Surveyors = evildoers

Another note on the justified killings at Richland Creek:

As you may recall, I occasionally mention Karl May's books starring Old Shatterhand, the Aryan cowboy superman, and his faithful Apache companion Winnetou. They're relevant here because Old Shatterhand is a surveyor like those at Richland Creek. For all I know, Richland Creek could've been the inspiration for May's characters and stories.

A Karl May fanatic argued that the books are pro-Indian because Old Shatterhand helps and protects his Indian friends. First of all, that's not quite true. What he actually does is protect a few good Indians against a lot of bad Indians and white men. These white men are the usual desperadoes seen in Western literature--people willing to cheat, steal, or kill to make a quick buck. They are not "innocent" colonizers like the surveyors at Richland Creek.

More to the point, Old Shatterhand is a fundamental part of the American colonialist system. His job is basically to help the white man dispossess the Indians by surveying their land. Who cares if he saves a few Indians while he's paving the way for progress?

The books are anti-Indian, not pro-Indian, because they presume that the white man's Manifest Destiny is real and good. That "primitive" Indians are fated to fade away as the tides of civilization wash over them. Yes, Old Shatterhand helps individual Indians, but that's irrelevant because the books' theme or message is anti-Indian.

Below:  The heroic Old Shatterhand stands by as wild Indians attack brave soldiers.

"Gunfighter" in Slumdog Millionaire

In Slumdog Millionaire, Jamil is a nice guy and his brother Salim is a not-so-nice guy. At one point Salim challenges Jamil with words like these:Are you going to be a slumdog or a real man? A gunfighter.Compare this with another quote from an Asian:American freedom: Riding horses and shooting guns.

Phon, quoted in Cowboys and Indians, Thai-Style, 8/7/03It's pretty obvious where these fellows got the notion that real men = gunfighters = Americans. From the dominant American mythology of cowboys 'n' Indians, as promoted worldwide in movies, books, advertisements, and every other form of media.

Why else would Salim use the word "gunfighter," an Americanism coined in 1890-1895? This word didn't exist during the actual cowboys 'n' Indians era shown in countless Westerns. It came into existence only when Americans began bemoaning the end of the frontier and fantasizing about the past.

For more on the subject, see America's Cultural Roots.

Incidentally, I'd say Slumdog Millionaire deserved the Oscars it got, including Best Picture. Rob's rating: 8.5 of 10.

P.S. Yes, I know the Indians in Slumdog Millionaire are the wrong kind of Indians. Feel free to make all the jokes and puns you want. <g>

Skateboarders at the NMAI

Ramp It Up: Skateboard Culture in Native AmericaJune 12, 2009–September 13, 2009
NMAI on the National Mall, Washington, DC

Ramp it Up celebrates the vibrancy, creativity, and controversy of American Indian skate culture. Skateboarding combines demanding physical exertion with design, graphic art, filmmaking, and music to produce a unique and dynamic culture. One of the most popular sports on Indian reservations, skateboarding has inspired American Indian and Native Hawaiian communities to host skateboard competitions and build skate parks to encourage their youth. Native entrepreneurs own skateboard companies and sponsor community-based skate teams. Native artists and filmmakers, inspired by their skating experiences, credit the sport with teaching them a successful work ethic. The exhibition features rare and archival photographs and film of Native skaters as well as skatedecks from Native companies and contemporary artists.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Skateboarding = Hot Trend and Skateboards, Rappers, and Punk Rockers.

Below:  "Members of the 4 Wheel Warpony skate team (White Mountain Apache). Photo courtesy of Dustinn Craig (White Mountain Apache/Navajo), 2008."

Justified killings at Richland Creek

Fred Roeder reports on what seems like a typical encounter between 19th-century colonizers and Indians:

Cultures Collide at Richland CreekColonizers have never lost any sleep wondering whether or not anybody might have a prior claim to the "New World". Often enough it was the surveyors who first found out, usually the hard way. As the natives were quick to learn, after the surveyors came settlers who occupied the land and monopolized its resources, thus surveying was one of the principal causes of hostilities.

In one of the most disastrous survey expeditions ever made, twenty-five surveyors fought a hunting party of Indians, mostly Kickapoo but at least four other tribes were involved, at a place called Richland Creek in Navarro County, Texas. About fifty miles south of Dallas, Navarro County was buffalo country the Indians had long used it as a source of their winter supply of meat. Not one of them had ever heard of Queen Isabella or paid much attention to Sam Houston's two-year-old Texas Republic, where soldiers and citizens were waiving their bounty and headright certificates demanding that the land be surveyed.

The Indians knew a surveyor if they saw one, sun burned fellows dragging chains and piling up rocks, always peeping over a gadget called a compass, for which the Comanches had a more ominous name: "The thing that steals the land."

William F. Henderson was a twenty-one-year old surveyor when in the spring of 1838 he surveyed in Navarro County with a party of fourteen men. One of them had carelessly wandered away from the group and was killed by Indians, causing the other men to abandon the survey. In October he decided to try again, this time assembling a party of twenty-seven men. Well armed and confident in their numbers they commenced their survey. Already on their way to the job they encountered Indians who let them know that they strongly disapproved of any survey activity in their favorite hunting area.

The first day's work took place partly in timber and passed without incident. On the second morning Henderson sent two of his men to Parker's Fort to repair a defective compass thus reducing his party to twenty-five men. Small groups of Indians warned them that trouble lay ahead, even begged them to leave. One of them pointed to the compass and asked in English: "Is that God's eye?" apparently insinuating that it would take the Allmighty to deprive them of their land. The warnings continued for several hours but were duly ignored. It proved to be a fateful mistake.

At about eleven o'clock everybody sat down for a late breakfast after which work resumed. They were now surveying in open prairie and had barely run a mile of line when all hell broke loose. Grabbing their instruments the surveyors dashed for a shallow ravine where small bushes lining the banks offered some protection, but they were surrounded. The Indians were determined to defend the land they and their families depended upon for their winter food supply. As far as they were concerned the only good surveyor was a dead one.Comment:  What was the outcome of the battle? Eighteen white men and "countless" Indians dead.

Let's review this incident. The surveyors had no right to be where they were. The Indians knew the surveyors were the first wave of a tsunami of disease and development that destroyed whole tribes. The Indians warned, even begged, the surveyors to leave for several hours. The surveyors ignored these warnings.

The article doesn't exactly say it, but it implies the Indians attacked the surveyors without an immediate provocation. In other words, it was a preemptive strike. Does anyone want to argue that this wasn't a justified act of self-defense?

True, the Indians could've tried other strategies. They could've tried negotiating with government officials. They could've held the surveyors captive until the white men left their territory. They could've roughed up the surveyors and then forcibly removed them from the territory.

What this ignores is that these strategies take time and planning. While the Indians were arguing about the least harmful way to make their point, the surveyors might've sent for reinforcements. The US might've sent in the cavalry. Settlers with communicable diseases might've entered the area. Someone might've signed another treaty giving away the land.

US law re trespassing

This is exactly why US law lets homeowners shoot trespassers who present a clear and present danger. The law doesn't require you to find the least harmful remedy if there's objective evidence that you're threatened. It lets you employ lethal force because you're at risk of lethal force yourself.

Note: I believe states like Texas let you shoot trespassers if you simply feel threatened, or for no reason at all. To me this is going too far. If there's no objective evidence that you're in danger, you shouldn't have the right to kill anyone, even a trespasser.

But I digress. In the Indians' case, they had about 350 years of evidence that Euro-Americans meant harm. That they intended to take the Indians' land and kill anyone who got in the way. That they'd wipe out the Indians' culture, identity, and very existence if necessary.

The Indians did everything morally required of them at Richland Creek. They gave the surveyors every warning, every chance to stop their trespassing. When the wrongdoers didn't comply, the Indians meted out a harsh but ultimately fair justice.

I don't know the details of most Indian attacks, but I suspect this attack was typical. I believe the legal term for this is justifiable homicide. The Indians were justified in killing people to protect their land and lives.

If the Indians were tried under US law today, I suspect no court would convict them. If they were Anglo homeowners and the trespassers were illegal Latino immigrants, I'm sure no court would convict them. So I find the Indians not guilty of murder by reason of Rob's logic.

Hindsight isn't valid

As I'm sure I've said before, I'm not a violent person. If I were in charge, I probably would've risked my people's lives to negotiate some accommodation with the government. Many Indian leaders did this and their people suffered for it, so peaceful negotiations were no panacea. Those who attacked violently sometimes gained years of freedom before being forced into rez-based servitude.

The point is that regardless of what you or I might've done, preemptive strikes were a legitimate military strategy. They were acts of moral calculation, not mindless savagery. They didn't end up working better than peaceful negotiations, but I'm not sure they ended up working worse, either.

Again, if it were me, I'd attack trespassers only as a last resort. But it's not fair to judge Indians who had a limited knowledge of the nature of the white "problem." They had no idea how many additional Euro-American threats loomed over the next hill or wave. No idea whether peaceful negotiations or violent attacks would produce better results in 50, 100, or 500 years.

This argument I've developed applies to the Jamestown Massacre of 1622, King Phillip's War, and many other conflicts "started" by Indians. It probably applies to Geronimo's raids, although I'd have to know the details to be sure. Feel free to apply this argument to those debates.

For more on the subject, see Rob Dismisses Native Resistance? and Rob Hypocritical About Genocide?

Pequot massacre in After the Mayflower

Continuing the discussion of After the Mayflower, the first episode of PBS's We Shall Remain series:

By the 1630s, the English had become a power in the region. They saw the Pequots to the west, in Connecticut, as a rival power. In 1637, a force led by the Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth colonies destroyed the Pequots. They burned an undefended Pequot village at Mystic River, killing 700 men, women, and children. Other Indians, even those that sided with the English, were appalled at the Europeans' savagery.

Some details that After the Mayflower didn't include:

Mystic massacre

The Pequot Massacre:  An Exercise in Seeking Truth From Facts"The outcome of such a war was of course never in doubt. It ended with an attack by John Mason and his men on the last Pequot stronghold, their settlement on the Mystic River. 'We must burn them!' Mason is reported as having shouted, running around with a firebrand and lighting the wigwams. 'Such a dreadful terror let the Almighty fall upon their spirits that they would flee from us and run into the very flames. Thus did the Lord judge the heathen, filling the place with dead bodies,' he reported afterward:

"The surviving Pequots were hunted but could make little haste because of their children, Mason wrote, 'They were literally-run to ground...tramped into the mud and buried in the swamp.' The last of them were shipped to the West Indies as slaves...John Winthrop...governor once more,...[offered]...forty pounds sterling for the scalp of an Indian man, twenty for the scalps of women and children. The name 'Pequot' was officially erased from the map. The Pequot River became the Thames and their town became New London."Incidentally, my ancestor William Palmer fought in this war under Captain Underhill. (My mother's maiden name was Palmer.) He may have participated in the Mystic River Massacre. Unlike some Newspaper Rock readers, I don't deny that my ancestors were complicit in the onslaught against the Indians.

For more on the subject, see Losing Ground in After the Mayflower and Quality of After the Mayflower.

Raquel Welch starred in Ramona

Ramona Pageant organizers plan more, varied performancesMichael Wiley thumbed through a collection of Ramona Pageant photos as he and his wife, Charlotte, waited Saturday for the opening performance of "Ramona" to begin.

Attendance was slightly up from last year, with about 1,400 people watching the show, bowl officials said.

Wiley, 64, of Hemet, found a photo of Raquel Welch, then known as Raquel Tejada, who played the female lead, "Ramona," in the 1959 performance.

Welch will open the final performance of the season on May 2.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Soboba Rescues Ramona and Native Actors in Ramona.

Below:  "Ramona (Cesaria Hernandez) talks to Alessandro (Duane Minard) in the opening performance of Ramona in Hemet." (Melissa Eiselein/The Press-Enterprise)



A previous Ramona in traditional Native clothing.

Spirit Lake vote in perspective

Here's an article that anyone concerned about Indian mascots should read in its entirety.

Jim Grijalva, Grand Forks, column:  Keep Spirit Lake referendum in perspective

The 764-371 result at Spirit Lake, viewed from a more culturally relevant perspective, was a vote that failed to achieve consensus by more than 30 percent.The primary question of what weight we should accord the referendum as an exercise in “democracy” should address at least three issues.

The first is the appropriateness of applying western democracy models to indigenous cultures. ... [I]n comparison to the inclusive, consensus-based decision-making processes traditionally found in many indigenous cultures, democracy’s majority vote paradigm seems an impatient, divisive approach.

Second, while majority vote obviously is a key element in western democracies, so too is protection of the minority’s rights and dignity despite the majority’s contrary view.

A third issue is whether the new discussion has intellectual integrity or simply is result-oriented hypocrisy. If democracy is the touchstone principle, then the tribal laws enacted by the duly elected representatives of nearly every Sioux nation in both Dakotas over the past decade should have been particularly compelling.Comment:  Yes, mascot supporters believe in getting Native input...except when they don't. More precisely, they believe in getting Native input when the outcome is likely to go their way. When the outcome has already gone against them--as in tribal resolutions condemning the "Fighting Sioux"--they don't believe in getting Native input.

All in all, this column is a fine example of trying to look at an issue from a multicultural or Native perspective--even if the author isn't Native.

For more on the subject, see Fighting the Fighting Sioux.

Mohawk gold-medalist golfer

Young Mohawk golfer soars; already sunk two hole-in-onesAthletic achievements are common in the Akwesasne Mohawk Territory, though no one expected Indian country’s top female amateur golfer to come from an area where the golf season is only a few months long.

Victoria Thompson is a shy, quiet 21-year-old, who has been as surprised as anyone that her hobby has taken her to the levels it has. After all, she didn’t pick up the sport of golf until she was 15, and by 2008, at the age of 20, she had won the gold medal in women’s golf at the North American Indigenous Games.Comment:  For more on Native golfers, see Oneida Warriors Championship and Native Golf Tour.

My policy on blog comments

As you may have noticed, I haven't posted many blog comments recently. The reason is that I'm way behind on everything, including my e-mail and blog comments.

But I'll get to the blog comments eventually--even if it takes several weeks. In fact, you'll see several long postings from the previous months in the near future.

If you need an answer from me, you can always e-mail me. If you want to know my answer to some comment, you can check the little box that Blogger provides. This will alert you to any new comments by anyone.

Rest assured that I'm not posting long answers to old messages in the archives, where nobody can see them. If my response is longer than a few paragraphs, I'll post it as a new blog item. I'm all about keeping the dialog going, even if it takes time.

Mic-O-Say defender admits stereotypes

In Educating Scouts About Stereotypes, an anonymous reader took me to task again for criticizing the Tribe of Mic-O-Say and its mishmash of stereotypes:Rob, your post doesn't address my point and it is slanderous.Which point? What "slander"? These claims are worthless without more details. Quote the point you think I missed and the slander you think I uttered if you can.I intentionally never said that this program doesn't stereotype indians. It does.Bingo. Stop right there. You finally admit the point that I've been making all along. The point that almost everyone in these debates has previously denied. Congratulations for finally getting it.I was making another point.Were you? Well, I addressed what I thought was your point when I wrote:

Again, try to think a little. Criticizing the program's stupid stereotypes is completely different from criticizing the program's success at building youth. If you can't understand and address the first point, don't bother writing about the second. Because the second point is irrelevant to my argument.The thing is that the stereotypes don't decrease the inherent worth of such a program.The inherent worth of such a program doesn't decrease its stereotyping.

And its worth to whom? To the kids who participate in it? Or to Indian country, which has suffered the harm of 500 years of stereotyping?

You seem to think you operate in a vacuum, but you don't. Your Tribe of Mic-O-Say spreads its message to relatives, schoolmates, neighbors, teachers--basically, anyone who learns about the Tribe of Mic-O-Say from its participants. The message is that it's okay to dress up as and stereotype Indians.

Give youngsters a break?There are young, albeit passionate, scouts that have not developed their debate/discussion skills enough to combat your angry comebacks and slanderous posts, Rob.There weren't any "slanderous posts," friend. You must not know the definition of slander if you're making such a ridiculous charge.

FYI, I don't know the ages of anyone who comments on my blog. Unless they identify themselves and their ages, they're irrelevant to me. I'm not about to start mollycoddling those who stereotype Indians because they may be children.

Apparently you haven't taught your Scouts a simple maxim: If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I suggest you make that the next Mic-O-Say lesson. Warn the kiddies about the "dangers" of posting on adult blogs and websites.I won't attempt to speak further about this, but I'd say, lighten up your verbiage.No. You lighten up your defense of the Tribe of Mic-O-Say and your criticism of my verbiage.

If only everyone who promised not to discuss something further actually did it. It would make my life easier. <g>It's inappropriate to imply that their arguments are pathetic. You can criticize the program's stereotypes without calling them "stupid."What word would you use to describe the stereotypes? If you don't like "stupid," pick an adjective. Let's see if your choice of words is better than mine.

My inflammatory language served its purpose. Finally, after a few dozen comments, one of you Mic-O-Say defenders has admitted I was right. If you had done that from the start, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And I wouldn't have had to use the inflammatory language to goad you into responding.It seems like several of the commenters are just kids. Ignorant, maybe. But they haven't had the experience to make good arguments.Again, not my concern.

Why criticize stereotypes?My question was why does this blogger, from California, care about this program? Are you on a crusade to end the stereotyping of Native Americans?I directed you to the pages on my site that answered your question. If you didn't read them, that's your problem, not mine.

Anyway, your guess is close enough. And what does that tell you? That I was right to criticize the Tribe of Mic-O-Say, presumably.But, you're a guy that's not familiar with the program and its intended goal.I hate to repeat myself, but if you insist:

Again, try to think a little. Criticizing the program's stupid stereotypes is completely different from criticizing the program's success at building youth. If you can't understand and address the first point, don't bother writing about the second. Because the second point is irrelevant to my argument.It's goal is not to solely stereotype indians. It's not dress up time. The goal is to teach a set of principles.If it's not solely to stereotype Indians, are you admitting it's partially to stereotype Indians?

Is one of the principles you teach the notion that stereotyping people is okay? Because that's what you're implicitly teaching kids regardless of your explicit goals.

Anyway, I never said the Tribe of Mic-O-Say's goal was to stereotype Indians. I said it stereotypes Indians regardless of its goals. I don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding this. Again, try to distinguish the two points.Yes. You're right. Micosay does this in the context of Native "lore." You're right that it picks and chooses from the traditions of several tribes across the country.Again, bingo. Again, you admit I'm right. Why are we even having this debate when I've won it already?

Rob = PC?Is that right? Probably not if you want to adhere to a completely politically correct notion.And probably not if you believe in challenging racist and stereotypical depictions wherever they appear--a completely different matter.

If you're claiming that challenging racism and stereotyping means being "PC," you're wrong. People like me aren't advocating political correctness, we're advocating historical correctness. We're advocating correctness, period. Your stupid fault if you don't understand the difference.Your next argument: well it's not right (you'd probably use "stupid" instead) to stereotype people and parade around acting like you know what their culture is about. You're probably right.Bingo! Three bingos in a row! I'm the big winner today!But, I would say that even the kids that go through do not think that the program is teaching them about specific cultures. They're not that ignorant.Aren't they? I don't see any of the commenters--the ones you said are kids--admitting the stereotypes except you.

Have you ever tested the Native knowledge of your Mic-O-Say Scouts? Asked them if they recognize the stereotypes in your program, perhaps? Until you do, don't bother guessing what they do or don't know. I don't buy it.This can easily turn into a cyclic argument. Stereotypes: pretty much wrong. The programs' principles: pretty much good.Yep. And since the first point was my only point, I'm right. I haven't said the programs' goals were bad, so telling us they're good is a waste of time. Again, it's irrelevant.Can you change the program while keeping the same principles but removing the stereotypes? Tell me how to do it, constructively and without calling the current program stupid, and I will listen.Follow the approach of the Y-Indian Guides, which have successfully removed the Indian trappings from many of their programs. Call up their HQ and ask them for guidance.

If you're unwilling or unable to do this much, bring in a Native to educate the Scouts about Indians. Make sure it's an activist who'll teach them about today's Indians, not a historian who'll teach them about yesterday's. If you're sincere about enlightening them, find someone outspoken who will challenge the Tribe of Mic-O-Say's stereotypes.

That's about all I can suggest. I'm not in the business of providing comprehensive advice to organizations that stereotype Indians. If you want to hire me as a consultant, I'll consider it.

Natives support stereotypes?You never did address that the program was developed in conjunction with Native Americans. Some (non-scouts, invited to watch) have seen it since and have approved.Actually, yes, I did. My answer is in the previous posting. Once again, I'll repeat myself:

Back in the early years of the 20th century, Indians were much closer to the brink of extinction. Therefore, they were much more willing to accommodate the white man's fantasies about Indians. We see this over and over in the creation of Indian mascots.

Since the 1960s and 1970s, that's changed. Hence, the frequent Native protests against the Y-Indian Guides, Indian mascots, and other examples of stereotyping.

Do you mean you want me to address it further? Okay. As you've agreed, you have a mishmash of stereotypes from different tribes. Did you get Natives from all those tribes and ask them about mixing their cultural lore with others'? Did you get older Natives who were more likely to keep their opinions to themselves or younger Natives who were more likely to speak their minds? Did you ask them if they approved the overall program, with its noble goals and principles, or specifically if they approved the mishmash of stereotypes?

When you can address these points, then we'll discuss how much Natives support the Tribe of Mic-O-Say. Until then, you haven't begun to seriously answer the question.

Finally, should I even bother pointing out the questions you didn't answer? For instance, my point about dressing up as 19th-century Zulu warriors? Since you insisted I answer your questions, go ahead and answer mine. Explain why you're willing to dress up as 19th-century Indian warriors but not as 19th-century Zulu warriors.

P.S. If you're curious how this debate started, readers, go to Scout Society Stereotypes Indians.

Below:  The Tribe of Mic-O-Say teaches that it's okay to dress up as phony and stereotypical Plains chiefs.

Marcia Perez on the Carpinteria Warriors

About a month ago, an e-mail debate raged over the issue of Carpinteria High School's "Warriors" nickname and mascot. Here's the first of three postings on the subject--from a mascot foe to a mascot supporter.Dear Scott:

You as a pastor (or one who holds a theology degree) of all people should see the hurt, division and dissent this issue is causing the students of Carpinteria. It is very damaging to Native children--whether you agree or not--the experts have weighed in on this and have determined it to be so. Not all people are qualified to discuss race and the history and politics that go with it. I myself hold a master in ethnic studies and it amazes me that people that have very little knowledge outside of their own racial existence that try to define and qualify racist behaviors. Ethnic studies is like any other discipline that takes years of studying, reading, researching and discussing. People of color have a little more insight (usually) by virtue of being at the receiving end thus spend far more time thinking about the issues, reading about them and discussing them. If some one Native tells you it's racist why can't you take their word for it? It is a condition of white privilege that you place your opinion above all other races of peoples without hearing what people are saying or telling you. If you love Jesus, then select a non-divisive and less controversial image so that would bring peace to your students and stop the oppression of Natives from continuing.

Indian mascots, Indian chief heads, teams calling themselves the "Redskins" is offensive to Native Americans. If we say it is offensive...then it is because only we can define ourselves. If women say certain behaviors are sexist...is it a man's place to tell her to shut up and accept it? Or should men listen to women and respect their perspective and let young girls and women define themselves as human beings and what they can achieve. Why can't Natives have that same respect in self-defining???? As a man of God you must respect each people's right in defining themselves without the oppressor forcing the Natives to accept the dominate culture's definition of race or racism.

Look, if we called a team the Blackskins and had a black man carrying a watermelon and fried chicken while tap-dancing we would all agree that is a racist image. Why can't you see the Plains Indian chief head of your childhood Westerns chanting and giving whooping war cries is offensive to us? As Natives our images are not to be photographed, much less imitated, mimicked and copied. Many of the Indian warrior traditions and celebrations are kept sacred, secret and not even the women (of some nations) were permitted to know exactly what the men did. What if a team called themselves the "Christians" or the "Popes" and drove around in little Popemobile mascot cars with crosses and made fun of the Rosary, communion and spoke in phony Latin language or tongues to imitate Christian prayers. What if they toted around the image of the cross while cheerleaders did splits to their reading of scriptures and prayers to God? And the cheerleaders bared their midriffs, belly buttons, underwear and cleavage with big Christian crosses on their half tee-shirts. Would this be blasphemous?

Everything in Indian ceremonies and warrior culture is sacred. It is our church, our connection to the creator, so to speak. We do not imitate it or mock it--ever. Our children do not run around dressing in our Native clothing "playing Indian" no one is permitted to touch our feathers before we start our dances. It is all very sacred, solemn and serious. What is the most serious and religious parts of our lives has been taken by your people and put on display for trivial sports enjoyment. You are no man of God sir, if you cannot understand this. How dare you offend my belief system, my gods, my creator. You have just done to us what is the equivalent of burning a Bible to you. Do you understand this?

I think you confuse semantics with imagery. You can use the word "warriors," you can be warriors, define the attributes of a warrior and keep the warrior spirit alive. However, you cannot use a stereotypical Native American image to perpetuate your trivial desires. Be the Viking warriors, or the Anglo-Saxon warriors, Braveheart warriors, any European image you want is up for grabs to you. There are African warriors, Mongolian warriors, Golden State warriors, etc.

Can you grow up and let our image go? Are you a big enough man of God to say "Enough!! It is only a sporting mascot, let's select something else that does not offend people or make fun of their spiritual connection with their creator (God)."

I am not of your Christian religion. I am a practicing Native American with ceremonial regalia, children that Pomo dance on our sacred days and families that gather for spiritual cleansing, sweats and sage burnings. We dance and sing in our form of "church" the round house. We teach our children what is sacred and it is undone by the mascot images you unfurl. Do you want your kids to be good Christians and respect the cross and scripture or would it be okay for us to mock and make fun of it all the while using some made up language and imitating Christian gestures.

I really believe changing the image is worth the peace and healing your community needs to have. Let your anger go. Let your ignorance go. Let your racism go. You know nothing about our Native culture and languages so please do not speak for our "warrior spirit." Speak of things you do know and be honest about things you have no clue about.

For shame on Carpinteria for threatening that Chumash child. Is this okay in anyone's eyes? Is that what your Christian side has come to? Death threats to an Indian child because he said the phony pretend Indian images offended him? If that is not the definition of racism then I do not know what could possibly be. As a man, you need to step back and really examine yourself. Do you know what Natives lived where your town is? Can you honestly say you have studied their language, their culture and their way of dress? You are intellectually dishonest and people are calling you on it. I hope you will let your love of your Jesus guide you to peace and unity.

What would your Jesus do? Good luck in finding a soul Mr. Braithwaite, because you are obviously willing to sell ours.

- Marcia Perez
California PomoComment:  As a general statement of why Natives oppose Indian mascots, this is a fine job. But as we'll see, Braithwaite will claim it doesn't apply to the Carpinteria Warriors.

For more on the subject, see Team Names and Mascots.

P.S. I made minor corrections to Perez's spelling and punctuation for the sake of clarity.

Losing ground in After the Mayflower

In Quality of After the Mayflower, I critiqued the storytelling aspects of the first episode of PBS's We Shall Remain series. In Thanksgiving in After the Mayflower, I began discussing the show's content. Let's continue with this thread.

After the first Thanksgiving, Massasoit formally ceded Patuxet, site of new Plymouth, to the Pilgrims. The settlement was officially theirs from that point on.

Edward Winslow, who became the Pilgrims' chief emissary to the Wampanoags, consider them "trustworthy, quick of apprehension, just." So even back then, those who got to know the Indians realized they weren't cruel or vicious savages. Those who didn't get to know them are to blame for many of the misunderstandings.

In 1623, Myles Standish heard rumors of the Massachusett Indians threatening to the north. He led a preemptive raid against them and killed some of them. When he returned, he displayed a decapitated head to frighten the Wampanoags.

Is this the first case of a preemptive strike by the Euro-Americans? And the first case of domestic terrorism? Could be.

The English mistook wampum for European-style money and initiated a trading system based on it. The Indians supplied beaver pelts and beaver hats became a fashion accessory in Europe.

A fleet arrived in 1630 with 1,000 colonists to establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony. These people considered it a God-ordained practice to spread civilization and Christianity. This is when John Winthrop, the future governor, called the new colony a "city on a hill."

The English came with sense of entitlement, as if the great space was theirs to occupy and the great resources were theirs for the taking. They established town after town, with smallpox and other diseases doing their dirty work for them. One preacher said something like, "The land was almost cleared of those pernicious creatures so as to make way for a better growth."

"Pernicious creatures"...nice. In other words, a representative of the Christian faith considered Indians akin to vermin. It's pretty clear how un-Christian these Christians were.

Massasoit didn't feel any pressure to resist for the first 20 years. But the English population ballooned from 300 to 20,000. The colonists' livestock, particularly the pigs, ran loose and devastated the land. The fur trade depleted the beavers until they were almost gone.

By the time Massasoit realized how relentless the English were, they didn't need his help with the other Indians any longer. When Massasoit told them of his pact with the Pilgrims, the more recent colonists shrugged and said "What treaty?" They forced him to cede Wampanoag land piece by piece until little was left.

Is this the first treaty broken by Anglo-Americans? Could be.

By the way, my impression of Massasoit is that he also was trustworthy, quick of apprehension, and just--just like Edward Winslow said of the Wampanoags in general. He was a wise leader worth remembering--but not a great man like Tecumseh or Sitting Bull. Therefore, I still say the stereotypical Massasoit statue in Utah is the wrong way to portray him.

For more on the subject, see Native Documentaries and News.

Below:  Massasoit...demi-god or good leader?

Wolf Pack shows savage side

First Look at Wolf Pack in ‘New Moon’

Shirtless and fierceThe first official promo shot for “New Moon” has just been released, in what is certainly a cornerstone moment for the “Twilight Saga.” Although it has nothing to do with the much-loved vampire Edward or his human girlfriend who can see past the differences, Bella, the photo is already causing massive waves for a very simple reason, as USA Today can confirm: it shows the wolf pack members shirtless.

As Alex Meraz also revealed a couple of days ago, the members of the wolf pack would spend most of “New Moon” without their shirts on account of the fact that werewolves have a higher body temperature, as fans who have read the Stephanie Meyer novels must already know. Given this, it’s only understandable that the first promo shot for the film with the wolf pack members also showed them without their shirt on.

“Unlike cold-blooded neck biters, these poster guys for animal magnetism are hot. So hot that their temperature runs a steady 108 degrees.” USA Today says in the piece accompanying the photo. “Four actors–-Chaske Spencer, Alex Meraz, Kiowa Gordon and Bronson Pelletier, all with Native American heritage-–join Taylor Lautner, 17, who returns as a hairier, scarier Jacob Black.Comment:  The first question is what happened to Tyson Houseman (Cree)? He's still listed as playing Quil Ateara on IMDB.com, so what gives? Did they decide not to call him a member of the Wolf Pack because he isn't cute and buff enough? Did they fire him but fail to notify IMDB.com? Or...?

The next question is..."shirtless and fierce"? That's how they're promoting the Native actors? Why not add some feathers and warpaint to complete the picture?

I'm of two minds about about this development. On the one hand, it's good to promote Native actors as sex symbols. On the other hand, it's bad to promote them as half-naked beast-men--i.e., savages. Ideally, movies would feature half-naked Indians in more modern roles--e.g., as construction workers, lifeguards, or masseurs like John Redcorn.

Anyway, I look forward to the part where the Wolf Pack members prove they're not just mindless pretty boys. That is, when they solve problems with brains rather than brawn. When their fangs and claws are incidental to, not central to, their characters.

For more on the subject, see Quileute Werewolves in Twilight.

Below:  "Look out, Twilight fans! We're coming to ravish you! Grrr!"

Whiteclay = genocide?

A report on The Battle for Whiteclay, a documentary that's making the rounds of theaters.

Film aims to turn up heat on Whiteclay

Town's beer stores 'export ... misery to Pine Ridge'

By Jeff MartinThe film follows LaMere and fellow Native American activist Russell Means "through the streets of Whiteclay to the halls of Nebraska's State Capitol in their efforts to end alcohol sales in the place many have dubbed 'skid row on the prairie,' " according to an announcement for the free Sioux Falls screening.

In the film, men are shown passed out in the streets of the village.

"How can we talk about the good life, how can we talk about the promises of our state when Whiteclay flourishes in our backyard?" says LaMere, a member of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska who lives in South Sioux City, Neb.

Mark Welsch, Omaha coordinator of Nebraskans for Peace, has seen the film and said it left him stunned that Nebraska allows the stores to remain open.

"I mean, we're killing Indians by allowing that to happen," he said. "It's genocide. It's no different, really, than when we were shooting them in the heads, when we were trying to take over their land."Comment:  I'd say this is somewhat less than a full-blown case of genocide. But it's a serious problem.

Perhaps Russell Means can get the town of Whiteclay to secede from Nebraska and become part of his Republic of Lakotah. Or perhaps he can simply declare it part of Lakotah by fiat.

For more on the subject, see Whiteclay Protests Are "Wildly Ineffective" and Nebraska's "Dirty Little Secret."

PBS didn't consult Wampanoag tribes

Wampanoag:  PBS failed to get tribe perspectiveThe head of the Public Broadcasting Service is rebutting criticism from local American Indian tribes that the nonprofit network did not consult tribal historic preservation officers for its TV series "We Shall Remain."

The series, which tells U.S. history from the American Indian perspective, debuted on April 13 and is scheduled to run Mondays for five episodes, said Patrick Ramirez, a spokesman for WGBH Boston.

The first episode, "After the Mayflower," detailed the Wampanoag's dealings with the Pilgrims, among other topics.

A joint statement sent to the network by members of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the Narragansett Indian Tribe said that PBS did not consult them and offered a "radically altered interpretation" of Shawnee Chief Tecumseh.

The tribes also argued consultation is guaranteed through the National Historic Preservation Act because federal money was used for the project through the National Endowment for the Humanities.

"We should have been consulted," said George "Chuckie" Green, a Mashpee selectman who also serves as a member of the Mashpee Wampanoag's Tribal Historic Preservation Authority and is a medicine man in training. "It's an unauthorized version of the story."Comment:  One Wampanoag noted "some wardrobe inaccuracies" in After the Mayflower, but that's separate from the joint statement. Those who wrote the statement didn't note any problems with After the Mayflower. They're simply upset that they weren't consulted.

For more on the subject, see Reviews of After the Mayflower.

Injunuity showcases ingenuity

Embracing American Indian ingenuity

By Chris QuintanaIn timing with the Gathering of Nations Native American Powwow and UNM's KIVA Club Nizhoni Days celebration, Black Market Goods' exhibit, "Injunuity," opens today at 112 Morningside Drive N.E., showcasing contemporary paintings, photography and sculptures from American Indians. There will also be live music each day and a fashion show on Friday night.Examples of what's on display:"Right now, Albuquerque is filled with art, but a lot of it is Southwestern-style art," Jones said. "Really, if there's no market for your art, you have to create your own, and that's basically what we're doing now."

Jones will also feature the N.A.S.A. (Native American Space Association) series, which takes a look at an alternative reality with an American Indian focus.

"It's kind of like history re-imagined," he said. "It just has a bunch of sci-fi themes with native perspectives."

The show will also feature art from local graffiti artists Hok and Unek. Also, Darren Oliver, an artist out of Flagstaff, Ariz., will be present.Comment:  Alas, I can't say I see anything impressive in the photo. But I'd like to see the N.A.S.A. (Native American Space Association) series.

For more on science fiction and Indians, see No Natives in Science Fiction?

Below:  "Work featured in 'Injunuity' by Josh Jones at Black Market Goods at 112 Morningside Dr. on Wednesday." (Vanessa Sanchez/Daily Lobo)

Remix riddled with clichés?

Are we past the age of an aboriginal art show?

By Sarah MilroyThe current exhibition Remix: New Modernities in a Post-Indian World (at the Art Gallery of Ontario until Aug. 23) makes you think so. Assembling North American artists of whole or part aboriginal descent, this is an exhibition about the contemporary experience of being between cultures. As its title suggests, the show is positioned as a hip next chapter to the kind of exhibitions that introduced aboriginal artists to the mainstream art world a few decades back, group shows that highlighted cultural distinctness and the dignity of the traditional legacies from which they drew.

Organized by curators from both sides of the border (one of them Gerald McMaster, curator of Canadian art at the AGO), Remix is a collaboration of the Heard Museum in Phoenix and the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington (a division of the Smithsonian Institution, where McMaster formerly worked).

A prestigious accumulation of expertise was on tap, to be sure, but the results feel weary. The works on view seem to have lost the vitality of traditional culture, gaining little in the bargain. The curators have made weak choices: These works don't feel dynamically hybrid so much as simply diluted.

One could argue that this statement reflects a reactionary longing for racial "authenticity," or what one catalogue essay describes as "the exoticist demands of the West." But the fact is that much of this work seems to weakly recycle motifs from the mainstream art world without adding much. What's lacking here, ultimately, is not racial authenticity but artistic talent. It's a show riddled with clichés.Comment:  As you probably don't recall, I posted previously on the Remix exhibit in Art in a Post-Indian World and Remixing Native Artists. These two writers didn't have the same negative reaction as Milroy.

Basically, Milroy seems to be against any art that's political, controversial, or challenging. She wants her art pure and timeless, unsullied by messages or themes.

True, this is a defensible position. I'm sure thousands of experts have debated the merits of political art. But she should say so upfront if she's biased against this type of art. It seems dishonest to pretend she's objective and then slam Aboriginal art as unduly political.

Unfortunately, as someone said, to be Indian is to be political. Indians often define themselves as living in two worlds and synthesizing the best of each. It shouldn't be any surprise that their art reflects this.

Yes, you can find Native art that isn't political: pottery, jewelry, basketry, weaving, etc. But should that be the only kind of Native art allowed? If Milroy doesn't want to deal with nontraditional, "hybrid" works, put another reviewer on the job.

Milroy's criticism wears thin

When Milroy dismisses works with "the gag immediately wears thin" or "these are one-liners," you can see what she's basing her judgment on. She more or less states it when she asks if anyone will display these pieces in 10 years. In other words, political art has no lasting value.

One probably could list many counterexamples of lasting political art, starting with Guernica. But so what? Who remembers any original art they saw 10 years ago? Not me.

Is that the sole purpose of art: to be remembered a long time? Maybe, but I'm not sure many artists would agree. If a work has an immediate impact--if it sparks a thought or feeling--some artists might call it a success. It's succeeded whether or not some museum chooses to recognize it.

As I said, all this is debatable. But Milroy hasn't engaged in the debate. About all she's done is dismiss nontraditional Native art as not her cup of tea. She gets no points from me for that kind of attitude.

Below:  Kent Monkman's Icon for a New Empire, which Milroy praises but then dismisses as "sound-bite art." I counterpredict that people will still consider this a good painting in 10, 20, or 50 years. They'll do so for the same reason they still like Magritte's "sound-bite" paintings: because they challenge our expectations.

New Zealanders eat Eskimos

Kiwis not sweet on Inuit tourist's complaintsAn Inuit woman from Canada is making headlines and enemies in New Zealand for suggesting popular marshmallow candies called "Eskimos" are derogatory and racist.

Many Kiwis are outraged over comments by Seeka Veevee Parsons and are demanding the 21-year-old tourist go home if she's offended by their sweet treats.

"I'm just blown away by all this attention," Veevee Parsons said on the phone from the North Island city of Rotorua.

"But I'm happy because I believe it's a step forward for the people of all the world to recognize the Inuit people as a nation ... we're not just living in igloos anymore."

Veevee Parsons, born in Iqaluit, Nunavut, and raised in Glovertown, N.L., landed in New Zealand in February for a four-month trek.

Three weeks ago, she walked into a convenience store and was shocked to find packages of sweets plastered with a smiling face peaking out of a fur-trimmed parka beside an igloo. Inside the bag, colourful marshmallows are shaped like people bundled up for winter.

"I think the term 'Eskimo' can almost be related to the term 'savage' or 'Indian' or maybe even the 'n-word' for African-American people," said Veevee Parsons.

"As a kid, I used to be teased by that name. They used to call me a dirty Eskimo girl."

She said the word was originally an insult meaning "eater of raw flesh." Use of the term in Canada was replaced by "Inuit" in the 1970s, although it is still common to use Eskimo in Alaska.Comment:  The final point reflects my understanding of the issue. "Eskimo" is in a gray area. It's not obviously offensive to most people--unlike, say, "redskin."

But the candies are stereotypical even if the name isn't offensive. They portray Inuit people with the usual parkas and igloos. Almost every time this happens, people, it's stereotypical.

By the same token, I wouldn't waste much time over Eskimo Pie products. As far as I know, they don't use stereotypical images. Only the questionable word "Eskimo." To me that's like the "Saugatuck Indians"--a low priority as long as the name is the only issue.

The commenters on this article made the usual asinine retorts. The name's been around a long time--i.e., we've been thoughtless and ignorant a long time. The name's not a big deal--i.e., we white people make the decisions and we don't care what you think about it. If someone ever gave me a new reason for accepting a stereotype, I'd probably drop dead from the shock.

Okay to eat minorities?

We could go deeper into the issues surrounding this candy. How about the idea of white people biting off the heads of little Eskimos? Does that seem slightly wrong to anyone?

If it isn't obvious to you, let's do the usual test in these cases. Replace the primitive Eskimo in a parka with a primitive African in a loincloth. Now imagine biting the heads off of little black Africans. Does anyone see a problem with this?

P.S. What's with these Canadian people who think "Indian" is offensive? Do they literally know nothing about American Indians, or what?

Below:  "It's okay to eat the Eskimos because they're just candies, not real people."

Let every Sioux vote on nickname

Tom Disselhorst makes some good points about UND's deal with the NCAA over the "Fighting Sioux" nickname:

Nickname settlement was imposed on tribes[T]he real problem is that the two tribal nations—Spirit Lake and Standing Rock—that are the subject of the “settlement” between UND and the NCAA never agreed to it. They were not parties to the lawsuit and were not part of the settlement discussions.

The “settlement” was imposed on them—and by extension, on at least 15 other Dakota and Lakota tribal nations that expressed opposition to the nickname and logo before the settlement.

If the argument is made that the tribal nations can support the logo through a “referendum,” what right does the university or Board of Higher Education have to call for such an action? These are internal matters for the tribal nations to consider and are independent of any artificial time line imposed by the NCAA and UND.

Furthermore, what permanence does such a referendum have? The process can be reversed simply. And what about all of the tribes not mentioned in the “settlement” that are opposed to the logo and nickname?Comment:  In the FSU Seminole case, I argued that Florida's Seminole tribes shouldn't be the only ones to decide whether FSU could use the Seminole name. Oklahoma's Seminole tribe had a right to the name too.

This applies to the two Sioux tribes in the UND case. Why should they be the only tribes who get a say in the use of the word "Sioux"? Why not the 15 or more other Lakota and Dakota tribes?

Ideally, the tribes' say would be proportional to the nickname's effect on them. An ideal voting system might go like this: Every Sioux person in North Dakota would get one vote. Every Sioux person in another state or province would get a large fraction of a vote--perhaps 80% of one. And every other Native person would get a small fraction of a vote--perhaps 20% of one.

The crybabies who opposed the NCAA's decision to banish Indian mascots whined, "Let the Indians decide." What they meant was, "Let the small minority of Indians who have already approved the mascots decide." If they were sincere, I countered, they'd put the question to a vote of every Indian whom the stereotype affects. If they respected Native opinions--which they clearly don't--I thought they'd agree.

Needless to say, no one took me up on this suggestion. No one was willing to put their beloved mascot to a vote of every Indian. In the Seminoles' case, their position amounted to: "Let the casino Indians who need public support for their gaming operations decide, not all Indians."

In other words, most mascot supporters are hypocrites. But I suspect you already knew that. <g>

Below:  "I'm a savage spearchucker, but my stereotypes stop at the Florida border."

Thanksgiving in After the Mayflower

In Quality of After the Mayflower, I critiqued the storytelling aspects of the first episode of PBS's We Shall Remain series. Now I'll concentrate on the content.

For the basic story of After the Mayflower, A Truer Picture of Native America gives a good summary. For further reading on the subject, see

Tisquantum, Massasoit, and Hobbamock
King Philip's War

Note:  In some cases, I've quoted or paraphrase what I heard on After the Mayflower. In other cases, I've interpreted it. But everything here comes from After the Mayflower, not another source. If other sources disagree with these interpretations and implications, that's a problem for another day.

According to After the Mayflower, the Wampanoag Indians knew that the strangers (white men) often killed or enslaved Indians.

Wow. Right there is a strong rationale for the Indians' hostility toward the English. The Anglos were invading their homeland without permission with the intent to kill or enslave them. I'd say that was sufficient justification for the Indians' acts of warfare--even their preemptive strikes.

To reiterate, the English knew or should've known that the Indians considered them trespassers. That they had no moral or legal right to land without getting the inhabitants' permission. Therefore, any adversity they suffered was basically their own fault.

The medicine men who tried to cure the smallpox epidemic of 1617-1619 were called "powwows."

In the show, Massasoit calls on "Gitche Manitou" for help.

The Pilgrims found the Wampanoag village of Patuxet empty--houses fallen to ruin, fallow fields, human bones on the ground. They built New Plymouth on the site. This documentary doesn't say it, but some claim they dug up the graves and took the Indians' possessions.

Many of the Wampanoag wanted to wipe out the Pilgrims, but Massasoit urged caution.

Again, this is interesting if you think about it. The Indians were aware that their way of life was at risk. They knew that the English had wreaked havoc before. Although Massasoit made a reasonable choice--to accommodate the English--the other Wampanoags were ultimately right. They would've been better off if they had eliminated the colonists from their shores.

The Wampanoags were paying steep tribute to the Narragansetts, and knew the Pilgrims came from "a land of wealth and might." The Pilgrims obviously needed help against any hostile Indians. Therefore, the Wampanoags and Pilgrims agreed to a mutual defense pact. Massasoit considered this a treaty with the force of law.

The first Thanksgiving happened partly to celebrate this alliance. So the touchy-feely talk of thanking the Creator was something of a smokescreen. The reasons behind the feast were largely practical, not spiritual.

For more on the subject, see Native Documentaries and News.

Below:  "So what if we've killed or enslaved Indians before? We're Englishmen, so we can do whatever we want."