Hollywood loves white saviors

With Lincoln poised to win several Academy Awards, this is a timely subject:

Oscar loves a white savior

If a movie features white people rescuing people of color from their plight, odds are high an Oscar will follow

By David SirotaAccording to oddsmakers, Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” does not have the best chance of winning the 2013 Academy Award for best picture. That top spot right now goes to Ben Affleck’s “Argo”—but it shouldn’t. If history is any gauge, “Lincoln” has to be the front-runner thanks to its status as this year’s only Oscar-nominated White Savior film.

If you’ve been to the movies in the last half-century, you know the White Savior genre well. It’s the catalog of films that features white people single-handedly rescuing people of color from their plight. These story lines insinuate that people of color have no ability to rescue themselves. This both makes white audiences feel good about themselves by portraying them as benevolent messiahs (rather than hegemonic conquerors), and also depicts people of color as helpless weaklings—all while wrapping such tripe in the cinematic argot of liberation.

This, of course, is the backbone of Spielberg’s “Lincoln.” As historian Kate Masur recently wrote in the New York Times, it is yet another “movie devoted to explaining the abolition of slavery in the United States” but one in which “African-American characters do almost nothing but passively wait for white men to liberate them.” The result, she writes, is a film that ignores actual events of the 19th century, “helps perpetuate the notion that African Americans have offered little of substance to their own liberation” and thus reinforces “the outdated assumption that white men are the primary movers of history and the main sources of social progress.”

Coming from Spielberg, this isn’t particularly surprising. He is, after all, the creator of one of the most unself-consciously archetypal White Savior movies of all time: “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.” In that cartoonish adventure, a whip-wielding white archaeologist drops from the sky into India and quickly becomes the only person able to save destitute peasants from the rein of a tyrannical human-sacrificing cult.

Spielberg’s Abraham Lincoln is certainly a more nuanced character than Dr. Jones, just as his latest film is more sophisticated (if not as exciting) than the second iteration of his 1980s archaeologist-superhero franchise. In return, he has been rewarded with an Oscar nomination—but probably not just because “Lincoln” plays to the academy’s general love of historical drama. It also plays to Hollywood award organizations’ specific affinity for the White Savior.

Indeed, in the last quarter-century, 10 White Savior films have received major Hollywood award nominations, with fully half of those coming in just the last five years. In chronological order, here’s a look at them, and how they channel the same old story of white people saving the day for people of color who supposedly cannot help themselves.Two of the movies:Dances With Wolves (1990)

Major Academy Award Nominations: Best Actor (Kevin Costner), Best Supporting Actor (Graham Greene), Best Supporting Actress (Mary McDonnell)

Major Academy Award Victories: Best Picture, Best Director (Kevin Costner), Best Adapted Screenplay (Michael Blake)

One of the major sub-categories of the White Savior genre is the “going native” narrative, and 1990′s “Dances With Wolves” is the modern era’s emblematic example. It is the story of a white Union soldier who fully embeds himself in the Sioux tribe and quickly becomes its primary protector. First, he leads the tribe’s defense against its hostile Pawnee rivals, then he helps them attempt to evade the Union army in which he once served.

Among the defining characteristics of “Dances With Wolves”—as it is with most “going native” stories—is the prominence of what has been called the Noble Savage. As TV Tropes describes it, that is a typically Native American “character who is, due to their race or ethnicity, a member of a barbaric or savage tribe (or a group simply perceived as such by others), who is nevertheless portrayed as nobler or of higher moral fibre than the norm.”

Because it portrays a few people of color in a positive light, the use of the Noble Savage caricature often preemptively blunts criticism of the underlying White Savior story. The idea is that a film like “Dances With Wolves” cannot be bigoted or overly white-centric if it at least shows Kicking Bird and Chief Ten Bears as special and exceptional. This, even though the whole story is about a white guy who saves the day.

Avatar (2009)

Major Academy Award Nominations: Best Director (James Cameron), Best Picture

“Avatar” is such a stereotypical White Savior flick that it earned the nickname “Dances With Aliens.” That label is well deserved, as the film offers up almost every lazy meme in the genre.

Tribe of nature-loving Noble Savages? Check. White spy who “goes native” with said tribe? Check. Spy has an enlightened epiphany and a subsequent change of heart, aligning him with the tribe against their evil enemies? Check. White guy unifies disparate tribes to fight their collective oppressors in a more powerful way than they ever have? Check.

But it goes even deeper than that. As The Progressive magazine put it:Jake Sully, played by Sam Worthington, is the white hero who enters the Na’vi’s land, learns, in three months, all their secrets, becomes a super-Na’vi and is able to return and save them from the attack of his crazy nation’s warmongers. Jake is Cameron’s version of Tarzan, the white man who will save the “savages.” Jake is the only one who can successfully pray to the Na’vi’s mother goddess (Eywa). She hears him, not her own people’s prayers and grief.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Cameron Defends Avatar's White Messiah and The White Messiah Fable.

TransCanada sponsors powwow, awards

TransCanada Platinum Sponsor: Indspire Awards & Thundering Hills Powwow Immediate ReleaseTransCanada appears to be selectively distributing its funds into First Nations communities with its recent “partnership” in the Indspire Awards (formerly the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards) and its Platinum “sponsorship” of the upcoming Thundering Hills Powwow on July 5, 6, & 7th hosted by the Nekaneet First Nation.

Could TransCanada be seeking to stifle Indigenous communities’ opposition to the Tar Sands and the XL pipeline?

TransCanada is the Canadian oil and gas company behind the purposed XL pipeline that would bring Tar Sands oil from Alberta to Texas crossing First Nation and Tribal communities along the way. Opposition to the Tar Sands and the XL pipeline has been strong from various grassroots Indigenous communities and environmental activists including a recent gathering of tribal Nations in Yankton to sign the “International Treaty to Protect the Sacred from Tar Sands and Keystone XL” and the 40,000 plus gathering of activists who descended on D.C. recently to call on President Obama to reject the XL pipeline.

We call on all Tribal Nations, to reject TransCanada’s attempts to “buy” support for its XL pipeline and other Tar Sands related projects. Projects that not only will cause significant damage to the very tribal communities it is “investing” in, but cause irreversible damage to our planet and first mother Maka Ina.

Let us reject major corporations that are causing reprehensible damage to our communities, homelands, health and welfare from funding powwows, award shows, or any other related activities or events. Call on the Nekaneet First Nation to drop TransCanada as its Platinum sponsor.Natives respond

This announcement spread quickly on Facebook. Natives were surprised to learn the Nekaneet First Nation of Saskatchewan had partnered with TransCanada. Some of their reactions:Divide and conquer...the wolf in sheep's clothing....

WOW, let me sponsor your powwow and while your having a good time, I'll be sucking the LIFE out of the very ground your dancing on ! Better yet, I'll bribe and payoff your relatives and tribal leaders into taking my sponsorship and THEY will convince you it is for the best. Classic move TRANSCANADA, get the Indians to do themselves in, a move right out of the old history books. NOT THIS TIME TRANSCANADA! NOT THIS TIME!

Money talks and by the looks of this flyer, money has reeled em in!

WTH!! Why can't TransCanada realize that the IDLE NO MORE movement is based on their terribleness, insensitivity to the land. And unfortunately their money will bring NDN people to their thoughts.

WTF!!!! Our people have gone the way of the white man GREED!!!!Comment:  For more on the Keystone XL pipeline, see Hunger Strike Against Keystone XL Pipeline and Protesters Block Trucks on Pine Ridge.

Oneida Nation to fund mascot changes

Get that Indian off your uniform

We will help teams leave behind their racist mascots

By Ray HalbritterAs Oneidas, we understand mutual respect. From the time we fought side-by-side with George Washington and the colonists in the Revolutionary War to the present day, as we continue to be one of the largest investors in our local economy, our nation remains bonded with the larger community in many ways.

And we understand that courageous decisions to honor different heritages can come with both a financial consequence and a potential backlash. That is why we are offering a donation to Cooperstown Central to salute their courage and to help offset the necessary costs of changing mascots.

We are prepared to make similar donations to other schools that consider following in their footsteps.

In fact, to address this pervasive problem, the Oneida Nation is now working with Native American media outlets and other Indian nations to establish a fund that will help schools that follow in Cooperstown’s footsteps to offset the cost of making similar transitions.

According to the Morning Star Institute, there remain some 900 ethnically insensitive nicknames and mascots across the country.Comment:  For more on Indian mascots, see Cooperstown Changes "Redskins" with Oneida Help and NMAI Symposium on Racist Mascots.

My Louisiana Love documentary

Documentary showcases filmmaker’s Native American heritageWhen she was 18 years old, Monique Verdin had no idea exploring her heritage through photography would lead to producing a documentary that captured intimate moments in her life as well as those around her.

Now at 32, the St. Bernard Parish resident has traveled across the country to share “My Louisiana Love” with many people.

“My Louisiana Love” tells Verdin’s story of returning to southeast Louisiana to reunite with her Houma Indian family. Capturing still images and video as a way to preserve the unique culture of her family, Verdin found herself in the midst of environmental devastation.

“I didn’t think I would show it in the way that I did, but life doesn’t turn out like you think it would,” Verdin said. “It’s like a 100-year story of three generations—my grandmother, my father and I.”Comment:  For more on Native documentaries, see Eagle Boy Flies in Norway and Documentary About Jim Pepper.

Grassley: Indians can't be fair

As we saw in Republicans Fear VAWA's Tribal Jurisdiction, Republicans don't think Indians are the same as everyone else. Now, one conservative has said what they're all thinking.

Top GOP Senator: Native American Juries Are Incapable Of Trying White People Fairly

By Scott KeyesRepublicans have offered a number of reasons why they oppose the Violence Against Women Act. Some think it’s unconstitutional. Others argue that it’s just a meaningless bill with a patriotic title.

On Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) added a new one: Native Americans supposedly aren’t capable of holding fair trials.

Last week, Grassley was one of just 22 senators—all Republican men—who voted against reauthorizing VAWA. During a town hall meeting in Indianola on Wednesday, a woman asked him to explain his vote. Grassley responded that the legislation is unconstitutional, a belief shared by at least five of his colleagues.

Since the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to a trial among a jury of peers, Grassley reasoned that white men would be deprived of their rights if those who were accused of violence against Native American women had to appear in a tribal court. “On an Indian reservation, it’s going to be made up of Indians, right?” Grassley said. “So the non-Indian doesn’t get a fair trial.”It's the modern-day equivalent of the savage/uncivilized stereotype.

Is tribal jurisdiction unconstitutional?

When I posted this on Facebook, it led to a brief discussion with a couple of Native friends:Perhaps, if that is the case--Indians should not be allowed to serve on Jury Duty. Tribal, county or federal.Conservatives probably would say that only white male property owners should serve on juries. Which is the way it was until recent times.It is a problem. If tribes can't bring non-Indians onto their juries, and I don't see how they could compel attendance by non-Indians, the defendant has a ready-made appeal issue, and the appellate courts will likely strike down the conviction.It sounds like a problem, yes. But if you commit a crime in Mexico, does Mexico have to bring in American jurors to give you a fair trial? Hmm.It's really not the same thing.So you disagree with what most Indians are fighting for in this case: tribal jurisdiction over non-Natives when they commit violence against Native women?

If you're a non-Native who dislikes the idea of Indians trying you for crimes, why are you living on a reservation? Aren't you submitting yourself to tribal governance in various ways? I'm not sure why tribal jurisdiction in violent crimes should be any different.Sounds to me like what is being said is that I, as a tribal member, an American Citizen, am not capable of being objective, understanding law, or using sound judgement if placed on a jury.Some answers to the question of tribal "fairness":

Grassley on VAWA: 'The Non-Indian Doesn't Get a Fair Trial'Grassley may not be aware of a couple things that should be considered in the discussion.

A recently released report by the National Congress of American Indians Policy Research Center titled Policy Insight Brief titled, Statistics on Violence Against Native Women that states according to the 2010 U.S. Census “46 percent of people living on reservations in 2010 were non-Native.” Almost half the reservation population would essentially lead to diversity on juries. The figure is as a whole in the United States, and there may be areas where this number is drastically lower, but that is where the Sixth Amendment comes in.

According to the Sixth Amendment, juries are to be drawn from the “State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” according to thinkprogress.org. “Also, Supreme Court decisions establish that criminal defendants also have aright to a jury which is ‘drawn from a fair cross section of the community’ where the trial court convenes to hear the case.”I'm pretty sure the question of whether tribal courts are fair was decided decades ago. And legal experts took that into account before drafting VAWA's tribal provisions. I'd be amazed if it were any other way.

NCAI responds

Another posting seems to confirm this:

NCAI Responds to Senator Grassley’s Video Comments on VAWA Tribal Provisions–“Fear Mongering” Must EndIn the letter to Senator Grassley, NCAI’s Task Force on Violence Against Women outlined the details of the tribal provisions as outlined in the Senate bill, S.47, and addresses the concerns over the comments:

“This statement is an inaccurate portrayal on two levels. From a legislative approach, it ignores the clear language in the Senate-passed bill, drafted by the Department of Justice, which mandates that fair and impartial juries be made available in these cases and that all juries not exclude any cross-section of the community, including non-Indians. This clear language shows that to the degree you had any constitutional concerns about the fairness of the jury selection process, proponents of the bill, along with the Department of Justice, have had the same concerns and address it with this language. Further, this language is directly in line with the general rule that jury pools will be selected in a manner that represent a fair cross-section of the community in which the crime was committed and the court convenes. In some instances, off the reservation, this might mean an Indian defendant is tried by a predominantly all-white jury. The law recognizes that this may be the case, but places confidence that each citizen’s dedication to his or her civic duties will prevail over any bias or unjust motivations.

This leads to the second concern, that this statement generally mischaracterizes tribal peoples as unable to administer justice in a fair and balanced manner like their non-Indian counterparts. In other words, it presupposes that simply because there is a non-Indian in a tribal court, and an all-Indian jury or predominantly Indian jury, the court proceedings would inevitably result in an unfair trial. Or, more simply, Indian jurors would not be able to look objectively at the facts of the case, the testimony of the witnesses, and the brevity of the outcome on the defendant’s liberty, and make fair and impartial judgments on the matter.

As you know Senator, the United States is an extremely diverse land, and every tribal citizen is also a citizen of the United States that is familiar with our courts of justice, tribal and non-tribal alike, as well as our Nation’s overall founding principles of liberty. Our school systems teach the same history lessons, and our laws and understandings of justice generally mirror the state and federal system. As Indian people, we raise our children to be honorable and respectful in their actions, and to state that a tribal juror, carrying out his or her civic duties to their respective tribal government, would in some way lack the capacity to administer justice in a manner equitable to a non-Indian juror is simply offensive and not true. Many, if not all, Indian tribes refer to themselves in their own language as ‘People’–not Indians. This concept of our underlying humanity has always been strong in tribal cultures, and tribal citizens are very capable of objective review of any matter in tribal court.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask that you retract these damaging statements and acknowledge that tribal jurors are U.S. citizens as well, and fully capable of administering justice in a fair and balanced manner. Thank you for your time and consideration of this very sensitive issue.”In short, case closed.

For more on violence against women, see Women March on Valentine's Day and Mounties Abuse Native Women.

Why reverse racism matters less

A recent news story offers a good opportunity to talk about "reverse racism."

Bigots and Their Enablers: Reflections on Racism, Both Individual and Systemic

By Tim WiseIt’s one of those stories that can leave even the most jaded and cynical critic of racist thinking scratching their head; the kind that manages to shock even those of us for whom acts of bigotry and intolerance seem all-too-typical, and who have, sadly, come to expect them in a culture such as this.

And so it was that in Flint, Michigan recently, a new father—and this is a term he has earned in only the most narrow, biological sense—demanded that when his recently arrived child was sent to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of the hospital where she had been born, no African American nurses were to attend to her needs, to care for her, to do what neonatal ICU nurses do, which is to say keep sick babies alive. White hands only for this white, fresh as snow child, whose father, sporting a shiny new swastika tattoo (a Christmas present no doubt from his pathetic skinhead bride) prioritized his own hatreds above and beyond the needs of his precious little girl. That the future does not bode well for her seems hardly worth saying. To be delivered from an ICU into the arms of one as unhinged as this can only, by reasonable people, be seen as a turn for the worse. Incubators and breathing machines might be preferable to having parents such as she has, through no fault of her own, inherited.

But what is worse, perhaps, than the bigotry of this one neo-Nazi—which is at least to be expected and so, can, despite its irrationality in a case such as this, remain somewhat within the realm of the banal—is that the hospital in question, Hurley Medical Center, actually capitulated to his psychotically racist demands, posting a sign on the little girl’s chart instructing the unit to disallow any black nurses from as much as touching this baby. Presumably, were Tonya Battle, a black Hurley neonatal nurse since 1988 the only nurse within arms reach of the girl as she entered cardiac arrest or as her kidneys began to shut down—both of which have been known to happen to those in a NIC-U—Battle was to scream loudly for a white nurse to come and save the child’s life. Because God forbid a black woman with 25 years experience do the job. And if she dies, well, at least her precious white skin wouldn’t have been sullied by black hands.

Hurley’s acquiescence to this insanity, in contravention of all ethical responsibility, not to mention legal obligations to treat their employees in a non-discriminatory fashion, is going to cost them no doubt, as they are apt to discover once the lawsuit currently brought against their witless administrators plays out. They are going to pay, and pay big, as they should, for their enabling of overt white supremacy. But that is hardly the most important part of this story. Just as it was not the most important part of the story back in 2000 when a heart specialist at St. Thomas Hospital in Nashville did a similar thing, agreeing to the lunatic ravings of another racist white man, who demanded that his wife, who needed open heart surgery to save her life, not be attended to by any black doctor, because he didn’t want a black man to see his wife naked.

More interesting, I think, is what this story (and the earlier one from Nashville) says about racism in America, and not just of the sort evinced by one bottom-feeder, troglodytic fan of Adolf Hitler. For while we are too quick to presume racism to be merely an individual pathology manifested by individually bad people, much like the father in the story from Flint, the fact is, an incident like this illustrates as well as anything can, the way that racism continues to operate as a systemic force in the United States, civil rights laws and all our vaunted post-raciality notwithstanding.

To understand what I mean by this, consider something I am often asked as I travel the country, speaking about racism, or in reply to one or another column or book that I’ve written: namely, it is queried, why don’t I ever talk about black racism, or, just generally, racism against white people? Why, it is wondered, do I focus on racism only when it’s deployed by whites?

There are many things I could say, and do, when asked something like this. But for now, let it suffice to say that this story, from Michigan, involving a white institution as respected as a hospital bending to the whims of a fucking Nazi, is more than enough of a reason for my selective attention. And this is true for multiple reasons.

First, what the story demonstrates is how much more potent white racism is than any potentially parallel version practiced by peoples of color. Simply put, there is no way that any bigoted black person, or Latino, or Asian American, or indigenous person, could possibly have made a similar demand in the reverse direction—that no white nurses attend to their newborn—and expect to have that insistence met with approval and acquiescence. Anyone who thinks a hospital would have agreed to such a thing—to actually deny opportunity to white nurses or doctors, and to limit the care of such a child to same-race caregivers—is either so overly medicated or mentally damaged as to make further discussion impossible. In other words, even when a white racist who is likely not of substantial economic means makes a racist demand, his desires can get ratified, and in ways that not even the wealthiest person of color could expect to have happen.

And this is because—and this is what is especially pertinent to the matter of institutional racism—even if a hospital was willing to go along with the ridiculous and bigoted demands of a hateful person of color, that no whites be allowed to touch their black or brown baby, it would be virtually impossible to fulfill such a request. And why? Simple. Because given the history of unequal opportunity in medical professions, from doctoring to nursing—and also just given the demographic and power dynamics within pretty much any institution you can name—to work around white professionals, even if one wanted to, is almost impossible.

Bottom line: the hospital in this case went along with the demand to exclude blacks from attending to this child because they could. Given the history of discrimination in access to the medical profession, including nursing, and the barriers to professional practice faced by too many people of color, there exists today a more limited number of such professionals from which to draw. As such, excluding them from a particular hospital unit or assignment is hardly a huge burden for the institution in question.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Whites "Sick of the Race Card" and White Conservatives "Angry About Racism."

Northwestern founder oversaw Sand Creek massacre

Northwestern to probe founder's link to Indian massacre

Committee of professors to investigate John Evans and the 1864 Sand Creek killings

By Rex W. HuppkeResponding to pressure from a student alliance, Northwestern University has established a committee to investigate the history of John Evans, a university founder connected to one of the worst massacres of Native Americans in the country's history.

The committee will consist of four Northwestern faculty members and three additional professors hailing from Yale University, the University of Illinois and the University of Arkansas.

John Evans—the namesake of the city of Evanston—was territorial governor of Colorado in 1864 when a militia of about 700 men attacked a temporary village of Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho people at Sand Creek. According to the National Park Service, the soldiers killed 165 to 200 Native Americans, about two-thirds of them women, children and elderly.

Known as the Sand Creek Massacre, it is considered one of the worst acts of genocide in U.S. history and led to Evans' removal from his governorship after a congressional investigation.

According to the Native American and Indigenous Student Alliance at Northwestern, the university has ignored that part of Evans' history. Evans continued as a major benefactor and member of Northwestern's board long after details of the massacre came to light.The details on Evans's role:

John EvansU.S. President Abraham Lincoln appointed John Evans the second Governor of the Territory of Colorado on March 31, 1862. Governor Evans and his good friend the Reverend John Chivington founded the Territory's first college, the Colorado Seminary, which later became the University of Denver. In 1864 Governor Evans appointed the Reverend Chivington as Colonel of the Colorado Volunteers and sent him with 800 cavalry troopers to "quiet" the Indians. Chivington and his men knew of the unarmed band of Cheyenne and Arapaho led by Black Kettle, seeking peace talks, camped along Sand Creek in the east central part of the Territory. On November 28, 1864, Colonel Chivington ordered his men to attack the encampment killing about 53 unarmed men and 110 women and children and wounding many more. Most of the dead were mutilated. Governor Evans decorated Chivington and his men for their "valor in subduing the savages" and fought off rumors of an unprovoked massacre. On July 18, 1865, new President Andrew Johnson asked Governor Evans to resign because of his attempt to cover up the Sand Creek Massacre. Evans resigned as Governor, but he remained popular in the Colorado Territory for his perceived toughness in dealing with the "enemies" of the Territory. Dr. Evans continued to serve as the Chairman of the Denver Seminary Board of Trustees until his death on July 2, 1897.Comment:  I don't think anyone is saying to scrub Evans from Northwestern's history. But his role in killing Indians should be part of the story. Northwestern's official history shouldn't just ignore it.

For more on massacres of Indians, see Wounded Knee Seller Should Be Ashamed and Montana Rejects Winchester as State Rifle.

Idle No More not just for Natives

Idle No More Movement continues to evolve

By Lailani UphamRoss brought up the importance and an example of why the movement is for all people and not just Native people, such issues as Montana Medicaid expansion, environmental protection, protection against sexual violence for women and the to fracking in low-income communities.

Ross dispelled myths that have arrived in mainstream of what the movement is about and cleared the air, “You may have heard Idle No More is only about Native people. That is completely untrue. What Idle No More is about–is a difference in perspective. There is a difference between being a victim and being a self-determined autonomous person that takes control of their fate. That is what Idle No More is about. As an example of why Idle No More is not about race, I am going to talk briefly about the Medicaid expansion. To my understanding affordable healthcare and being covered by health insurance covers all people, irrespective of color. It has nothing to do with whether you are Indian or non-Indian,” Ross stated.

“Idle No More is first of all a poor people’s movement. It’s a voiceless people’s movement. It is a people that are formerly idle taking control and saying we will not be victims any more. That doesn’t say anything about color. The only reason why there are Native people that have been specified as the primary movers of the Idle No More movement is because there are a visible number of Native people that are poor.”

Ross explained the second misconception of the Idle No More movement, “It’s about Native people getting together and singing on drums. Doing round dances. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s called a 49–it’s a good time,” he stated in amusement. “But Idle No More is a platform of organizing people.”Comment:  The headline says Idle No More is evolving. I hope it's not "evolving" into irrelevance. The Idle No more fervor has faded since Chief Spence ended her hunger strike. As with Occupy Wall Street, it seems to have a shelf-life of 2-3 months before it becomes background noise rather than breaking news.

Curiously, I've heard some Natives say Idle No More is for Natives only, or primarily. As I indicated in Idle No More = Occupy, I think they're wise to cast it as a broader movement with goals similar to other populist movements. Anything you can do to rally the people against the power elite is good.

For more on Idle No More, see Women March on Valentine's Day and John Lennon on Indians.

Below:  "Singers render one round dance song to close out the day. Amanda Walking Child, and a Missoula INM event singer passes a lead to fellow INM singer Ryan Upham." (Lailani Upham)

Chippewas approve CMU's nickname

Tribe supports Native American mascots

By Paul Lukas[I]t's true that there are some Native Americans who are fine with the use of Native imagery in sports. In central Michigan, for example, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe recently announced that it had no problem with a local high school whose teams are called the Warriors.

I was curious to learn more, so I contacted the Saginaw Chippewas and spoke with their public relations director, Frank Cloutier. Here's how our conversation went:

Uni Watch: First, for people who aren't familiar with the Saginaw Chippewas, please tell me a bit about your tribe.

Frank Cloutier: Our tribe was formed with the ratification of our constitution in 1936. We have 3,292 members, and we live in the territories called the Isabella Federal Indian Reserve in Mount Pleasant, Mich., just north of Lansing. We have the fifth- or sixth-largest Indian-owned casino in the Midwest, so we're rather successful when it comes to our economic growth and development.

But it's not just about gaming for us--it's about our culture. We have a very rich, diverse culture, which is showcased in a world-class, award-winning cultural museum on our reservation. So the situation regarding mascots and team names piques our interest.

Many of the people taking part in this debate see it as a black-and-white issue. Either they're completely opposed to all uses of Native American imagery, or they have no problem with any of it. What's your position, or your tribe's position, on that?

It's very, very clear for us, because we've worked with so many institutions in our area. Our position is that if it's not derogatory and it's being used appropriately, with an opportunity to share or cross-share our culture, then it's fine. There's nothing derogatory about "Warriors" or "Braves." There's nothing derogatory about "Indian." But terms like "Redskin" or "Half-Breed," those are derogatory terms to us.

So when the Michigan Department of Civil Rights recently filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, claiming that Native American mascots and nicknames are inherently harmful to Native children, you don't agree with that?

In the study they used, they said these Native children who go to these schools with these mascots are "marginalized." But if you look at generational trauma and the way Native peoples were treated 300 years ago, it wasn't until 1924 that we were formally recognized as human beings, and we didn't get the chance to vote until after women did. That's what makes these kids feel marginalized -- the way their culture and their people were treated. I don't believe that a menacing-looking brave on the backboard of a basketball hoop is going to marginalize that child as much as that generational trauma.

That said, however, I believe that these schools using these images have an obligation to talk about the truth of Native American history. One of the largest genocides in world history happened right here on American soil, and it happened to Native Americans. So it's important to talk about the true history about the settling of the United States, and to talk about those things that happened to Native Americans that are often not talked about.

If Native children are struggling, hopefully this kind of education and outreach and help identify why, instead of having us blame it on a mascot.

So when you say it's fine to use non-derogatory imagery as long as it's being used appropriately, you're saying that part of that "appropriate use" is educational content about Native Americans?

Yes. For example, in 2003 we entered into an articulation agreement with Central Michigan University, because they were the Chippewas. As part of that agreement, the tribe and the university each has an obligation. Every year I go in and address every freshman athletic student about our culture and what it means to be a Chippewa, and about the proud, competitive nature of our people. We explain that it's not about war paint and fake feathers. It's about honoring the triumph of these resilient, competitive people.

They also have areas on campus that are dedicated to the presence of the Chippewa Nation. So it's a good cross-cultural exchange. And when they go out there and compete, they're Chippewas, they're fighting like a Chippewa, fighting to win. We've made that university our school of choice for Native Americans, because our tribal community is close by, so we can help support those Native students.

What if a high school or university wasn't interested in doing these types of cultural exchanges and educational efforts? What would your feelings be about their use of Native imagery?

It would be completely different. If they're not willing to celebrate and show the culture, they shouldn't have the privilege of depicting it.Natives respond

All this sounds good, but when this link was posted on Facebook, people (including me) had more to say:Why do people always ask why bigotry isn't given an equal voice, why the side of bigotry got ignored in some article? So, we know from the first paragraph that the whole article is about giving a fair shake to bigotry? That doesn't even make sense. Bigotry in the form of Native American logos and mascots has been the dominant voice long enough! It's time to end that domination, to give voice to the historically voiceless.

Fortunately, this Uncle Tomahawk speaks only for the corporate entity that employs him. 1) This bunch, which is essentially a casino, a huge budget and a little land, cross-markets off of CMU (2) Fortunately, no people with any pride call themselves "Chippewa" (3) Their leadership is largely composed of a bunch of pathetic Republicans.

I also think it points to a much deeper issue if the only opportunity Native people have to educate about our cultures and communities is in the context of sports mascots.

Yeah, what this clown means by "cultural exchange" is having to explain why some white kid in a Halloween costume can't ride in on a horse and fire flaming arrows from the 50 yard line at a cowboy cut-out ... in upper Michigan.

Mr. Cloutier has the right to say whatever he wants, but it’s pretty clear here that he views his tribe’s culture primarily as a commodity to be sold.

Article has some interesting ideas, and I think it does try to highlight an opportunity for cooperation. Unfortunately, the title is a bit misleading as it almost attempts to claim the Chippewa support any mascot, regardless of how its used.

I feel like this, like S.L. Price's very misleading article for SI, will be something for mascot supporters to turn to and generalize the views of ALL Native Americans.

Unfortunately this is going to be the arguing point of many appropriators in the future. "Well, that tribe is OK with mascots, so what's YOUR problem?" *sigh*How many schools meet the Saginaw Chippewas' standard of respecting and educating people about Native cultures? One in a hundred? The headline should be: "Tribe Opposes Native Mascots Except in Extraordinary Circumstances."

"I also think it points to a much deeper issue if the only opportunity Native people have to educate about our cultures and communities is in the context of sports mascots."

Good point. Why aren't schools teaching Native history and culture anyway? If a school was teaching these things already, would the Chippewas still feel a mascot was desirable?

Sounds like the Chippewas are saying mascots are good only as a bargaining chip. Which isn't much of an argument for mascots.

What about other Ojibwe?Whether or not one tribe or another gives their permission for their tribe to be represented as a mascot or not has no bearing on the negative ramifications that stem from the mascots use.

I think it is sick that one band gets to decide that the Chippewa name (though a false one) is appropriate to be used as a mascot while the rest of the "Chippewa" bands are against it. Who are they to decide that "Chippewa," which hundreds of thousands of people identify as, is to be used this way? To be quite honest, as an Ojibwe, it pisses me off.

I replied on Twitter that not all "Chippewas" approve of the name/logo use, just one rich tribe. It just goes to show what a complex issue racist sports logos are. Love that one tribe (Saginaw Chippewa) can sign away rights to something that other Ojibwe/Anishinabwe don't have to approve, know about or even agree to, yet we still get to be bombarded with the images.

Last time I checked these collaborator sell outs do not speak for the other Bands of Anishinabe people in Canada, Michigan, Wisconsin, the Dakotas and Minnesota and they are neglecting their payoffs, you know the scholarships for tribal members, the cut of the trademark and copy rights and merchandising.Let's reiterate the gaming connection. The Saginaw Chippewas have to please Michigan's legislators and voters if they don't want their casino business harmed. There's a conflict of interest here that other Ojibwe people and tribes don't have.

Nevertheless, if there's a right way to do an Indian mascot, CMU seems to be doing it:I graduated from CMU about a year ago and I've always been impressed with the relationship between the school and the SCIT tribe. CMU is very conscientious about how the Chippewa image is portrayed by students, any offensive nonsense like dressing in feathers and war paint is strictly forbidden. Unlike at my younger sisters' high school and middle school, where their mascots are the Braves and Warriors and the still have an Indian head logo and mascot...

Imagine my surprise when my tribe shows up on one of my favorite pages!

Alright, I'm going to say this. Frank Cloutier is the head of PR for our tribe. This interview is the official tribal opinion, approved by tribal council, this may or may not reflect Frank's personal position. And it certainly DOES NOT reflect the opinion of all members of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe! Believe me, give us a generation and the younger ones will have these nicknames gone, if they aren't already.

CMU gave up their Native mascot in 1989. Their current mascot is a "flying C," yes the letter C. Their nickname is the Chippewas. While I vehemently oppose the nickname, I will give props to the several tribal council members over the last two decades or so. They have built up a relationship with CMU--they have tribal exhibits in their basketball facility, they have a 30-foot blown up photo of a fancy shawl dancers, next to other athletes in their athletic facility. A few years ago, they repatriated remains to us and we WALKED the remains to the rez, and university officials (president, provost, etc) attended. They have an annual powwow and the University helps and supports it (at other MI universities, Native student orgs are pretty much on their own for powwow). These may seem like small efforts, but they are HUGE in Mt. Pleasant--where there's been a historical disconnect between the university and the rez. I wonder how much of that has been from tribal leaders using the nickname as leverage. Certainly, CMU can do more but things are getting better.

I remember 10 years or so ago, a CMU freshman dressed as a "Chippewa" to a football game. He had fake warpaint, a macaroni breastplate, and was doing war whoops. He was publicly rebuked by fellow students. He may have been required to attend a Native class or something. Maybe a decade or so before that, a bunch of students did something similar and apparently they got sent to the rez to have dinner with one of my cousins, who gave them a Anishinaabekwe lecture on respect, according to my mother. We take care of stereotypical b.s.As I've said before, I don't think neutral names such as "Indians" or "Chippewas" are that bad by themselves. On the other hand, I don't like anything that perpetuates the "Indian as warrior" stereotype.

Anyway, as this posting shows, even when a tribe approves the mascot, the issue isn't cut-and-dried. We've also seen that with the FSU Seminole case.

For more on Indian mascots, see Semipro Team Uses Chief Wahoo and NMAI Symposium on Racist Mascots.

Native Voices to premiere Bird House

Native Voices at Autry to Open World Premiere of THE BIRD HOUSE, 3/1Native Voices at the Autry continues its vital role as the country's only Equity theatre company dedicated exclusively to developing the work of Native American Playwrights with the world premiere of THE BIRD HOUSE by DIANE GLANCY (Cherokee*). The play opens Friday, March 1 and closes Sunday, March 17, 2013, (previews begin February 27) at the Autry National Center's Wells Fargo Theater, Los Angeles.

Glancy, author of the hit play Salvage, has worked closely with Native Voices on The Bird House for more than two years, exemplifying the company's commitment to the ongoing development of a play over a long period of time. Directed by Robert Caisley, The Bird House was written for and stars Native Voices Co-Founder/Producing Artistic Director Randy Reinholz (Choctaw*), in his Native Voices acting debut. Reinholz, an accomplished producer, director and actor, has directed over fifty plays in the United States, Australia, Mexico and Canada.

The dramaturg is Native Voices Co-Founder/Producing Executive Director Jean Bruce Scott, who has spent nineteen years developing new plays, including more than 100 by Native American Playwrights. Native Voices at the Autry has been hailed by critics as "a virtual who's who of American Indian theatre artists," "a hotbed for contemporary Native Theatre," "deeply compelling" and "a powerful and eloquent voice." Founded in 1994, it was established as a resident company at the Autry National Center in 1999.

"We are proud to present the world premiere of Diane Glancy's The Bird House as part of our ongoing commitment to give expression to the histories, experiences and perspectives of Native peoples," says David Burton, senior director of the Autry Institute at the Autry National Center. "Diane's poetically heart-wrenching play, as well as all the creative work that grows out of Native Voices at the Autry, contributes enormously to our mission of fully exploring the stories of the diverse peoples of the American West."

Glancy's play tells the story of Reverend Logan (Reinholz), an evangelical preacher fighting to save his family, his church and his community during an economic crisis, when the promise of natural gas production from fracking seems to provide a lifeline to his small west Texas town. The cast also features Tyler Cook as Justin Lawrence, Carla-Rae (Seneca*, Mohawk*, French Canadian*) as Majel, Robert Owens-Greygrass (Lakota*) as Rope and Ellen Dostal as Clovis.Comment:  For more on Native Voices, see My Article on Short Play Festival 2012 and Native Voices Presents Distant Thunder.

River Phoenix as Hopi Indian

River Phoenix Plays Indian in Never-Seen Film 'Dark Blood'Twenty years after his death, River Phoenix is hitting the screen one last time in Dark Blood, an unfinished film in which he plays a Hopi Indian.

Phoenix died with just a few weeks of shooting remaining, and, as recounted in a Reuters report, the film's negatives were comandeered by the production's insurers. In 1999, they were about to be destroyed, but director George Sluizer was able to swoop in and save them. A few more years went by, and in 2007, following an illness, Sluizer resolved to finish what he'd started. A version of the film--stitched together with still photography and voiceovers--is now being shown.

In the film, Phoenix plays a hermetic part-Native widower who develops an obsession for stranded traveler (played by Judy Davis), despite the presence of her husband (Jonathan Pryce). As described in a Hollywood Reporter review of the film from the Berlin International Film Festival, Dark Blood is "an engagingly modest low-key thriller, a curio item that’s half art house, half genre-jumper and entirely watchable despite the absence of several key scenes."

Also appearing in the film are Native actors T. Dan Hopkins, John Trudell, Julius Drum, Rodney A. Grant, and George Aguilar, according to its entry at IMDB. Reports suggest that a theatrical release is unlikely, but it may see further showings at festivals and an eventual DVD release.Comment:  I guess they could excuse casting Phoenix by saying the character is only part Native. That's a common tactic used to avoid casting minority actors. But it's still wrong.

For more on casting issues, see Depp "Too Pretty" to Play Natives?! and Revolution and TV Diversity.

Bakery to rename squaw bread

Old Town Baking Company in Rancho Cucamonga to rename its squaw bread

By Neil NisperosA bakery in this city is changing the name of its popular squaw bread after some Native Americans deemed it offensive.

Old Town Baking Company owners have received emails and Facebook messages in recent weeks demanding that the name be changed.

Native American groups consider "squaw" a deeply derogatory term, said USC professor David Treuer, an acclaimed novelist who writes Native American-themed literature. Treuer said he was taken aback when he saw the bread during a recent visit to a local grocery store.

"I saw the bread and I was a little stunned," said David Treuer, who is from the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Indians in Minnesota.

"I know it's a type of bread, and they're not the only company that makes that bread. I was sort of surprised to see a bread with that name in the bakery aisle of the local supermarket. It is universally understood, particularly with native people as a slur. It has been used as a slur for a couple hundred years."

Treuer sent an email to Old Town Baking Company officials on Feb. 8 informing them of the offensive nature of the word.

Treuer's brother Anton, a professor of Native American studies at Bemidji State University in Minnesota, created a Facebook page calling on Old Town Baking Company to change the name of the bread.

A debate soon erupted on the Old Town Baking Company Facebook page over the term. The commentary included Anton Treuer posting a message that said, "We can't demand respect with disrespect."

The owners of the bread company said some of the messages were hurtful.

Don Bishop had tears in his eyes when he recently discussed his family being characterized as racist. His grandmother was Cherokee and was born on the Oconaluftee Reservation in North Carolina.

Bishop's grandfather used the phrase "sweet squaw" as a term of endearment for his grandmother, and the sweet wheat bread baked by his grandmother was referred to by her as "squaw."

Bishop said he was shocked when he learned about the offensive nature of the term. A post on the company's Facebook page said, "We have always known this word to mean 'woman.'"

"My father-in-law remembers his grandfather using the term in a loving and respectful way and perfected the recipe as a tribute to the Native American culture," Bishop said.

"We ... are heartbroken and so sad that we would unknowingly have a name of one of our products that could be offensive to the Native American community."Comment:  Once again, it's nice to see a Native protest via social media produce quick results.

This protest began a week or two after I posted Native Stereotypes in Breakfast Foods and Milton's Squaw Bread. But this is a different company and I don't think there's a connection.

I gather squaw bread is a type of bread and many people and companies make it:

Does anyone know what Squaw Bread is?All it is, is a slightly sweet bread.Where Did All the Squaw Bread Go?

So these bakeries didn't choose the name "Squaw" because they thought it sounded cool. They were merely offering a type of bread commonly known as squaw bread.

So nobody meant to slur Natives with this term. But the fact remains that Natives don't like it. There's no reason to use a term that few people are familiar with, and a good reason to change it. So give up "squaw bread" and call it "Grandmother's Bread" or something.

For more on "squaw," see Columnist Defends Mummers Parade and Limbaugh Calls Warren "Squaw Indian Giver."

Only whites get to make racial movies

Speaking of Quentin Tarantino and Django Unchained, here's another posting on them:

Could a black director have made “Django”?

Tarantino's daring film would have been received differently by the media--or never made--if he wasn't white

By David Sirota[I]n all the foment, one issue that’s been little discussed is how the film reflects the way White Privilege works. That’s a particularly important topic right now, in light of the intense conservative backlash that now occurs after any mere mention of the concept.

Film critic Eric Deggans alluded to White Privilege in his terrific Salon piece on “Django Unchained” earlier this week. Noting that ”studios know white audiences will show up for (Tarantino’s) movies,” he concluded that Tarantino is “a white man who gets to do what black artists should also get to do”—but too often do not get the opportunity to do. Why not? Because of the way films by different directors are inevitably portrayed in the media and interpreted by White America.

The best way to illustrate this form of White Privilege is to imagine ”Django Unchained” being released as a production from an African American writer and director. Under those circumstances, in the media and among white audiences, the film most likely would be perceived not merely as a mass-audience entertainment product with some underlying social commentary by a single director, but as a niche political film allegedly from a whole community with an axe to grind. That is, it would probably be met in the media and among potential viewers not in the way it has been met, but instead as a divisive “black movie”—by, and allegedly only for, black people.

Studio executives know all of this. In Deggans’ terms, they “know white audiences will show up” for a white director’s film about race issues, but they fear white audiences will not show up for an African American director’s film about the same issues. Thus, when it comes to films dealing with racism, it’s probably harder for African American writers and directors than for their white counterparts to convince studios to finance their projects. That difference is the definition of White Privilege.

Noting all of this is not to assert that African American writers and directors have never found commercial success in films about bigotry, nor therefore to absolve film studios for any institutional racism. But it is to point out that White Privilege is not just about individual bigots and single industries. On the contrary, it operates on a mass level whereby America—whether consciously or unconsciously, whether overtly or subtly, whether in movie tastes or other consumer proclivities—often privileges whites over people of color.

In the case of “Django Unchained,” as evidenced by stunning ticket sales, it privileges a film from a white director that it might not similarly reward had the very same film come from a black director (assuming such a film from a black director would have even been green-lighted by a major studio). Put another way, it allows a white director to tell a filmic story that a black director might not have been permitted to tell on such a large mass-audience stage (or, at least, to market as a “mass-audience” production).Comment:  I don't know about Django Unchained, but for the most part, white versions of race-based movies are more sanitized than minority versions might be. Lincoln is a good example, or Dances with Wolves. They tend to reinforce our cultural myth that America is about great white men doing great things. Even if it means correcting the mistakes of few bad apples who are also white men.

In other words, it's rare to see a harsh critique of America's systemic racism from a white filmmaker. And Hollywood won't greenlight harsh critiques from minority filmmakers. Because studios perceive movies that challenge the status quo as bad even if they make money.

For more on that subject, see Movies Convey "America's Master Narrative." For more on Quentin Tarantino, see Al Carroll on Tarantino's Scalping and Tarantino's Apache Warfare Fiction.

Semipro team uses Chief Wahoo

Local baseball team's mascot draws criticism from Chumash leaders

Chumash leaders hope the team will replace its logo—a caricature of a Native American

By Bob CuddyChumash leaders are asking a North County semi-pro baseball team to change its logo, which it says is demeaning to Native Americans.

The mascot for the North County Indians is a grinning, bright-red, Native American caricature that is based on the Cleveland Indians mascot, Chief Wahoo.

That mascot also has drawn criticism over the years, as have various similar logos from professional sports to Little League. The best-known pro sports teams that still have such logos are the Indians, Atlanta Braves, and Washington Redskins. All remain controversial.

Although the discussion has raged nationally for decades, it is new in San Luis Obispo County and was triggered by the North County Indians’ move from Santa Maria to Templeton.

The Indians played their first summer in Templeton last year but had been active in Santa Maria for more than 40 years.

The symbol is “degrading, immoral, racist, (and) disrespectful,” according to Fred Collins, tribal administrator of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council.

The Indians’ Facebook page has received similar comments, calling for a change in its “disrespectful” and “offensive” mascot.Comment:  You can confirm the Templeton Indians use of Chief Wahoo on their website:

North County Indians Baseball Club Store

This logo isn't just "based on" Chief Wahoo. It is Chief Wahoo. If the Cleveland Indians knew about this, I'd bet they'd order Templeton to change its logo.

For more on Chief Wahoo, see The Most Racist Pro Sports Logo and 40th Annual Chief Wahoo Protest.

Winnemem Wintu oppose "frankenfish"

Winnemem Wintu Chief says Frankenfish must be stopped

By Dan BacherCaleen Sisk, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, said the Tribe strongly opposes the tentative approval of genetically engineered salmon by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

"Salmon is in our traditional stories, songs and dances,” said Sisk. “We must stay pure to exist in the ancient circle connecting our tribal customs to salmon. The Winnemem Wintu have a right to protect salmon, and certainly NOT allow them to be genetically modified in anyway. They must not have their genes and DNA subject to exploring ideas.”

“It must be recognized as an inherent right of Indigenous Peoples for the Winnemem Wintu to hold the salmon as a relative that is so intrinsic to our culture. There are complete eco systems based on the clarity, knowledge and health of the salmon,” said Sisk.

“The Winnemem Wintu object to GE production, as it would certainly impact our obligation to salmon and would change the traditional responsibility to salmon and our relationship that exists for thousands of years. It is also the right of the tribes to expect the same engagement of the omega 3's to maintain a quality of health to traditionally exchange with the Winnemem Wintu, the trees, birds, animals, plants and soils as they purify the waters on each of their once in their life journey,” she concluded.Comment:  For more on Indians and salmon, see Nisqually Cooking in Man Fire Food and Tsleil-Waututh Professional Chef's Program.

White buffalo at Fuel City

Native Americans object to use of white buffalo at Dallas gas station

By David SchechterThe Fuel City gas station gained attention this weekend for using a white buffalo to promote its business. Now it is facing criticism from Native Americans who say using the animal for commercial purposes is sacrilegious.

"He's exploiting this. He's exploiting our culture,” said Yolanda Blue Horse, a Native American activist.

To some Native Americans, the birth of a white buffalo symbolizes how their sacred ceremonies and prayers were handed down to them.

When Blue Horse and others in the local Native American community heard about this white buffalo, they felt Fuel City, a downtown Dallas landmark on Riverfront Boulevard, had gone too far.

Blue Horse called the owner to explain the problem about the animal named Lone Star.

"Our religion, really, ultimately is not to be used as a circus. It's not to be used as a sideshow and 'ooh, come look at what I got,' which is what his words were," she said.Comment:  I'd say this depends on how Fuel City is using the white buffalo. If they gave it a Native name, said it was a Native symbol, encouraged people to pray to it for good luck, I'd say they were exploiting Native culture. But simply owning and displaying a white buffalo doesn't seem sacrilegious. I don't think Natives have any right to control or monopolize the use of white buffaloes in non-Native circumstances.

For more on white buffalo, see White Buffalo Died of Disease and White Buffalo the Play.

Photo essay maligns Wind River

A photo essay surveys the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming:

Here's What Life Is Like On The Notorious Wind River Indian Reservation

By Robert JohnsonThe Wind River Indian Reservation is not an easy place to get to, but I had to see it for myself.

Thirty-five-hundred square miles of prairie and mountains in western Wyoming, the reservation is home to bitter ancestral enemies: the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes.

Even among reservations, it's renowned for brutal crime, widespread drug use, and legal dumping of toxic waste.

But no matter how much you hear about Wind River, there always seemed to be something unsaid. I spent over a week there and in the nearby towns. It was perhaps the most dramatic and unbalanced place I've ever been.

In the following slides I document what I saw from my more than week-long stay, in an effort to portray the plight and the perils of these forgotten tribes.The narrative starts off innocently enough, with several slides on the beautiful land and the tragic history. But then it grows increasingly negative. These slides are among the worst:

The pictures are blurry, because when I raised the camera to take them, the school teacher who was showing me the reservation screamed that I was going to get us killed. She did not view this as an exaggeration. She seemed genuinely terrified.Drug abuse is rampant—from school-kids "huffing" Axe body spray, to alcoholism, to crystal meth throughout the state.My guide says everything is for sale on the Rez--in some way or another. Because there is so little law enforcement, crime is high, and law breakers can hide almost indefinitely from police. She had no explanation for why there are so many dogs wandering about.As we pass the community health clinic, my guide says growing up here can foster a sense of entitlement.Although Johnson spent a week there, he took many of the pictures from a car--sometimes a moving car. His guide, probably a white woman, obviously has a biased view of the rez.

In other words, this is almost literally a case of "drive-by journalism." An outsider passes through without getting to know or even talking to the residents, and he thinks he can summarize it accurately.

I've done photo essays of my trips through Indian country too. But I hope I've merely described what I saw, not tried to spin it into some grand statement. I'd never label a photo album "Here's What Life Is Like" or the equivalent. The arrogance of that claim is astounding.

Wind River responds

A reporter who apparently has covered Wind River in depth reports the reactions to this photo essay:

The reservation reacts to new, troubling press coverage

By Ron FeemsterResidents on the Wind River Indian Reservation know they have some big crime problems, but they don’t always like outsiders to write about them, especially when they seem to get everything else about the reservation wrong.

A New York Times article that appeared just over a year ago detailed a young man’s tragic, drunken murder of his teenage sister, and the heartbreak of parents who buried a daughter and lost a son to prison.

But before the Times writer got to that story, near the end of his 1,200-word piece, he had lost most of his Native readers. The article first delivered a litany of oppressive crime and poverty statistics punctuated with quotes from Tribal officials about “gloom” and “bad spirits.” To Native ears at least, these expressions capture tired stereotypes better than the views of educated, if occasionally overwhelmed, Indian leaders.

This week a new story made waves on the reservation when it appeared in Business Insider under the headline “Here’s what life is like on the notorious Wind River Indian Reservation.”

“It’s like the New York Times article, only worse,” said Layha Spoonhunter, 23, who recently returned with other reservation young people from a trip to Washington, D.C. to dance in President Obama’s Inaugural Parade. “At least the New York Times writer went around and talked to people.”

The Business Insider presented a slide show of more than 50 photographs, some of them taken off the reservation, with captions presenting the community’s problems and hard living conditions with no sources beyond his “guide,” a local teacher who remained nameless throughout the story.

“There was a lot of misinformation,” said Sara Robinson, the state tribal liaison for the Eastern Shoshone tribe. She was in Cheyenne lobbying the legislature and spoke briefly on the phone. “There were people in my family who were upset and angry. It was just not a good piece of work. Period.”

Spoonhunter paged through the photographs online, pointing out the disparities between what they showed and the written commentary.

“Picture number 37 shows Blue Sky Hall,” he said. “The caption says ’everything is for sale on the Rez—sex, drugs, booze, houses, tires, trucks.’”

Blue Sky Hall is a gathering place for the Northern Arapahoes, where the tribe holds events from elections and public meetings to performances and Thanksgiving dinners. “The tribe’s substance abuse and diabetes awareness programs are in that building,” Spoonhunter said. “It’s nothing like a place where sex or drugs are for sale.”For more on drive-by journalism, see Pine Ridge Gets Media Attention and Kristof's Pine Ridge Column.

Below:  "Children play on a fence outside Blue Sky Hall in Ethete. Residents say the Wind River Indian Reservation is often a more hopeful place than is portrayed in press reports." (Lindsay D’Addato/WyoFile)

Most overrated presidents

Happy Presidents’ Day! Meet The Five Most Overrated American Presidents

By Ian MillhiserAmericans love to rank things. So lists of the best presidents in American history frequently allow historians to duke it out over whether George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt should be remembered as our nation’s greatest leader. Meanwhile, recently departed President George W. Bush already ranks close to the top in polls of historians asked to rank the worst president in American history. Rather than wade into the thicket of which men best or worst served their nation during their time in the White House, we would like to offer a different kind of list. Here are five presidents who routinely rank far above what their performance in office deserves in surveys considering presidential performance:

1. Andrew Jackson

The Democratic Party frequently hosts Jefferson-Jackson Dinners honoring President Jackson and another historic president who is also on this list. It should reconsider this practice, as Jackson’s policy towards Native Americans was only a few steps shy of genocidal. In theory, President Jackson’s Indian Removal Act, permitted him to negotiate voluntary agreements with tribes in the southeastern United States encouraging them to exchange their eastern lands for new territory in the west. In reality, Jackson’s forced migration policy was anything but voluntary. By his last year in office, 46,000 Native Americans were removed from their lands, opening up tens of millions of acres to white settlement and slave-worked agriculture. As many as a quarter of the southeastern Cherokee people died of cold, hunger, and disease in the Trail of Tears march that began shortly after Jackson left the White House.

2. Ronald Reagan

3. Woodrow Wilson

4. Thomas Jefferson

Like Wilson, Jefferson’s legacy is far more mixed than malign, as no one can question the significance of his contributions to American history—beginning with the document that declared us an independent nation. Yet Jefferson’s most important accomplishment as president was also the most important flip-flop in American history. During the Washington Administration, Jefferson led a losing faction seeking to constrain federal power to foster the nation’s economic growth far beyond the limits contained in the Constitution’s text. This narrow vision of the Constitution initially led him to oppose the Louisiana Purchase as president, although he eventually relented and doubled the size of the United States in the process.

5. James MadisonComment:  The comments about the Louisiana Purchase ignore the fact that the land belonged to the Indians, not the French or Spanish. The comments also ignore the many unfortunate consequences. Here's a summary of them:

The Louisiana PurchaseOn April 30, 1803, the United States government made one of the greatest land transactions of all time when it purchased from the French Republic for $15 million dollars, a piece of real estate extending from the Gulf of Mexico north to Canada, and from the Mississippi River Basin west to the Rocky Mountains. Called the Louisiana Purchase, this transaction added 830,000 square miles of uncharted wilderness to the territory of the United States.

The Louisiana Purchase opened the west for settlement by Europeans and Americans and had grave implications for American Indians, who would soon find their ancestral homelands taken from them. It allowed for the extension of slavery, brought an end to French and Spanish domination in Arkansas and allowed a diversity of settlers to develop and perpetuate their own cultures in the six distinct geographic regions of the state.For more on the subject, see "Most Terrifying Man Ever Elected President" and Best and Worst Presidents for Indians.

Skywalk judgment threatens Hualapais

Battle Over Skywalk

$28.6 mil judgment could be devastating for Hualapais

By Dennis WagnerThe Hualapai Tribe of northern Arizona faces serious financial and political fallout from a $28.6 million judgment last week favoring a Las Vegas developer who built the Skywalk tourist attraction on reservation land overlooking the Grand Canyon.

Hualapai leaders said they are reviewing their options following the Feb. 11 decision by U.S. District Judge David Campbell.

Campbell’s ruling upheld an arbitration decision awarding David Jin, creator of the glass-bottomed Skywalk, millions of dollars in ticket revenue Jin said was owed to him under a 2003 contract with the tribe.

A lawyer for Jin warned that total damages may reach $277 million in the wake of the tribe’s move to take over the tourist attraction on the Grand Canyon’s West Rim.The crux of the conflict:In 2003, a tribally owned company, ‘Sa’ Nyu Wa Inc., signed a contract with Jin’s enterprise, Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC, for development of the overlook. Jin agreed to build the project for $30 million in return for half of the revenue.

The Skywalk, about 130 miles northwest of Flagstaff, opened to international media coverage in 2007 and reportedly attracts about 370,000 visitors annually. After the first year, court records say, the tribe stopped making payments to Jin’s company and refused to disclose financial documents.

In legal filings, Hualapai leaders and attorneys alleged that Jin’s company had failed to finish the project.

Skywalk Development, supported by testimony from former tribal officials, answered that a visitors center was not completed because the tribe failed to bring in power, sewage treatment and water systems, as required by contract.

That dispute went to arbitration. The tribe participated in negotiations until last year, when council members voted to condemn the Skywalk and take ownership of it. Hualapai attorneys argued in court that tribal sovereignty makes the Indian nation exempt from arbitration even though it was agreed to in the contract with Jin.

In a 27-page ruling, Judge Campbell described the tribe’s legal arguments as “odd,” “nonsensical” and “wholly unconvincing.” He concluded that the Hualapai Tribe “clearly waived its sovereign immunity.”Comment:  For more on the Skywalk, see Hualapai Tribe Seizes Skywalk and Skywalk Has Quadrupled Visitors.

3,000 Native children died in residential schools

At least 3,000 native children died in residential schools: research

By Colin PerkelAt least 3,000 children, including four under the age of 10 found huddled together in frozen embrace, are now known to have died during attendance at Canada’s Indian residential schools, according to new unpublished research.

While deaths have long been documented as part of the disgraced residential school system, the findings are the result of the first systematic search of government, school and other records.And:The largest single killer, by far, was disease.

For decades starting in about 1910, tuberculosis was a consistent killer–in part because of widespread ignorance over how diseases were spread.And:While a statistical analysis has yet to be done, the records examined over the past few years also show children also died of malnutrition or accidents. Schools consistently burned down, killing students and staff. Drownings or exposure were another cause.

In all, about 150,000 first nations children went through the church-run residential school system, which ran from the 1870s until the 1990s. In many cases, native kids were forced to attend under a deliberate federal policy of “civilizing” Aboriginal Peoples.

Many students were physically, mentally and sexually abused. Some committed suicide. Some died fleeing their schools.Comment:  Although disease and accidents seem like "natural causes," the children wouldn't have been subjected to these problems if they hadn't been locked up in the schools. Therefore, it's fair to say the school system caused most of these deaths.

For more on boarding schools, see ICWA Prevents Child Kidnapping and Mormons Teach Dark Skin Is Curse.