What's the difference between Indian and Latino?

This is something I've always wondered but never dared never to ask. If an Indian and a Latino both have, say, 50% white and 50% Indian ancestors, what's the difference between them? Finally I came across a good answer to the question.

First, some basic facts:

All About MexicoMexico's cultural mix is a result of its long and colorful history. Hundreds of years ago, Mexico was the home of great Indian civilizations. The people built cities and temples. They developed a calendar, a counting system and a form of writing. The last of these Indian empires fell to Spanish invaders in 1521. Following this conquest, Mexico remained a Spanish colony for the next 300 years. This led to widespread intermarriage and racial mixing between Spaniards and Native Americans. As late as the early 19th century, Native Americans accounted for nearly two-thirds of the population in the region. During that century, however, the racial composition of the country began to change from one that featured distinct European (Spanish) and indigenous populations, to one made up largely of mestizos--people of mixed Spanish and Native American descent. By the end of the 19th century, mestizos, who were discriminated against during three centuries of Spanish colonization, had become the largest population group in Mexico. Mestizos now account for about 60 percent of Mexicans.

Indigenous peoples account for 30 percent of the population, and people of European ancestry, primarily Spanish, account for about nine percent of the population.Now, the answer:

Ethnicity and LanguageOriginally racial designators, the terms mestizo and Indian have lost almost all of their previous racial connotation and are now used entirely to designate cultural groups. Historically, the term mestizo described someone with mixed European and indigenous heritage. Mestizos occupied a middle social stratum between whites and pure-blooded indigenous people. Whites themselves were divided into criollo (those born in the New World) and peninsular (those born in Spain) subgroups. In contemporary usage, however, the word mestizo refers to anyone who has adopted Mexican Hispanic culture. Seen in this cultural context, both those with a solely European background and those with a mixed European-indigenous background are automatically referred to as mestizos. Mestizo, then, has become a synonym for culturally Mexican, much as ladino is used in many Latin American countries for those who are culturally Hispanic. Members of indigenous groups also may be called (and may call themselves) mestizos if they have the dominant Hispanic societal cultural values.

If an indigenous person can become a mestizo, who, then, is an Indian? Anthropologist Alan Sandstorm lists minimum criteria that compose a definition of Indian ethnicity. According to Sandstorm, an Indian is someone who identifies himself as such; chooses to use an indigenous language in daily speech; remains actively involved in village communal affairs; participates in religious ceremonies rooted in native American traditions; and attempts to achieve a harmony with, rather than control over, the social and natural worlds. Should one or more criteria become absent over time, the individual probably has begun the transition to becoming a mestizo.

Although mestizos and Indians may both reside in rural areas and have relatively comparable levels of income, they maintain different lives. Such differences can lead to highly negative perceptions about each other. Mestizos often contend that Indians are too unmotivated and constrained by tradition to deal appropriately with the demands of modern society. Indians, in turn, frequently complain that mestizos are aggressive, impatient, and disrespectful toward nature.Comment:  So the differences are mostly cultural, not biological. That's kind of what I thought, but I'm glad to see it confirmed.

For more on the subject, see "Most Mexicans Are Indians" and Hispanics Have Native Roots.

Below:  Latinos or Indians?

The three anti-Indian amigos

My posting about Custer's Last Stand and Ethnic Studies generated the following dialogue on Facebook:Custer got owned! Ha! Good riddance!

I've had in the back of my mind to do a Custer comic, simply because he really was quite a spectacular asshole of an anti-hero.

Him and that horrible guy who at Sand Creek...Chivington...Mr. "Nits-Make-Lice." Uff, the very name makes me squirm.

Chivington!!! Grrrrr!!! He made me stay up all night drawing very very very angry pictures when I was a little girl, accidentally watched Soldier Blue. Man I was PISSED!!!Someone probably could do a good satirical comic book, video, or skit featuring Andrew Jackson, John Chivington, and Custer as the three anti-Indian amigos.*Chuckle*...jeezus, talk about Axis of Evil...Chivington probably changed his name from Smith or Jones so it would sound like knives being sharpened.

In the novel Custer's Luck, Custer survives Little Bighorn, is elected president, and becomes a Kennedy-style leader. It's actually well-done and plausible, believe it or not.What we hear even less of than Wounded Knee and Little Big Horn is the Sand Creek Massacre. Chivington rots in hell...And HE WAS A CLERGYMAN!

It's too easy to use Custer as a symbol. He was very complicated, and unlike many generals of his day (Sherman, Sheridan) he did not hate all Indians. He also almost missed being at the Little Bighorn because he was in Washington testifying how Indian agents were cheating the Indians. Custer is too complex to just be set up as a cardboard target.It may be too easy to use Custer as a symbol, but 1) he brought it on himself, and 2) Americans have been using him as a symbol of heroism ever since Little Bighorn. It's only fair that Indians get to use him as a counter-symbol.

Besides, I'm mostly talking about the symbolism of Custer's Last Stand, not Custer himself. In mentioning Skimin's alternate history novel, I said something positive about Custer the man. I understand he's more than just a cardboard target, which is why I posted Custer's Anti-Indian Reputation.

For more on the subject, see Custer Country in Montana and Dan Simmons Tackles Black Hills.

Beer maker apologizes for Koff ads

People have been protesting the Koff Beer ads ever since someone posted them on Facebook a few weeks ago. Someone named Angel Bigstone finally acted. She wrote to the company and posted their exchange on Facebook:Dear Sir or Madam;

I am writing with concern regarding the product Koff Indian Beer brand. I represent over 15,000 people who are of First Nations/Aboriginal/Indigenous descent in Canada, who are all part of a web group fighting to gain recognition for our Indigenous rights.

I am absolutely appalled that a commercial is currently being promoted and going viral on the internet which features American Indian actors Rick Mora, William Elk & David Midthunder. Perhaps you are not aware of our plight, perhaps these actors are not aware, but our people have been fighting to gain integrity and recognition in the fight against racism and stereotypes about Native people in the Americas, and this commercial is outrageous. It is very detrimental to the health, well-being, and self-esteem of our youth, who have expressed disappointment about the images that is in the media.

Please pull this commercial and issue a statement of apology to our people, and stop showing it in Switzerland.

For the sake of our youth, who commit suicide and suffer from addictions in record numbers both in Canada and the United States, please be aware that this commercial does not help our plight.

With respect,

Angel BigstoneThe response, received May 19:Dear Angel Bigstone,

Thank you for contacting me on the issue of KOFF Indian Beer and its advertising. We are deeply sorry for the negative feelings it has caused you and your people. Before going into any deeper I would like to inform you that the beer has not been in the market since January 2008. Thus, there is no advertising of it by our company or by our parent company Carlsberg Group.

The said beer was introduced in April 2007 to the Finnish beer market as a seasonal corn beer and listed out of our product portfolio in January 2008. The product was never exported and the commercial in the Finnish TV was on for some two weeks on one channel. Before its launch our Marketing Department worked closely with Dakota Indians some of which also featured in the commercial. This was done in order to respect the said people. Thus, our honest purpose was not to hurt or insult the American Indians, not to be racist nor derive them of their dignity. The Natives are greatly respected in Finland and also by our company. Unfortunately, we were not sensitive enough to understand firstly how this kind of advertising is indeed building a stereotype of the Natives and is secondly undermining the seriousness of the problems that alcohol has caused among many of them.

I would like to apologize you and your people for not understanding the issues behind and thus making our product and its commercial hurt you and your people.

We have learned an important lesson. We did list the product out in 2008. Yet, in the era of internet, the commercial can unfortunately still be found. We shall seek ways to contact those still possessing the film with a request to abolish it from the web. Let me assure you that Sinebrychoff and its parent company Carlsberg Group have not any ongoing viral campaigns--or any other marketing campaigns--on the cancelled beer brand.

I hope you will accept our company’s apologies and stay in contact with us in case you have further questions or any comments that you would like to share with us.

Yours sincerely,

Marja-Liisa Weckström
Viestintä- ja lakiasiainjohtaja / Director, Communications and Legal
gsm +358 40 727 6730
dir +358 9 2949 9240
marja-liisa.weckstrom@sff.fi

Sinebrychoff
Part of the Carlsberg Group
PL 87, FI-04201 Kerava
visiting address Sinebrychoffinaukio 1, 04250 Kerava
tel +358 9 294 991
www.sinebrychoff.fiComment:  Yes, we can tell how much Finns respect Natives from Cowboys & Findians episode of The Dudesons in America. Or not.

Note that the bottle uses the same Indian chief seen on thousands of products. Is this really a sign of respect, or ignorance? (See The "Honor" of a Plains Chief for the answer.)

Also, you have to be pretty damn ignorant not to know about the tragic role of alcohol in Indian culture. If you thought using Indians to promote drinking was a good idea, you didn't think much. What kind of "experts" did you have who signed off on this idea?

Thoughts for beer makers and protesters

A few more points to consider:

1) The recent online protests were a waste of time since the commercials were already off the air. Which is why I prefer to educate people in general rather than shut down particular offenses.

2) Previous protests were effective. They actually got through to the beer makers and convinced them to change their position.

3) Sounds to me like Sinebrychoff's "consultants" for the commercials may have been the actors themselves. Wow, that seems like a mistake. Actors have an inherent conflict of interest, since they need or want the work. How seriously can they criticize a production when their income may depend on it?

The same would apply to a situation such as consulting Saginaw Grant about his Dudesons episode. Grant was in it, so he wasn't going to give an unbiased opinion. He was going to say what he did say: that no one will care about the stereotypes because the show is a joke.

Next time you want an unbiased opinion, don't ask an insider whose job depends on the answer. Ask an outsider like me. I'll be glad to set you straight after your "yes men" have mollified you.

For more on the subject, see Teepees in Koff Beer Ad and New Indian Beer.

The Dudesons, Polish jokes, and minstrel shows

Here's a list of things that were supposed to be funny:

The Cowboys & Findians episode of The Dudesons in America

The "Tardicaca Indians" in South Park

The rapacious cavalryman in Family Guy

"Drunk Indians" t-shirts

Whooping, dancing, half-naked Indian mascots

The redskins in Disney's Peter Pan

Amos 'n' Andy

"Uncle Toms" and "darkies" in old movies

Minstrel shows in blackface

To this, we could add a long list of cartoons and "jokes" about:

Stupid Pollacks

Greedy Jews

Bucktoothed Asians

Ape-like Africans

Etc.

Is there any difference between any of these items? If so, what's the difference? Make sure your distinctions are clear so we can tell which of these items are acceptable and which aren't.




Debating "funny" stereotypes

I asked people on Facebook what these things had in common. This led to the following dialogue:Ignorance.

Racism, hands down.Yes, but they were all supposed to be funny. Not serious. Just a joke. Ha ha.I see no humor in any of it.But if someone somewhere is laughing, the racism and stereotyping must be harmless. Isn't that obvious?If you laugh easily, you'll laugh even if it's stereotypical, even racist. I mean, I laugh when I see Police Academy, and the humor there is rather mean. The question isn't if you laugh, it's if it's making you slightly uncomfortable even as you laugh.Which confirms my point that there's no connection between whether something makes you laugh and whether it's racist or stereotypical. Hence the "it's supposed to be funny" defense fails.Not really, Rob. If it's parody you can legally get away with virtually anything that you'd be sued for if it wasn't parody.Yes, really. I'm talking about whether something is psychologically harmful and morally wrong, not whether it's legal.

I'm sure the Dudesons episode is perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean people should make excuses for it. It's stereotypical and offensive even if it's legal and "funny" (to those who laugh at racism, that is).

If you haven't got the message yet, I'll spell it out: There's no difference between The Dudesons, Polish jokes, minstrel shows, and the other items on the list. They're all 1) stereotypical, 2) offensive to many people, and 3) allegedly funny. The alleged funniness does nothing to change the items' stereotypical or offensive nature.

For more on the subject, see Dudesons Too "Stoopid" to Matter and Okay to Stereotype in "Satires"? For more on the subject in general, see The Harm of Native Stereotyping:  Facts and Evidence.

Below:  Comical images of minorities. Laugh it up, people...these portrayals are supposed to be funny!

Custer Country in Montana

What is Custer Country? Is it a place where glory hounds go to achieve fame and glory? Where murderers go to kill Indians in their sleep? Where people who don't care about life and death go to commit suicide?

Technically speaking, it's a tourist region in southeastern Montana that includes the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. Here's what you'll find at its CusterCountry.com website:



Take in Custer CountryHere, in our on-line home, you can sample all the wonders of Custer Country—the history, wildlife, scenery, and action—and plan your dream vacation. Custer Country is where history lives--in the shining face of a 2-year old Cheyenne dancer at Crow Fair, the towering skeleton of a T-Rex on the Dinosaur Trail, and the pounding hooves at the Dinosaur Trail reenactment of Custer’s Last Stand. Custer Country is also nature at its prime—wildlife, river and badlands. Please spend some time here checking us out.HistoryFrom the legends of the American West to the dinosaurs that once ruled the earth, the wide-open spaces of Custer Country are like the pages of a history book. Famous for its battlefields, monuments, Indian Nations, and a rich cultural heritage, Montana’s Custer Country resonates with history like no other area in the United States.CusterPerhaps you’ve heard of one of our most famous visitors? His name was Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer. If you’re a history buff, you’ll find lots of interesting sites in Custer Country, including the Rosebud Battle site and Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, where Custer fought his famous last battle. Follow the trail of one of the world’s most celebrated military figures right here in Custer Country.Cowboys & IndiansA cowboy spends most of his days under western skies with horses and cattle. He is a tough individual who wears leather boots and a broad brimmed hat, and is a genuine legend of the “Old West.” The way of life and the history of cowboys lives strong in Custer Country. Today the cowboy as a serious rancher has replaced the colorful gambler and gunslinger. That doesn’t mean cowboys don’t know how to have fun. All of our rodeos are proof of that. With our rodeo events scattered throughout the year, anytime is a good time to cowboy up!

Custer Country is the home of 2 Indian Nations--the Crow and the Cheyenne. A proud and colorful history lives throughout our region and is expressed through celebrations, Pow Wows, and Crow Fair. Also, every year in June, at Little Bighorn Days in Hardin, visitors come from all over the world to watch the Reenactment of Custer's Last Stand. Action, color, shooting and the best bareback riding you've ever seen await you at this event. Finally, be certain that you save some time to visit the breathtaking art centers and museums to fully absorb the rich Indian cultural heritage.Comment:  I can see the slogan now:

Visit Custer Country, Montana, where losers go to die.

The site doesn't say much more about Indians. Its other main tabs barely mention them. This is most of what you get about the region's history.

The information isn't wrong, but it's been scrubbed clean of any controversy. Everything is "colorful" or something similarly upbeat. Nothing bad happened here except "Custer's last battle," after which I guess he retired to his estate.

What does the site omit? Well, Custer led a massacre of the Southern Cheyenne on the Washita River. He violated treaties by leading a gold-hunting expedition into the Black Hills. And at Little Bighorn he tried to kill thousands of Indians who wanted to live peacefully on their ancestral land.

At least the site doesn't call him a hero. But the name "Custer Country" seems an insult to the local tribes. He didn't live there or have any right of possession. All he did was visit once and foolishly get himself killed.

The land belonged and should belong to the Indians. It's Indian Country, not Custer Country. It would be like calling the 13 original colonies "King George III Country." Or calling Atlanta "William Tecumseh Sherman Country"--you know, because he marched through and destroyed it on the way to the sea.

Whitewashing Indian country

Custer Country has been incorporated since 1984, so I'm sure the Crow and Cheyenne have made their peace with it. But it's a typical example of how the winners write the history. Of how white Americans encode their version of events into the cultural landscape.

The implication of the name is clear. The land wasn't the Indians' to keep, it was Custer's to take. That he failed is a detail the US Army soon rectified.

Now the Indians are guests or tenants in the white man's land, not the other way around. Children grow up seeing and hearing Custer's name come first. The region features Custer, cowboys, dinosaurs, and...oh, yeah, some Indians too.

For more on Custer, see Dan Simmons Tackles Black Hills and Custer's Anti-Indian Reputation. For more on the educational issues, see Ethnic History Corrects American History and Mainstream History = Pro-White Propaganda.

P.S. Someone noted the irony of this effort beginning in 1984. Yes, the date must've inspired them. War = Peace. Freedom = Slavery. Indian Country = Custer Country.

Native foods changed the world

Tracking the Ancestry of Corn Back 9,000 Years

By Sean B. CarrollThe most impressive aspect of the maize story is what it tells us about the capabilities of agriculturalists 9,000 years ago. These people were living in small groups and shifting their settlements seasonally. Yet they were able to transform a grass with many inconvenient, unwanted features into a high-yielding, easily harvested food crop. The domestication process must have occurred in many stages over a considerable length of time as many different, independent characteristics of the plant were modified.

The most crucial step was freeing the teosinte kernels from their stony cases. Another step was developing plants where the kernels remained intact on the cobs, unlike the teosinte ears, which shatter into individual kernels. Early cultivators had to notice among their stands of plants variants in which the nutritious kernels were at least partially exposed, or whose ears held together better, or that had more rows of kernels, and they had to selectively breed them. It is estimated that the initial domestication process that produced the basic maize form required at least several hundred to perhaps a few thousand years.Comment:  Even if you've heard the origin of corn before, you may think, "How hard can it be to water a few plants and pull a few weeds?" This article hints at the tremendous amount of effort and intelligence that went into corn's domestication. Was that the work of savages? I don't think so.

Food made civilization possible

Also note this passage:For most of human history, our ancestors relied entirely on hunting animals and gathering seeds, fruits, nuts, tubers and other plant parts from the wild for food. It was only about 10,000 years ago that humans in many parts of the world began raising livestock and growing food through deliberate planting. These advances provided more reliable sources of food and allowed for larger, more permanent settlements. Native Americans alone domesticated nine of the most important food crops in the world, including corn, more properly called maize (Zea mays), which now provides about 21 percent of human nutrition across the globe. I'm not sure what the nine "most important food crops" are. One website coincidentally (?) lists nine Native foods that changed the world: potatoes, tomatoes, chili peppers, peanuts, cassavas (manioc), chocolate, vanilla, sweet potatoes, and corn.

So Indians are responsible for a minimum of 21% of human nutrition. The food site also says, "Of the world's top 26 crops by tonnage, eight originated in the Americas." A simple percentage gives us 31% of the crops by tonnage. (This is only a rough estimate because we don't know if the eight crops are at the top or bottom of the tonnage list.)

So the Native contribution to human nutrition and crop tonnage may be in the 30-40% range. Without this massive amount of food, many people would've died or never been born. Same for their cultures and civilizations: without the necessary crops, they'd never have grown or flourished.

The Indians' impressive role

Indians make up perhaps 1% of the world's population, but they've contributed much more than their share to global civilization. We can thank them for making a third or more of this civilization possible. Your food is arguably a more fundamental contribution to the world than Greek philosophy, Roman law, or Renaissance art. Without it, Europe's imperial expansion might not have happened and the world would be a different place: a third less colonized or populated.

And that's only food. It doesn't include the long list of contributions such as tobacco, rubber, and medicine. The Native role in our global civilization is bigger than I thought.

For more on Native agriculture, see New Sacagawea Dollar Released and Native Agriculture on Dollar. For more on Native contributions to civilization, see 100 Amazing Indian Discoveries and Multicultural Origins of Civilization.

Below:  Teosinte and corn.

Custer's Last Stand and ethnic studies

Here's the connection between Custer Country in Montana and Mainstream History = Pro-White Propaganda:

Calling it Custer's Last Stand rather than Custer's Ignominious Defeat is part of America's propaganda process. Custer didn't try to massacre the land's rightful owners, he fought heroically to ensure America's eventual triumph. What a guy!

This point relates to Arizona's new ethnic studies law. Americans want their children to learn about Custer's Last Stand, not Sitting Bull's Just Victory or America's Well-Deserved Defeat. The facts may remain the same, but other things--the language, the emphasis, and the lessons learned--will change.

The Native view of this battle is different from the mainstream American view. If educators are still calling it the "Last Stand," they're teaching a biased, one-sided version of events. This isn't objective history, it's pro-white propaganda.

When educators, textbooks, and websites such as CusterCountry.com stop calling it "Custer's Last Stand," then I'll believe they're serious about teaching race-neutral history. Until then, no. Perhaps they don't realize they're brainwashing students, but they're doing it nonetheless.

And this is just one tiny example of how we teach American history. One probably could find thousands of similar examples. They all serve the same purpose: to subtly reinforce the notion that God intended white, Christian, Euro-Americans to dominate the earth. A shining city on a hill => Manifest Destiny => American exceptionalism.

Therefore, we need ethnic history to correct the shortcomings of American history. To show us things like the Native point of view about Custer's Greatest Failure. That's the point of ethnic studies and multiculturalism: to see things from a different cultural perspective.

For more on the subject, see Native Lit Class Threatens Arizona and Racism Behind Arizona's Ethnic Studies Law.

Below:  How many coded messages can you find in this old movie poster?

My unproven Mayflower ancestors

My cousin the amateur genealogist writes again:Rob,

I found a connection to two additional Mayflower Pilgrims. Stephen Hopkins and his daughter Constance are both in our line. The connection is through George Shaw, whose wife Mercy Rich is our connection to the Brewsters.

However this connection, from what I know so far, cannot be proven and would not be accepted by the Mayflower Society. ... So use the number 19 at your peril?

DHComment:  Okay, I will! I won't add Hopkins and his daughter to my official writeup or tally of our ancestors. But I'll refer to 19 rather than 17 ancestors when it's convenient.

Wow, I'm really well connected to those first Pilgrims. I'm right behind the Mayflower Man in terms of being a true (non-Native) American. Nobody except the Indians is more American than I am.

For more on the subject, see My Fortune and Anne Ancestors and My Mayflower Ancestors.

Review of 2012

I finally saw 2012, the apocalyptic thriller based on the Maya calendar. Here are some reviews that reflect my reactions:

2012

By Mark Pfeiffer With Earth on the eve of destruction in 2012, we can't stop the impending apocalypse; we can only hope to contain it. Conspiracy theorists, such as Woody Harrelson as the film's resident nutjob, believe that the Mayan calendar foretells the end of the world on December 21, 2012. Scientists may not put any stock in the predictive power of an ancient civilization, but they notice that the planet is heating from the inside at an alarming rate, which may cause the crust to crack.

Of course, the powers that be don't bother informing the public about the forthcoming catastrophe. Rather, they plan for how to save their own skins and ensure the future of humanity. Failed author turned limousine driver Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) happens to be in the right place at the right time when hell on earth arrives. Armed with knowledge of a long shot survival option, Jackson scrambles to save his former wife Kate (Amanda Peet), kids, and their stepdad.2012 (Columbia Pictures) (2009)

When the World Hangs in the Balance, a Reliable Calendar Is Needed

By Manohla DargisAlas, the clichés of the disaster narrative remain in place. To that ruinous end, the larger catastrophe in “2012” functions as both the trigger and backdrop for a soap opera about a fractured family, standing in for the rest of humanity, which heals as the world falls apart. That’s the idea, anyway.

In truth, the central family here is as disposable as the billions of computer-generated humans that soon pile up after disaster hits. Written by Mr. Emmerich and Harald Kloser (they last collaborated on “10,000 B.C.”), “2012” takes its plot points and shifting plates from both science and fiction, and its title from doomsday prophesies, including a myth about the end of days derived from a reading of the Mayan calendar. Though not much is made of the Mayan angle, the most amusing character, a doomsday prophet and radio broadcaster played by Woody Harrelson, seems in hair, beard and interests to have been drawn along the predictive lines of the real author Daniel Pinchbeck (“2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl”).Review:  2012

By Peter Hall[W]hat the willing don't inherently know, and this is the most crucial piece of information one can be equipped with before hand, is that 2012 is 158 minutes long.

Granted, one would expect the end of the world to take more than 90 minutes, but the biggest failing of 2012 is that it barely has enough story to span half an hour, yet alone two more beyond that. Sign up for all the California-sinking, supervolcano-erupting mayhem you want, but what you're signing up for comes packaged with banal, one-dimensional characters who are only ever allowed to spew groan-inducing dialogue like so many fireballs from a, well, supervolcano. And considering the spectacle is unfortunately a fraction of the length, the audience is given more than enough time to wonder how so much mediocrity came to be from such talented people.

Which is a shame, because 2012 opens well enough.And:Cusack shows none of the enthusiasm he's historically thrown into his roles, which renders our obvious hero character nothing beyond being the guy who keeps narrowly escaping every collapsing road, falling building, and erupting volcano whether he's in a limousine, a prop plane, or a Winnebago.

Despite Cusack's character being the must underwhelming one in the entire production, the first 50 odd minutes of the film are perfectly satisfying. The audience gets to meet and greet with a wide array of ancillary characters in orbit of Ejiofor and Cusack's storylines while also being treated to two outstanding, extended escape-the-apocalypse sequences that are thrilling enough to have you convinced 2012 may not be so bad after all. But then the tension winds down and we get to meet and greet even more ancillary characters, which serves not to provide the extended emotional attachment Emmerich is clearly shooting for. Rather the time spent with them does nothing to propel the core storyline while simultaneously diluting what minimal attachment the audience had with Cusack and his immediate family.

About midway through, 2012 has not only lost its characters but its spectacle trump card to boot. Nothing from that point on comes close enough to even touch toes with the film's first two effects extravaganzas, condemning the remaining hour plus of the film to meandering storylines with wholly predictable resolutions; which is a situation the co-writer/director does not have the skill set to make even remotely interesting.2012 AU Review

Oh, it's a disaster alright.

By Patrick KolanCue the rollicking silliness. You know those scenes that play out in every action movie made since 1980? The ones where the bus jumps the broken bridge? Or a man falls over the edge and everyone thinks he's dead—but it's okay because a single hand suddenly appears, clinging to the cliff? Or how about the plane that's trying to escape from an explosion and gets enveloped in smoke--only to come bursting out with impossible speed? What about the eleventh-hour miscalculation that results in the timer speeding up towards impending disaster? Then there's the grandpa with regrets, the 'ultimate sacrifice' guy, the wormy scientist who makes good, the noble daughter who outlives the father, the divorcee who falls back in love, the evil rich dude, the ethnic stereotype village, the holy man on the mountain, the beauty queen with the handbag dog, the dude with two day's pilot training who must repeatedly fly everyone to safety at street level, through a collapsing city? What about the obligatory heroic kid, or the water escape scene, the tacked-on happy Hollywood ending where it's all sunshine and laughing and nobody really feels too remiss about the death of 5.9 billion people?

And that's not even the half of it. Seriously. It goes on and on like this, piling on so much rehash that you will laugh.Comment:  It's funny to watch the "making of" featurette and hear everyone laud Roland Emmerich as a master of sweeping epics and character-based dramas too. Translation: He's a master of special effects that have landscapes and people in them. His movies have been going downhill ever since his first success--from Independence Day (8.0 of 10) to The Day After Tomorrow (7.5) to 10,000 B.C. (5.5).

2012 is somewhat better than 10,000 B.C. But the characters are barely two-dimensional, the CGI alternates between good and phony-looking, the big finish (escaping the destruction in arks) makes little sense. Emmerich is a great filmmaker except for his plotting and characterization.

The Native aspect

2012's Native references includes: One "Mayan 2012" sign held by a protester, a mass suicide at Tikal shown on the news, a couple mentions of the Maya, one mention of the Hopi, and a brief explanation of the Maya prophecy.

The explanation is bogus; it isn't what the Maya believe. But it's what New Agers believe the Maya believe, so I can't fault the movie for that. The thing that annoyed me was the mass suicide. I couldn't tell what race the bodies were, but the implication was negative. Either the Maya themselves committed suicide or they presided over a New Age death cult. Because the Maya are all about human sacrifice, you know.

It's a shame 2012 didn't take the Maya angle one step further. How about including a Maya Indian to tell the scientists what was going on? He could've even been a Maya scientist.

Whatever he was, he could've said the 2012 end-date was hokum, but many indigenous cultures believe we're destroying the world. That would've added a welcome bit of depth to this popcorn movie.

Rob's rating:  6.5 of 10.

For more on the subject, see Report on Comic-Con 2009 and 2012 Trailer.

Below:  John Cusack races from a green screen impending doom.

Rand Paul's pro-racist libertarianism

You've probably seen the controversy over Kentucky Republican Rand Paul's libertarianism. If not, you can read about it here:

Rand's pro-racism position:

An Easily Debunked Denial

Rand's attempts to deny his pro-racism position:

LightSpeed WalkBack

And John Stossel's support of Rand's pro-racism position:

Fox News Echoes Rand Paul’s Claim that Racism and Discrimination Are Rights

I had fun mocking Paul on Facebook. For instance: I think the Republican Tea Party has found a new agenda item. NO to healthcare reform, financial reform, oil-spill regulations, immigration, ethnic studies...and now, NO to civil rights. Look for the RTP to get 100% of the white racist vote in November!

New sign at Republican Party headquarters: "Blacks and Latinos not served here."

Republicans seek to expand Rand Paulism: "We oppose laws against wife-beating and child abuse. Private individuals should be able to do whatever they want to other private individuals without government interference."

Obviously, laws against unsafe working conditions, sweatshops, child labor, etc. must go. No government interference in the marketplace!

Headline: Republicans seek return to golden era of 1890s. "Those were the days," said Rand Paul, "when robber barons could do whatever they wanted. When men didn't have to think about women, minorities, or the environment. We need to return to the times when profit and wealth trumped every other consideration."Tim Wise does it better

I thought about doing a serious deconstruction of the stupidity of Paul's position. Fortunately, the brilliant Tim Wise did it for me:

Rationalizing White Supremacy:  Racism, Free Markets and the Morally Obtuse Rand Paul

Basically, Paul destroys the ivory-tower idiocy of libertarianism with real-world arguments. I suggest you read the whole thing.

One point is particularly relevant here. It's the conservative idea that government action--Civil Rights laws, affirmative action, welfare, healthcare reform, ethnic studies, etc.--is wrong because it helps one class of people (poor minorities) at the expense of another (rich whites). It's the idea that America should be color-blind because, well, that's what the Constitution says.

Wise explains why this belief is dangerously naive:Back to the racial issue, to venerate the property rights of business owners, say, in the era of segregation--and thus to claim that it was inappropriate for the state to force them to serve blacks, or hire them, no matter how morally offensive racism may be--is to ignore that the accumulation of their property in the first place was in large measure due to having been protected by the state from competition all those years. If the government has consistently intervened, not only against people of color via state-sponsored racism, but in favor of whites via the same process, then the property over which white business owners came to have control (and which libertarians view as sacrosanct) was ill-gotten gain. To suggest the state, which was implicated in the unjust accumulation of that property by whites in the first place, now has no right to force compliance with public laws intended to provide equity of opportunity and access is perverse. It suggests that businesses can be subsidized by the state but not regulated by it, that individuals can reap the unearned benefits of state action but not be expected to bear any of the costs.

To bow to the private property rights of whites under segregation would have been to capitulate to the existing distribution of stuff at that time, which distribution had come about not in a free market, such that the distribution could be said to have been fair (under market principles), but rather, as a result of government intervention. It would have meant accepting government intervention of the first order (on behalf of whites), but then saying, after the fact, that there could be no corrective intervention on behalf of those deliberately oppressed. Not to mention, those stores and restaurants that were segregated received shipments of goods on trucks subsidized by highway construction, especially after the creation of the interstate system under President Eisenhower. Shipment of goods on these government-built roads and interstates brought down the cost of those goods (and thus boosted profits for those businesses) relative to what their cost would have been had each store owner had to have his own truck, and pay privately for the roads that would bring him his products.

Even today, private businesses all receive indirect if not direct subsidies from government, such that there is no truly "private" enterprise. Unlike a private club, a business that engages in commerce is receiving any number of public benefits from government policy, and thus, to suggest the owners of said property should have the unimpeded right to do as they please is morally absurd.

Bottom line: Only someone who has never personally felt the dehumanizing sting of racial oppression could have such a childlike faith in the ability of the market to solve the problem of racism, or the adequacy of simple private boycotts to force racist business owners to change their ways. And only someone who has never had their fundamental dignity and worth questioned as a result of their skin color could suggest patience as a solution to that maltreatment. As in, the kind of patience required for markets to correct, even in theory, any number of social maladies.The short version of this is that white people founded the white government of the United States to protect and extend their white power. Whites dominated everything--government, business, religion, science, art, etc.--until the Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 1960s. Has 50 years of alleged equality undone 450 years of white supremacy and created a level playing field? No.

"Property rights" = white power

Wise concludes by explaining how Rand's libertarian views support our society's white-power structure:And here's the really important visual to consider: to suggest that those property owners were right to say they "shouldn't have to serve" blacks, and that their property rights were more important than the right of all people to be treated like human beings, is to side with the white thugs who surrounded those brave young men and women--black and white--who had sat down on lunch counter stools and refused to move. It is to side with the mob as they screamed hateful epithets in the direction of Diane Nash (whose name I'd bet Rand Paul has never even heard, let alone her story), and John Lewis, and Bernard Lafayette, and Paul La Prad, in Nashville, among others. It is to say that those racist goons were on the right side, philosophically at least. That they were the ones with a better understanding of what America was supposed to be about, rather than those dignified and courageous souls whom they attacked. That they were the patriots who truly loved their country and had a deep appreciation for the Constitution. It is to side with the cops as they dragged peaceful demonstrators from lunch counters, because after all, the latter were trespassing on "private property."Even if Paul doesn't literally advocate racism, he advocates that we ignore racism and keep the racists in power. That's essentially a pro-racism position. Call it neo-racism for the sake of argument.

My position on neo-racists like Paul is: The majority determines what's right and wrong in America, not you. And the majority favors government action such as the Civil Rights Act. If you don't like it, get the hell out of our country.

Go somewhere where you can live in libertarian anarchy, free from government interference. Perhaps a failed Russian or African state would be your dream home. Stop your anti-minority whining and start practicing what you preach.

For more on the subject, see Libertarianism = Anarchy and Highlights of US Report to the UN on Racism.

Below:  KY-SEN candidate Rand Paul (R).

Ethnic history corrects American history

A good debate on Arizona's ethnic studies law (HB 2281):

Ariz. Ban on Ethnic Studies Divides EducatorsCONAN: And you've been working in ethnic studies for a long time, not just for colleges but for K-through-12 schools, as well. I wonder, how did you react when you heard about this law?

Mr. BANKS: Well, I was saddened, and I felt it was very unfortunate because it was actually based upon misconceptions about what ethnic studies was all about.

It was based upon the assumption that ethnic studies was divisive and that ethnic studies promoted ethnic pride over unity and that ethnic studies--actually, I'm one of the founders of the movement in schools. Ethnic studies is really about bringing us together, bringing different groups together.

It's based upon deep, historical knowledge pioneered by people such as John Hope Franklin and his famous book, "From Slavery to Freedom." It's based upon ethnic studies such as the historian Nell Irvin Painter has published in her wonderful new book, "The History of White People."

So I think that I was saddened by it, because we've worked in ethnic studies for 40 years, and there's still widespread misconception about ethnic studies. That's why it made me sad.

CONAN: Well, there may be misconceptions, but I wonder, some people would argue that based on what they can see from test results, most high school students don't understand American history very well to begin with. Shouldn't we concentrate on that as opposed to ethnic studies?

Mr. BANKS: Well, it seems to me that's a false dichotomy, to separate American history from ethnic studies. Ethnic studies is a way of correcting inaccuracies in American history. It's a way of compensating for the way that blacks or Latinos and American Indians and other groups have been left out of American history.

So it's not about distorting American history, it's about correcting American history. So we need both--both American history in the schools, as well as ethnic studies, which gives an opportunity to have more depth and really teach the accuracy of America.

And if there's any doubt about the need, another important goal of ethnic studies is to improve the racial attitudes of black and white children. And if there's any doubt that's needed, if any of our listeners have seen the reaction of white students--young students, preschool students--to black and white dolls in the new CNN series about how they have very negative attitudes toward black dolls--even though the attitudes of black kids have improved, even though black kids show a white bias--but they've improved since the studies by Kenneth Clark.

So another important goal of ethnic studies is to improve racial attitudes, and if there's any doubt that we need ethnic studies, take a look at the CNN series on how white children and black children feel about black dolls.The other guest on this show was conservative Linda Chavez. Here's her take on the law:Ms. CHAVEZ: Well, as I said, I think starting really in the 1960s, and certainly moving through to the present, we've had a major move in the United States to make the telling of the American story more inclusive, not to exclude the voices of those who were black or brown, not to exclude women, for example, and that is all to the good.

I think it is that is the real telling of American history. But I think that's very different than the kind of thing that was being promoted, for example, in the Tucson school system.

One of the goals of the Mexican-American studies program in Tucson was to promote Latino critical race pedagogy. Well, you know, for non-academics, that probably just sounds like gobbledygook, but the whole idea of promoting race pedagogy I think strikes most Americans as very un-American.

The whole point of the civil rights movement, the whole point of the inclusive of everyone in our society was to move race to the back burners, no longer to have race what infused our thinking, and yet here you have, in a public school system in Tucson, the whole idea of critical race pedagogy being promoted.

CONAN: And James Banks, we're going to give you 30 seconds for reply. We've got to take a break, and then we're going to get callers involved. Go ahead.

Mr. BANKS: The to teach critical thinking about race is essential, because what the research shows, that if we don't talk about race, if we don't teach race--about race--we perpetuate current racist notions. So kids need to think critically about race and to be taught to examine race.Comment:  As we've seen in "Color-Blind" People Are More Racist and Children Aren't Color-Blind, Banks is right and Chavez is wrong about teaching kids about race.

There are several questionable assumptions in Chavez's position:

1) That "race pedagogy," whatever that gobbledygook means, is harmful.

2) That there's some objective way to distinguish between "harmful" race pedagogy and other forms of racial teaching. This is like distinguishing between "good" and "bad" criticism of the government. It can't be done in any impartial or unbiased way. One person's patriotism is another person's sedition.

Chavez's attitude would have a chilling effect on any ethnic studies. Few schools and teachers are likely to teach classes that the powers-that-be deem "un-American." They'll cut back or cancel these classes rather than risk budget or job cuts.

Chavez opposes racial education

In fact, Chavez opposes more than the teaching of racial superiority, separatism, or pride. She opposes the teaching of racial studies, period. She makes this clear when she says things like wanting to "move race to the back burners."

Would Chavez be okay with a ban on European or British Studies? No, of course not. She doesn't want to put race on the back burner. She wants to put every race but whites on the back burner. To her and other conservatives, white history is the norm and other versions of history are suspect.

According to Chavez, if a class puts whites on the back burner and other ethnicities up front, it's bad. Better not to teach anything but the standard American history where minorities fit into the dominant white narrative. Best of all, don't teach anything about race, including our shameful history of genocide, slavery, and discrimination.

For more on the subject, see Mainstream History = Pro-White Propaganda and Native Lit Class Threatens Arizona.

Below:  Teach Martin Luther King Jr. but put race on the back burner? Can't be done.

Arizona's history of racism

Arizona's Anglo insecurity

The state's anti-immigrant mood grounded in cultural insecurity.

By Gregory RodriguezBy the late 20th century, white Arizonans had perfected a style critics dubbed "Taco Deco," "Mariachi Moderne" or simply "Refried Architecture"—that faux Spanish colonial architecture with arches, tiles and the bougainvillea climbing everywhere (Southern California has its share too). According to Phoenix architecture critic Lawrence Cheek, in the Valley of the Sun, "The farther you move away from the Hispanic neighborhoods of central and south Phoenix, the more refried architecture you see. The style has been coopted not by the people who could legitimately claim it as their heritage—they tend toward Middle American tract homes—but by itinerant gringos in search of a heritage…."

Faux Native American culture is another part of the Arizona aesthetic. I know a fancy spa in Scottsdale that has a tepee in the back where a shaman leads meditation sessions. (Never mind that tepees were used by Plains Indians far from the Southwest.) In some parts of town, you can't shake a stick without hitting mass-produced Kachina dolls, wrought-iron Kokopellis welded by hippie sculptors, and Indian jewelry that isn't made by Indians.

None of this should be mistaken for genuine cross-pollination or healthy race relations. On the one hand, it demonstrates the Anglo newcomers' desire to acquire the trappings of ethnicity. On the other, it suggests how comfortable they are commodifying and consuming less influential cultures.

And make no mistake, the coming of Anglos meant the delegitimizing of other cultures in the Arizona Territory. In the early 1900s, during Arizona's struggle for statehood, its representatives had to prove to Washington that it was, in essence, white enough to enter the union.

Because of the large presence of non-Anglos, Indiana Sen. Albert Beveridge, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, argued that the federal government should view Arizona as it would an overseas possession. To avoid its becoming like "the Negro section of the South," he wanted Arizona to be managed the same way as the Philippines.

To counter such bias, proponents of statehood assured Washington that Anglo transplants dominated the territory politically and culturally. In 1902, congressional delegate Mark Smith declared that what made Arizona different from—read: more worthy than—New Mexico was that most people in the territory were non-natives: They came "fully grown from the different states of the union."

When it was time to write a constitution, this logic was made explicit, and non-Anglos were relegated to second-class status. The struggle for statehood had honed a clear notion of what constituted the preferred Arizonan. As historian Eric V. Meeks has written, "Racial inequality was not simply an unfortunate corollary to full statehood; it was built into the very identity of Arizona from its inception."Comment:  For more on Arizona's racism, see Racism Behind Arizona's Ethnic Studies Law and Racism Behind Arizona's Immigration Law. For more on Arizona's "cultural insecurity" (assuming that's a different subject), see Conservative Worldview = Fear of Cooties and Conservatives' Pro-White Agenda.

War of 1812 bicentennial without Indians?

Natives left out of War of 1812 bicentennial planning, groups sayNatives need to play an important role in celebrations marking the bicentennial of the War of 1812, say Parks Canada documents obtained by Canwest News Service, but First Nations groups say that isn't happening yet.

There are myriad references in 166 pages of documents to making sure natives and their "pivotal role" in the war to repel American invaders are properly recognized at historical 1812 sites and in interpretation centres.And:But native groups say that is precisely what hasn't happened so far.

"Even if it's overdue, we welcome this," said Maurice Switzer, communications director for The Union of Ontario Indians, an advocacy group for 42 member First Nations across Ontario.

"The one thing that's important is that we do be engaged in the process. We don't want a bunch of non-native academics or civil servants deciding on what's the best way to do this. It's our history. Ask us."

Mr. Switzer says a perfect example of what is wrong with how the native role in the war has been underplayed is the famous Niagara-area memorial to British officer Sir Isaac Brock, who died resisting an American advance at the Battle of Queenston Heights in October 1812.

"One of the most memorable monuments in Canada is the one of Sir Isaac Brock overlooking Niagara River," he said. The statue is 56 metres high. "I knew there was a little marker somewhere on the park grounds," for the native role in the battle. "I couldn't find one staffer that could identify that location for me. Way down a hillside, all overgrown with moss and weeds, was a little teeny marker that acknowledges 'harassment' by Indians of the enemy. No specific names."

Mr. Switzer wonders if the government is reluctant to play up native involvement in helping build the country because it might strengthen land rights claims.

"It just sort of seems to take a long, long time to get around to admitting First Nations peoples [and] Aboriginal Peoples have played a big role in contributing to Canada being the successful country it is," he adds.

"It's quite likely that if it wasn't for the First Nations' support of leaders like Tecumseh . . . the flags that are flying over our public buildings in this country would probably be stars and stripes."Comment:  Interesting how we keep seeing the same story over and over. Organizations promise to include Indians in planning celebrations and commemorations, then don't do it.

The British-Indian alliance is why many writers speculate that the Indians would've fared better under British rule.

For more on the subject, see Winning in Tecumseh's Vision.

How Euro-Americans "vanished" Indians

Charles Trimble:  Manifest destiny continues in nation's lawsSince 1537, when the Papal Bull, Sublimis Deus, was issued by Pope Paul III declaring Native peoples to be humans with rights to life and property, outright genocide of Indians was not an accepted approach to conquering them and taking their lands, although in fact it was widely practiced. The whole question continues to this day as to how the peoples who owned the New World could be removed so that their lands could be taken and developed.

Outright removal was one method, which was even sanctified by law and national policy in the 1830s and beyond. But that policy only resulted in relocating the tribes to new lands that the dominant society would want in the future.

So, new methods were adopted in a twofold strategy to disappear the tribal nations: the first was for physical attrition that would be through warfare, pestilence, starvation, benign neglect, and interbreeding with whites. This would kill off the people or force them off their lands in search of sustenance and livelihood.

The second was for cultural attrition that would be accomplished by “civilizing” the Indian people through Christianization, education, and assimilation. The tribes, it was hoped, would eventually abandon their savage ways and become brown white people, so to speak. Most importantly, they would become capitalists and recognize the importance of making the greatest use of their lands, mostly by ceding or selling them to the superior and dominant European Americans.Comment:  This is an excellent summary of 1) the first four centuries of post-Columbus Native history, 2) Euro-American attempts to destroy Native people and culture (i.e., genocide), 3) how the myth of the "vanishing Indian" came about. And in only four paragraphs, too.

For examples of this myth, see Europeans Keep Discovering Newfoundland and Vanished Mound Builders in The Prairies. For more on what the Europeans believed, see Conservative Christians Are Oxymorons and Those Evil Europeans.

Green Lantern out, Cowboys and Aliens in

My pal Victor posted this Tweet today:Just had lunch with Adam Beach. No Green Lantern but he leaves tomorrow to New Mexico to start filming Cowboys & Aliens w/ Harrison Ford.

Comment:  That's Adam with director Lian Lunson. I don't know anything else about the lunch or the casting decision.

Despite the presence of Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and Adam Beach (Comanche Moon), I fear Cowboys and Aliens will be stereotypical. I'd be amazed if the Apaches in the story don't come across as deadly savages.

For more on the subject, see Adam Beach to Play Tom Kalmaku? and COWBOYS & ALIENS.

Conservative Christians are oxymorons

Why Are So Many Christians Conservative?

How can people who claim to be followers of Jesus be political conservatives?

By Mike LuxConservative Christians' primary argument regarding Jesus and politics is that all he cared about was spiritual matters and an individual's relationship with God. As a result, they say, all those references from Jesus about helping the poor relate only to private charity, not to society as a whole. Their belief is that Jesus, and the New Testament in general, is focused on one thing and one thing only: how do people get into heaven.

The Jesus of the New Testament was of course extremely concerned with spiritual matters: there is no doubt whatsoever about his role or interest in the issues of the day, that the spiritual well-being of his followers was a major interest of his. How much he was involved with or interested in the political situation of the day is a matter of much debate and interpretation. Some say it was a lot and others that it was pretty limited or, as conservatives would say, not at all. However, much of a priority or focus it was, though, if you actually read the Gospels, it is clear that Jesus' main concern in terms of the people whose fates he cared about was for the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast. Comment after comment and story after story in the Gospels about Jesus relates to the treatment of the poor, generosity to those in need, mercy to the outcast, and scorn for the wealthy and powerful. And his philosophy is embedded with the central importance of taking care of others, loving others, treating others as you would want to be treated. There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no "greed is good," there is no invisible hand of the market or looking out for Number One first. There is nothing about poor people being lazy, nothing about the undeserving poor being leeches on society, nothing about how I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps so everyone else should, too. There is nothing about how in nature, "the lions eat the weak," and therefore we shouldn't help the poor because it weakens them. There is nothing about charity or welfare corrupting a person's spirit.

What there is: quote after quote about compassion for the poor. In Jesus' very first sermon of his ministry, the place where he launched his public career, he stated the reason he had come: to bring good news to the poor, liberty to the captives, to help the oppressed go free, and that he was here to proclaim a year of favor from the Lord--which in Jewish tradition meant the year that poor debtors were forgiven their debts to bankers and the wealthy. In Luke 6, Jesus says the poor and hungry will be blessed, and the rich will be cursed. He urges his followers to sell all their possessions and give them to the poor. The one time he really focuses on God's judgment and who goes to heaven is in Matthew 25, where he says those who go to heaven will be those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those in prison, gave shelter to the hungry, and welcomed the stranger--and those who don't make it were the ones who refused to help the poor and oppressed.

And he was a really serious class warrior, too--he wasn't just into helping the poor; he didn't seem to like rich folks very much. In Matthew 6, he focuses on the love of money as a major problem. In Luke 11, he berates a wealthy lawyer for burdening the poor. In Luke 12, he says that the wealthy who store up treasure are cursed by God. In Luke 14, he says if we throw a party, we should invite all poor people and no rich people, and suggests that the wealthy already turned down their invitation to God's feast, and that it is the poor who will get into heaven (a theme repeated multiple times). He says that the rich people will have a harder time getting to heaven than a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle. He chases the wealthy bankers and merchants from the Temple.

I have never heard a conservative Christian quote any of these verses--not once, and I have been in a lot of discussions with Christian conservatives, and heard a lot of their speeches and sermons. The one verse they always quote (and I mean always--I have never talked to a conservative Christian about economics and not heard them quote this verse) is the one time in which Jesus says that "the poor will always be with us." The reason they love this quote so much is that they interpret that line to mean that in spite of everything else Jesus said about the poor, that since the poor will always be with us, we don't need to worry about trying to help them. Apparently since the poor will always be with us, we can go ahead and screw them. But Jesus making a prediction that there will always be oppressive societies doesn't mean he wanted us to join the oppressors. By clinging desperately to that one verse in the Bible, and ignoring all the others about the poor and the rich, Christian conservatives show themselves to be hypocrites, plain and simple.

The Jesus of the New Testament spent his public career preaching about the nature of God and our relationship to God, but also about how we should deal with each other. He repeatedly blessed mercy, gentleness, peacemaking, community, and taking care of each other. He lifted up the poor and oppressed, and spoke poorly of the wealthy and powerful. If anyone in modern society talked like he did, you can bet your bottom dollar that conservatives would condemn that person as a class warrior, a socialist. Jesus may not have been primarily concerned with politics, but for what politics he did have, it is virtually impossible to argue that he was anything but a progressive thinker.Comment:  Some people don't understand what postings about conservatives or Christians have to do with this blog's Native theme. Well, I'll tell ya.

Conservatives constantly claim that America is a Christian nation. In fact, that all of Western civilization is based on Judeo-Christian principles. Only problem is that 2,000 years of Western leaders have misread and misinterpreted the Bible. Why? To make themselves rich and powerful.

Thus there were Christians who thought it was their right to dominate the world. Who thought they could claim ownership of anything and anybody. Who thought God gave them the planet to use as they wished.

The world in general and indigenous people in particular have suffered because of this Christian arrogance. Much of it is based on this Biblical passage: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34). Ignoring a thousand references to caring and compassion, conservative Christians glorify this one atypical and unrepresentative line. Considering how many wars we've fought, it may be the single most damaging line in world history.

Blue Corn Comics and Newspaper Rock exist to promote the idea of a multicultural perspective. In other words, that there are other ways to look at life besides the mainstream/American/Western/Christian way. So deconstructing the conservative Christian worldview is part of my mission.

The Native American perspective is the one I've chosen to focus on, but many cultures around the world have similar philosophies. The key point is the centrality of the Golden Rule. It's the idea of helping your fellow humans...the notion that "it takes a village" to survive and grow. This is something that Jesus and Indians understood but conservative Christians somehow don't get. It's what America needs to start righting such wrongs as war, poverty, and climate change.

For more on the subject, see A Shining City on a Hill:  What Americans Believe and America's Cultural Mindset.

Indigenous imagery in corporate logos

Here's a great set of images collected by Phil Bellfy of the American Indian Studies Program at the Michigan State University. Below are some of the worst ones:

Indigenous Imagery in Corporate Logos












Comment:  There must be a couple hundred images here. Most of them are variations on the standard chief, brave, and maiden. Most are stereotypical and have little or nothing to do with the corresponding product. The images suggest the products have timeless values such as strength, nobility, and virtue.

The ninth image suggests the problems with these logos. A Plains chief and a teepee...with the name "Apache"? Wrong!

These images have nothing to do with honoring Indians or promoting a positive of them. They're all about appropriating, using, and profiting from Native symbols. If Indians get stereotyped as primitive savages in the process...well, who cares?

For more Indian products and logos, see Indian Kitsch Collection and Authentic Indian Center.

Dudesons fans don't get it

Jennifer Yuhas Gall continues to write about Cowboys & Findians episode of The Dudesons in America:

Has Anything Really Changed?The problem from the very beginning has been the negative and outrageously false stereotyping of Native Americans. From the earliest days of the penny Western novel, the indigenous people of this country have been portrayed to white America as unintelligent, savage, crude, uncivilized, and (GASP) heathens who have no religion. The 19th century images of savagery and brutality gave way in the mid-20th century to cartoon-like caricatures, where Native Americans were shown as no more than dimwitted buffoons.

I shouldn’t have to sit here and tell you that none of these things are true. A lot of you already know this.

But too many people don’t know. Far too many people haven’t the slightest understanding of what it truly means to be Native American. They know nothing of history, and have instead bought into the lies and revisionism. They know nothing about culture, traditions or spirituality, and instead have believed the distortions and stereotypes. All they have in their heads are lies and propaganda--the propaganda that the media, in all its forms, has helped to perpetuate to this very day.

And if programs like The Dudesons in America continue to poison the airwaves and the minds of everyone who watches it, can we reasonably expect the answers to those questions posed to the random man or woman on the street to be any different another 40 years from now?

Now for those of you who still don’t get it, I have a few more words. I can be fair about it, and acknowledge that you may not personally find the program or its content offensive—that you just don’t get it. But in return, you have to acknowledge that there are in fact many people who do find it offensive. Instead of closing your mind and washing your hands of the matter, look a little bit deeper. Ask yourself why it is that people are offended and outraged. Do you honestly believe that people have nothing better to do than to complain and protest without reason? There’s a world of reason. But it may be that you refuse to see or acknowledge it. Those of you who are still in the “I don’t get it” camp, I’d like you to consider this a personal challenge. Stop for just a moment, and think outside your own little perspective box. It begins with self-education, is followed by empathy, and ultimately, will lead to enlightenment. If enlightenment should lead to outrage, I will consider it a personal victory.

I am not so naive as to believe that racism and the stereotyping of Native Americans will suddenly end with the permanent removal of this offensive Dudesons in America episode. But it’s a damned good start in the right direction.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Dudesons Too "Stoopid" to Matter? and Okay to Stereotype in "Satires"?

Below:  Some people don't understand why this offends Indians. Some people are racists. Coincidence, or...?

The Dudesons = treaty violation?

MTV is violating the Ft. Laramie Treaty--plain and simple!The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 establishes the peace between the United States and the Lakota Nation,and the first Article states that “if bad men among the whites or other people subject to the authority of the United States shall commit any wrong upon the person or the property of the Indians, the United States will (...) proceed at once to cause the offender to be arrested and punished according to the laws of the United States, and also reimburse the injured person for the loss sustained.”

We have plenty of proof of how programs like the Dudesons can be linked to the high suicide rates among our youth, which makes you, MTV breaking the peace between the US and the Lakota Nation. Have your lawyers check out the Treaty and the James Arthur Ray case as the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council forced the US to arrest him for violating the first Article of the Treaty--remember that according to the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution states that Treaties are one of the four supreme laws of the land.

Just so you know, Many Lakota People are complaining about your choice of programing that it is adversely affecting the health and happiness of our youth. They are complaining to the Treaty Council. And on June 2, there will be an AIM (American Indian Movement--remember Wounded Knee, 1973) Grand Council Meeting and you are on the agenda. So, if you want to avoid Federal prosecution, I suggest you remove the "Cowboys and Finndians" episode alltogether and post a public apology everywhere.

Pat Brock
Lakota/Dakota/Nakota
Creator of Ambitious Efforts--Indigenous Style
Yellow Bear Canyon, Pine Ridge, South DakotaComment:  The authorities would've arrested James Ray whether the Lakota intervened or not. And it's Article Six of the US Constitution, not the Sixth Amendment.

You basically could say that anything that harms a single Lakota is a treaty violation. While this may be true, technically, the US won't prosecute people for intangible violations such as stereotyping Indians. It definitely won't limit MTV's First Amendment rights over something as "stoopid" as The Dudesons.

This and the James Ray lawsuit seem like a gross overreaction to me. I suggest saving the "treaty violation" talk for the truly egregious cases--e.g., corporate or government malfeasance. If you threaten to sue over every harmful stereotype, you'll be filing thousands of lawsuits a year. People will label you gadflies who "cry wolf" whether you have a case or not.

If you found someone who committed suicide after leaving a note blaming The Dudesons, then you might have case. But you can't say people have been committing suicide for years...shows like The Dudesons are to blame...so let's censor MTV. That'll never happen. It's an emotional reaction, not a valid legal case.

For more on the subject, see Dudesons Fans Don't Get It and Natives Protest The Dudesons.

Kesha goes tribal at Bamboozle

Adrienne Keene of Native Appropriations notes that pop-star Kesha has gone tribal once again:

Not Again, Ke$ha.Our favorite warbonnet-wearing-hot-mess of a musician sported another headdress at The Bamboozle (a big music festival). The photographer calls her get up a "psuedo-patriotic costume of a feather headdress, aviator sunglasses, and the American flag." Right.

Kesha is also wearing a headdress in her new video for Your Love is My Drug--the song she sang on Saturday Night Live. Keene continues:We've discussed it before with her American Idol performance. Girl, get your act together. Cultural appropriation isn't cool.Some reactions on Facebook:Hmmm...that last pic reminds me of that picture of the gals from the Stanford powwow on your blog. People think that "dressing like native people" is a fantastical Halloween journey or something and they don't stop to wonder how their behavior appropriates the identity of Native people, but hey from their point of view "they're just having fun, right?"

P.S. My thought is that Kesha is appropriating several indigenous identities and combining them into some ambiguous "All-Native Monster" that seeks to appropriate all indigenous peoples' identities into one. Kinda weird! Kesha my girl, find your identify elsewhere.

[Y]our PS is a really good point; she's combining North American, South American, and African Indigenous cultures all in one messed up image. Equal opportunity appropriation. Grrr.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Why Hipster Headdresses Aren't Okay and What's So Wrong About Kesha?