It's out there."Gord Steeves a no show at event to feed the homeless

But mayoral candidate says he will speak Tuesday, 4 days after wife's 'drunken native guys' comments

Homeless respond to Lorrie Steeves racist 'handout' comments

Mayoral candidate Gord Steeves’ wife Lorrie under fire for ‘drunken native’ Facebook statusGlenn Houle lives on Winnipeg’s streets and said Lorrie Steeves comments were ignorant.

Houle, who has struggled with addictions, is now sober.

He said Winnipeg’s homeless are desperate and vulnerable, and Lorrie Steeves should have more compassion.

“Try and stay on the street for a week and then you’ll find out how it is to be on the street with nowhere to go,” said Houle.Steeves has duty to address wife's racist comment, Oullette says

Mayoral candidates addresses Lorrie Steeves 'drunken native' commentsCandidate Brian Bowman called her words deeply offensive, while Mike Vogiatzakis said the post was inappropriate and disgusting.

Vogiatzakis also called on Gord Steeves to speak on the matter.

On Monday, Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg's Damon Johnston also responded to Lorrie Steeves comments.

He said he emailed Steeves Monday morning asking him to resign his candidacy.

"Here's a person who seems highly educated, is a professional and is a spouse of someone seeking office in our country. You would think she'd know those kind of comments would hurt," said Johnston. "If individuals in your family are in the political arena, those kinds of statements are not acceptable in any way and they could be seriously damaging to his career."

Candidate's wife slams "drunken" Natives

Gord Steeves' wife under fire for 'drunken native' Facebook post

Comes on same day mayoral candidate pledges to pick up intoxicated people downtownThe wife of mayoral candidate Gord Steeves, Lorrie Steeves, was the focus of social media today for what she posted on her Facebook page in 2010.

Her post on February 11, 2010 reads: "Lorrie Steeves is really tired of getting harrassed (sic) by the drunken native guys in the skywalks. we need to get these people educated so they can go make their own damn money instead of hanging out and harrassing (sic) the honest people who are grinding away working hard for their money. We all donate enough money to the government to keep thier (sic) sorry assess (sic) on welfare, so shut the f**k up and don't ask me for another handout!"

It comes on the same day that Gord Steeves announced that as mayor, he would commit more police cadets to the downtown area to pick up intoxicated people.

He said Winnipeg's downtown can't thrive while there is a perception it isn't safe.And:Derek Nepinak, grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, said he thought Lorrie Steeves' Facebook comment was narrow-minded.

"It's reflective of an attitude among some people from some of the privileged areas of the city that venture downtown and see some of the things they don't want to see," said Nepinak. "I think it's problematic being that it comes from the wife of one of our candidates for mayor."

Nepinak said he was offended by the comment as well as Gord Steeves announcement this afternoon.

Nepinak said Steeves' plan to beef up the cadet presence downtown was a "shortsighted" bandaid solution to a deeper social issue.Political expert says it’s too soon to know impact of “drunken natives” commentsWhen reached by Global News by phone, Lorrie Steeves would not comment on the post, but late Friday emailed the following statement and apology: “In 2010 while I was working downtown I was regularly harassed for money and often put in a position where I feared for my safety. One day in particular 4 years ago was very bad and out of frustration I vented on my personal facebook page. I feel terrible about these comments. I am terribly sorry and I apologize. I do not clear my facebook posts or status updates with my husband.”

Michael Champagne, who founded Aboriginal Youth Opportunities, would like Lorrie to take her apology a step further and spend some time with him in the North End.

“We can explain what it is like from our perspective to experience homelessness and deal with addictions,” said Champagne.

He hopes the negative Facebook comments do not overshadow all the good work he feels is being done within the Aboriginal community.

“We as indigenous young people in this city are trying as hard as we can to break those stereotypes but we need the rest of Winnipeg to come along so they can actually change,” Champagne told Global News.

Poverty = foreign country

Poverty is a "Foreign Country" on the American Screen

Can we admit that poverty is as American as apple pie?

By Lynn Stuart ParramoreThe movie Beasts of the Southern Wild is a travel film. You, the viewer, are invited to take a tour of a foreign country. The rituals are curious: The people cook with blowtorches. They coast the bayou on trash-heap floats. The landscape is fantastical, populated with mythic figures and beasts that seem to bubble up from the unconscious.

The uncanniness of the film is that this Louisiana landscape is not a foreign land, as its title mockingly suggests. This is home. This is America—a place where 46.5 million people live at or below the government-defined poverty line, which, for an individual, means surviving on less than twelve thousand bucks a year. We live in a time when we’re supposedly overcome with information, and yet we find next to nothing in popular culture about what’s going on with the half of us who are in or near poverty.

Rural poverty is nearly invisible on the screen. The film that usually calls it to mind is Deliverance, a thriller in which the nightmare of inbred mountaineers is as threatening as that of any gun-toting gangsters from Menace II Society. (Actually more so: “Squeal like a pig!”)And:During the Great Depression, poverty was our poverty, America’s poverty, something we could all relate to. Charlie Chaplin was our Little Tramp, our everyman. The carry-over of that collective experience of poverty brought us “The Waltons” and gave us treacly reminders of a time when being poor was not a mark of shame. By the 1980s, television simply announced the problem of poverty solved: if you were black and virtuous, you got to be a Huxtable. If you were black and undeserving, the ghetto was your natural domain. If you were white, you never moved beyond reasonably comfortable working-class. Mostly you were upper-middle-class, if not rich. Voila! Meanwhile, actual poverty increased for people in America, both black and white.

TV and film both influence and shape public perception, and the go-to explanation for economic hardship is still the idea of a “culture of poverty,” which says that people are poor because their families are messed-up and they don’t want to work. (It’s interesting to imagine what the hard-working, righteous James and Florida Evans of “Good Times” would have said to Paul Ryan: here’s a glimpse!)

Commercial products have to resonate widely with the public, or they don’t get sold. It's still popular to look down on the poor or even gleefully mock them. (In the U.K., the smash TV hit "Benefits Street" depicts welfare recipients as fraudsters and losers.) But post-financial-crisis Americans may be more open now to depictions of poor people who are poor not because they are bad, but because they are confronted with enormous social and economic plutocratic forces. The Hunger Games is a start: the corrupt state makes a bold appearance as the force that messes up Katniss Everdeen, though the pitiless market is largely absent.Comment:  The lack of minorities in movies and TV is tied to our cultural hatred of poverty. Which comes from our American exceptionalism that began with the Pilgrims.

This belief that we're God's chosen ones means that we don't enslave or kill others. We don't start wars or torture our opponents. And we don't accept poverty, hunger, or illness in our midst.

If any of these problems occur, it's because of a few rotten apples. Better yet, it's because people were weak, greedy, and selfish. We blame the victims so we don't have to blame ourselves.

For more on the subject, see Republicans Hate Government Aid for Minorities and Republicans Want Poor People to Die.

Republicans hate government aid for minorities

As Obamacare Improves, Republicans Just Become More Enraged

By Paul KrugmanHealthCare.gov is running much better. It's not running as well as, say, Amazon.com—but remember, the government is mainly trying to give people money, namely subsidized insurance, rather than to sell them something, so it doesn't have to match commercial performance right away. There are still serious problems with the back end—the delivery of information to insurers. But the site is no longer a laughingstock, it's going to get better, and a lot of people are going to sign up by the time open enrollment ends on March 31. In short, the crisis is over—for President Obama and the Democrats.

It's just beginning for the Republicans, who won't be able to let go of the notion that the program is a criminal scandal, and that mobs with pitchforks will march on the White House if only they can find the right words. They'll try everything. They'll hold endless hearings; they'll get the usual suspects to publish many op-eds. Maybe they'll get "60 Minutes" to do a report that has to be retracted. And yes, maybe Republicans will gain some seats in the midterm elections, although those are a long way away. But health reform is, almost surely, over the hump.And:The hysteria over Obamacare is well documented, of course; a recent online article by Sahil Kapur at Talking Points Memo on "Obamacare McCarthyism"—the instant purging of any Republican who offers any hint of accommodation to the law of the land—is getting a lot of well-deserved attention. One thing Mr. Kapur did not emphasize, however, is what I see a lot in my inbox (and in my reading): the furious insistence that nothing resembling a government guarantee of health insurance can possibly work.

That's a curious belief to hold, given the fact that every other advanced country has such a guarantee, and that the United States has a 45-year-old single-payer system for seniors that has worked pretty well all this time. But nothing makes these people as angry as the suggestion that Obamacare might actually prove workable. And it's going to get worse.The Return of the Welfare Queen

Republicans see class warfare as a winning message, but they risk hurting the blue-collar whites the party depends on.

By Beth Reinhard[A]ll of this opposition carries an unmistakable undertone of class warfare, a theme easy to exploit in states such as Kentucky, packed with low-income white voters who have a strong distaste for the federal government. To hear the rhetoric coming from Capitol Hill and the campaign trail, Medicaid and food-stamp recipients are a bunch of shiftless freeloaders living high on king crab legs and free health care, all on the backs of hardworking Americans.

Medicaid expansion is "the principal reason your kids' college tuition is going up," Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky charged at a press conference here.

New Medicaid recipients "have no personal responsibility for their health," said state Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate, in a memo from the state capital.

And in Louisiana, Senate candidate and Republican Representative Bill Cassidy hypothesized about a single woman forced to pay high premiums under Obamacare who thinks her neighbor could make more money. "But he would rather work fewer hours or work for cash or, perhaps, live out of wedlock so that he and his girlfriend both qualify for the taxpayer-provided free insurance," Cassidy wrote in a newspaper column.And:To understand Kentucky's conflicted relationship with the federal government, 50 years after hosting President Lyndon Johnson's launch of the "War on Poverty," is to meet Terry Rupe. The 63-year-old widower can't remember the last time he voted for a Democrat, and he's got nothing nice to say about Obama. He's also never had health insurance, although he started working at age 9. Since his wife's death four years ago, he's been taking care of their 40-year-old, severely disabled daughter full time. She gets Medicaid and Medicare assistance.

"I don't have any use for the federal government," Rupe said, even though his household's $13,000 yearly income comes exclusively from Washington. "It's a bunch of liars, crooks, and thieves, and they've never done anything for me. I'm not ungrateful, but I don't have much faith in this healthcare law. Do I think it's going to work? No. Do I think it's going to bankrupt the country? Yes."

Rupe sounds like he could be standing on a soapbox at a Tea Party rally, but he happens to be sitting in a back room at the Family Health Centers' largest clinic in Louisville—signing up for Medicaid. Rupe, who is white, insists that illegal immigrants from Mexico and Africa get more government assistance than he does. (Illegal immigrants do not, in fact, qualify for Medicaid or coverage under the Affordable Care Act.)

He's not alone in thinking this way. A majority of whites believe the healthcare law will make things worse for them and their families, according to a United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll.

"President Obama's idea is taking from the working people to give to the people who won't take care of themselves. It's redistribution of wealth," Rupe said. "I've always taken care of myself. You got these young girls who go out and get pregnant and then they get $1,500 a month for having a kid, so they have two."

Obamacare = welfare = helping minorities

Reinhard barely mentions race, but it's the elephant in the room. Terry Rupe explained what he really hates above:Rupe, who is white, insists that illegal immigrants from Mexico and Africa get more government assistance than he does.Yep, it's all about a fear of minorities getting something at the expense of whites. I.e., the white man losing his historic power and privilege.

This fear is fueled by the right-wing media even though it's unmoored from reality. As the article states, illegal immigrants can't get Obamacare and most welfare recipients are white.

But Tea Party Republicans have learned that openly expressing their racism earns them only scorn from the mainstream public and media. So they've invented ways to talk about race without talking about it.

An article explains how terms like "states' rights" and "welfare queens" became code-words for "keep the black man in his place."

How the GOP became the “White Man’s Party”

From Nixon to Rand, Republicans have banked on the unerring support of Southern white men. Here's how it came to be

By Ian Haney-LopezOver the next week, the nation reacted. More than 100,000 telegrams and letters flooded the office of the Alabama governor. More than half of them were from outside of the South. Did they condemn him? Five out of every 100 did. The other 95 percent praised his brave stand in the schoolhouse doorway.

The nation’s reaction was an epiphany for Wallace, or perhaps better, three thunderbolts that together convinced Wallace to reinvent himself yet again. First, Wallace realized with a shock that hostility toward blacks was not confined to the South. “He had looked out upon those white Americans north of Alabama and suddenly been awakened by a blinding vision: ‘They all hate black people, all of them. They’re all afraid, all of them. Great god! That’s it! They’re all Southern. The whole United States is Southern.’” Wallace suddenly knew that overtures to racial resentment would resonate across the country.

His second startling realization was that he, George Wallace, had figured out how to exploit that pervasive animosity. The key lay in seemingly non-racial language. At his inauguration, Wallace had defended segregation and extolled the proud Anglo-Saxon Southland, thereby earning national ridicule as an unrepentant redneck. Six months later, talking not about stopping integration but about states’ rights and arrogant federal authority—and visually aided by footage showing him facing down a powerful Department of Justice official rather than vulnerable black students attired in their Sunday best—Wallace was a countrywide hero. “States’ rights” was a paper-thin abstraction from the days before the Civil War when it had meant the right of Southern states to continue slavery. Then, as a rejoinder to the demand for integration, it meant the right of Southern states to continue laws mandating racial segregation—a system of debasement so thorough that it “extended to churches and schools, to housing and jobs, to eating and drinking … to virtually all forms of public transportation, to sports and recreations, to hospitals, orphanages, prisons, and asylums, and ultimately to funeral homes, morgues, and cemeteries.” That’s what “states’ rights” defended, though in the language of state-federal relations rather than white supremacy. Yet this was enough of a fig leaf to allow persons queasy about black equality to oppose integration without having to admit, to others and perhaps even to themselves, their racial attitudes.

“Wallace pioneered a kind of soft porn racism in which fear and hate could be mobilized without mentioning race itself except to deny that one is a racist,” a Wallace biographer argues. The notion of “soft porn racism” ties directly to the thesis of “Dog Whistle Politics.” Wallace realized the need to simultaneously move away from supremacist language that was increasingly unacceptable, while articulating a new vocabulary that channeled old, bigoted ideas. He needed a new form of racism that stimulated the intended audience without overtly transgressing prescribed social limits. The congratulatory telegrams from across the nation revealed to Wallace that he had found the magic formula. Hardcore racism showed white supremacy in disquieting detail. In contrast, the new soft porn racism hid any direct references to race, even as it continued to trade on racial stimulation. As a contemporary of Wallace marveled, “he can use all the other issues—law and order, running your own schools, protecting property rights—and never mention race. But people will know he’s telling them ‘a nigger’s trying to get your job, trying to move into your neighborhood.’ What Wallace is doing is talking to them in a kind of shorthand, a kind of code.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see The Rage of Angry White Men, Republicans Want to Restore Confederacy, and "Defund Obamacare" = "Nigger, Nigger."

"Defund Obamacare" = "nigger, nigger"

The real story of the shutdown: 50 years of GOP race-baiting

A House minority from white districts want to destroy the first black president, and the GOP majority abets them

By Joan WalshWhen Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg studied the voters of Macomb County, a hotbed of so-called Reagan Democrats—the county gave two-thirds of its votes to John F. Kennedy in 1960, and the same proportion to Ronald Reagan in 1980—he found that they no longer saw Democrats as working-class champions. “Blacks constitute the explanation for their vulnerability and for almost everything that has gone wrong in their lives,” and they saw government “as a black domain where whites cannot expect reasonable treatment,” Greenberg wrote.

So for a lot of Democrat-turned-Republican voters, “government” was all about black people, Reagan knew. You didn’t have to be racist to thrill to Reagan’s declaration that “government is not the solution; government is the problem,” though it didn’t hurt. Republican strategist Lee Atwater explained exactly how it worked in a now-infamous 1981 interview that was secret for 30 years. Atwater explained how the GOP dialed down its racial rhetoric for fear of alienating white moderates who might buy the GOP’s anti-government crusade, but be uncomfortable with outright racism.

This is Atwater talking to an academic interviewer in 1981, Year One of the Reagan revolution:You start out in 1954 by saying, “N–ger, n–ger, n–ger.” By 1968 you can’t say “n–ger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites … “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N–ger, n–ger.”And then you say “Defund Obamacare,” and everyone knows why.Walsh's response to the right-wing racists who don't like their racism made plain:

Angry right gets mad when you accuse it of race-baiting!

Comment:  I've said similar things many times, of course. The Republican Tea Party protests against Obama, Obamacare, welfare, immigration, gun control, gay marriage, etc., etc., are about maintaining white Christian control over the country. White Christians see their power slipping away as the country's demographics change, and they're trying to stop it.

Probably the best evidence that opposing Obamacare = racism is the Republicans' complete lack of concern about Romneycare, a similar program on the state level. Both programs have individual mandates, which are supposedly what will enslave us like Nazi Germany. If your concern is about government interference in the healthcare market, you must protest Romneycare or you're a hypocrite and a fraud.

For more on conservative racism, see Indians Are Inconvenient to Americans and Republicans Want Poor People to Die.

Stereotypes unhealthy for Natives

Aboriginal Stereotypes Can Be Deadly

By Craig and Marc KielburgerWhen Jane walked into emergency to make sure her abdominal pains didn't signal problems with her pregnancy, she rubbed at a speck of dirt irritating her eye. The nurses took a look at Jane and leapt to their own conclusion: a pregnant aboriginal teen with reddened eyes? She must be on drugs or abused. They interrogated her and, ignoring her explanations, called for a social worker. It was hours before anyone even looked into her abdominal pains.

When Anne visited a Vancouver Island hospital for a routine pregnancy check-up, a nurse read in her medical record that she was Métis, and saw a notation from years before about a child welfare issue, long since resolved. The nurse immediately called in child welfare. Anne's routine hospital visit turned into a Kafkaesque drama.

Jane and Anne are made-up names, but their stories are real. They are among those gathered by Sara Wolfe, a registered midwife in Toronto, and Dr. Don Wilson, who practices obstetrics and gynaecology in Comox, B.C. and works with First Nations people from across Vancouver Island. Both Wolfe and Wilson are members of Canada's First Nations, and they have helped the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) update guidelines for providing culturally sensitive health care services for aboriginal women.

Wolfe and Wilson have seen many such examples of the unfair stereotypes and cultural misunderstandings that aboriginal women all too often face in Canada's health care system. Most Canadians walking into a hospital or doctor's office would never face what Jane and Anne did.Comment:  These are typical cases of how Native stereotypes can cause harm and affect lives. We protest them for this reason, not because it feels good to be "politically correct."

For more on the harm of Native stereotyping, see Native Is Prejudiced Against Natives and Mithlo's TEDx Talk on Stereotypes.

Natives subsidize Canada, not vice versa

What if Natives Stop Subsidizing Canada?There is a prevailing myth that Canada's more than 600 First Nations and native communities live off of money--subsidies--from the Canadian government. This myth, though it is loudly proclaimed and widely believed, is remarkable for its boldness; widely accessible, verifiable facts show that the opposite is true.

Indigenous people have been subsidizing Canada for a very long time.

Conservatives have leaked documents in an attempt to discredit chief Theresa Spence, currently on hunger strike in Ottawa. Reporters like Jeffrey Simpson and Christie Blatchford have ridiculed the demands of native leaders and the protest movement Idle No More. Their ridicule rests on this foundational untruth: that it is hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians that pays for housing, schools and health services in First Nations. The myth carries a host of racist assumptions on its back. It enables prominent voices like Simpson and Blatchford to liken protesters' demands to "living in a dream palace" or "horse manure," respectively.

It's true that Canada's federal government controls large portions of the cash flow First Nations depend on. Much of the money used by First Nations to provide services does come from the federal budget. But the accuracy of the myth ends there.

On the whole, the money that First Nations receive is a small fraction of the value of the resources, and the government revenue, that comes out of their territories.And:From the days of beaver trapping to today's aspirations of becoming an energy superpower, Canada's economy has always been based on natural resources. With 90 per cent of its settler population amassed along the southern border, exploitation of the land's wealth almost always happens at the expense of the Indigenous population.

Canada's economy could not have been built without massive subsidies: of land, resource wealth, and the incalculable cost of generations of suffering.

Overall numbers are difficult to pin down, but consider the following: Canadian governments received $9 billion in taxes and royalties in 2011 from mining companies, which is a tiny portion of overall mining profits; $3.8 billion came from exports of hydroelectricity alone in 2008, and 60 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from hydroelectric dams; one estimate has tar sands extraction bringing in $1.2 trillion in royalties over 35 years; the forestry industry was worth $38.2 billion in 2006, and contributes billions in royalties and taxes.

By contrast, annual government spending on First Nations was $5.36 billion in 2005 (it's slightly higher now). By any reasonable measure, it's clear that First Nations are the ones subsidizing Canada.Comment:  For more on Indians as welfare recipients, see Online Hatred Against First Nations and Top Three Native Stereotypes.

Below:  Graham Greene in Skins.

Online hatred against First Nations

Taking on the Trolls: Why the Online Race-Hatred Against First Nations?

By Charlie AngusWhenever an article is posted on Idle No More, treaty rights or First Nation poverty, the comments section is quickly overwhelmed with abusive attacks. In cyber space the racists are loud, proud and determined to define the terms of discussion on First Nation issues.

Now I know that online commentary isn't generally known for its erudite reflection. After all, troll culture seems to revel in trashing everyone. Thus, some might say, First Nation readers shouldn't be so sensitive. But if you read through the comments it is impossible not to recognize a relentless pattern of malevolent attacks that would be considered inexcusable if they were used against other social, ethnic or religious minorities.

Let's compare response to recent natural disasters. Online commentators responded to the natural disasters in places like Oklahoma, Bracebridge or Alberta with an outpouring of comments that were very heartfelt and moving.

And yet, when two communities in my region--Attawapiskat and Kashechewan--were hit by flash flooding earlier this spring, the pages were overwhelmed with vicious glee.

The online consensus was that the families who were flooded out by failed sewage lifts were actually responsible for the flood--either out of either deviousness or mental decrepitude.

"And so the annual spring shopping evacuation begins," wrote one troll. "The only reason the problem never gets addressed is b/c it would take away the annual reason for evacuating south at government expense!"

"I guess the gasoline, drugs and alcohol made them stupid," wrote another. "Talk about inept!!"

"I hope their cigarettes doesn't get wet," wrote one commentator. "Or their gasoline," chirped in a second. "Or their oxycontin," piled on a third.

The idea that government agencies might send aid to help these Canadian citizens sent the online commentators into a rage. "Their culture of dependency knows no bounds," wrote one commentator in the HuffPost. Another suggested creating a separate currency for Aboriginal people so that white people could decide whether or not to honour the costs.

I used to think that trolls wrote this crap because they could post their junk anonymously. But now I seeing people who are not only willing to sign their name but supply an accompanying headshot. Far from feeling marginalized, the purveyors of these false stereotypes--the "lazy" Indian, the "corrupt" Chief, the "ripped off" taxpayer"--seems to be hijacking the public conversation away from issues like chronic infrastructure underfunding, third class education and the inability to share in economic development.

Having received such little push back the trolls continue to promote even more dehumanizing caricatures. In a recent comment on Attawapiskat one person wrote, "Europeans have created the modern world, while you people created lice, fleas and more welfare recipients." Such screeds were once found on marginal Neo-Nazi sites. They now find themselves at home on the public spaces provided by reputable media organizations.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Racists Infest Newspaper's Facebook Page.

Top three Native stereotypes

The top 3 stereotypes or beliefs that people have when they walk in to my Native American Studies courses or #FileThisUnderReasonsWhyITeachNAS

By Cutcha Risling BaldyThe top 3 stereotypes or beliefs that people have when they walk in to my Native American Studies courses--

#3: Native Americans are poor because they want to be poor because that’s how they get all the free stuff from the government that the government gives them.

#2.5 Native Americans who are not poor have casinos. Those casinos make them so rich that they buy the government off to give them things.

#2 If you go to a reservation you will get shot. Or beat. Or shot and beat. Or somebody will be mean to you. They will probably be mean to you and then shoot you.

#1 Everything you need to know about Native peoples you can learn by watching Disney’s PocahontasComment:  Let's rephrase these a bit, like so:

1) Movies about noble or murderous savages are realistic portrayals of Indians.

2) Reservations are cesspools of crime, poverty, despair, and hopelessness.

3) Indians don't pay taxes, live off welfare, and get everything free--either from the government or casinos.

In this form, I could support these as the top three Native stereotypes. They sum up the perceptions most Americans have about Indians.

For more on the subject, see Comanche Chairman Justifies Tonto's Stereotypes and Mithlo's TEDx Talk on Stereotypes.

Austerity = termination

Austerity & Termination are twin ideologies

By Mark TrahantIf you look at the failed history of termination--the idea of ending the federal-treaty relationship with tribal governments--there were two distinct motives. Some believed it was the next logical step for Indian progress, an economic integration. While others hated government and used termination as a method to shrink and attack government.

National Congress of American Indians President Joseph Garry, a member of Idaho’s Coeur d’Alene Tribe, said at the 1958 convention, that Congress adopted the termination resolution in good faith ... “believing it would be good for Indian people” even though it was clearly dangerous and a disaster. That’s why nearly everyone, friends and foe alike, were at least partial supporters of termination policy.

Utah’s Republican Senator Arthur Watkins was from the shrink-and-attack government camp. He was zealous about termination, badgering tribal witnesses when they came to Capitol Hill, refusing to even consider alternatives. He dismissed treaty obligations outright. Indians, he said, “want all the benefits of the things we have--highways, schools, hospitals, everything that civilization furnished--but they don’t want to help pay their share of it.”

This story should have a familiar ring to it. The same forces are at play when it comes to austerity. One camp sees the problem--the country’s demographic imbalance--and opts for austerity as a solution or at least a partial solution. While the other camp hates government and sees austerity as a tool to shrink and attack. Arthur Watkins would be at home in a Tea Party crowd.Trahant's conclusion:The United States sharply cut government spending after World War II when debt levels exceeded 120 percent of GDP. Indian Country remembers that era well because it paralleled the termination era. Severe austerity and termination are related ideologies.Comment:  We've seen how conservatives demonize welfare recipients, and how it's a thinly veiled attack on women and minorities. "Austerity" is the name people are increasingly giving to this attempt to preserve white male privilege.

Termination was an Indian-specific version of this political philosophy.

For more on Indians as welfare recipients, see Natives "Filed Away" by Stereotypes and Canadian Candidate Quits Over "Hateful" Comments.

Natives "filed away" by stereotypes

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

The White Media Kills Again and Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian candidate quits over "hateful" comments

B.C. NDP candidate quits over 'hateful' comments on 1st campaign day

Controversial comments focus on First Nations, French-CanadiansThe B.C. NDP dropped Kelowna-Mission candidate Dayleen Van Ryswyk on the first day of the provincial election campaign over controversial comments made on a local media website.

“Earlier today, I was made aware of unacceptable comments made by Kelowna-Mission NDP candidate Dayleen van Ryswyk,” NDP Leader Adrian Dix said in a written release. “I have accepted Van Ryswyk’s resignation. A new B.C. NDP candidate will be announced shortly.”

He said mistakes happen, and that's how Van Ryswyk slipped through the vetting process despite posting comments on the internet blasting compensation paid to First Nations.

The news comes after the B.C. Liberal issued a press release Tuesday morning calling for Van Ryswyk’s resignation. The party released a series of controversial blog posts attributed to Van Ryswyk.

Some of Van Ryswyk's comments take aim at First Nations.

“It’s not the status cards, it’s the fact that we have been paying out of the nose for generations for something that isn’t our doing,” reads one post on Castanet, an Okanagan area website. “If their ancestors sold out too cheap it’s not my fault and I shouldn’t have to be paying for any mistake or whatever you want to call it from my hard-earned money.”What Van Ryswyk doesn't understand is, Canadians are paying for the vast tracts of land they took from Indians, not reparations for their past actions. Duhhh.

This story is ironic considering what the NDP stands for:

New Democratic Party (Canada)The NDP evolved from a merger of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). The CCF grew from populist, agrarian and socialist roots into a modern socialist party. Although the CCF was part of the Christian left and the Social Gospel movement, the NDP is secular and pluralistic. It has broadened to include concerns of the New Left, and advocates issues such as gay rights, international peace, and environmental stewardship.
New Democrats today advocate, among other things:

Reducing poverty in Canada
Robust human rights protection
Aboriginal peoples' treaty, land, and constitutional rightsFor more on Indian treaties, see Barton: Indians Fought to Keep Torturing and Idle No More's Goals.