Murphy: Natives dismiss Canada's generosity

A conservative critic responds to the Elsipogtog conflict, saying Natives are ungrateful for all Canada has done for them.

A rude dismissal of Canada’s generosity

By Rex MurphyThe Canadian present is a vastly different place from the Canadian past, and not to acknowledge that, further, not to act on the great benign difference between the two, is willful blindness and reckless distortion.

The attitude of Canadians—now—toward aboriginal peoples, and the modern day plight of so very many of our fellow-citizens, is a composed of many emotions.

Some are moral-emotional: There is genuine shame in the country that conditions are as they are; there is a residue of guilt that the history of conflict and dispossession wrought such long-term hurt to native peoples. (Guilt is not a great ladder to progress, as it represses honest responses and straight talk—but it remains all the same.)

Other emotions are more straightforward: Most Canadians, genuinely, and in depth, wish better for their co-citizens, are not just open, but intensely eager to the right thing by them and with them—if only one or many right things can be seen and finally agreed upon.

There is also an attitude of singular respect for native peoples, respect is shown in a hundred different ways every day, from the honour given at various times to native ceremonies; the almost manic efforts of companies and governments to work toward inclusion; the honour most non-natives have for the wisdom and ways of native peoples; and finally, it is neither difficult to imagine nor possible to deny with what a rapture of utter enthusiasm from all Canadians would meet any lasting solution, if one were to be found.

But there is another spread of emotions. They come, to be blunt, as a backlash against the more extreme and angry expressions of some native leaders. When Canadians hear “settler” or “colonialist” or “genocide” tossed scornfully at them, they quite reasonably ask themselves: Have all the efforts to respond to native grievance, both financial and political—the very real and dedicated efforts of so many years to get beyond the distrust and anger—been for nothing?

Can Canada be accused of willful neglect, even racism as some radicals portray it, when every government—and I keep insisting the majority of citizens—really has made efforts to end poverty on reserves, to offer programs to rescue youth from the perils of drugs and addiction, to keep basic services working?Below:  "Phil Fontaine is pictured in the foyer of the House of Commons in 2008, after Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered a historic apology to residential school survivors." (Ashley Fraser/Postmedia News)



Commentators respond

Mruphy's claims certainly aren't true in the United States. And people were quick to point out they aren't true in Canada either.

What Does Rex Murphy Know About Aboriginal Peoples? Nothing

By Jesse StaniforthNot surprisingly, like so many other commentators on Aboriginal issues from non-Aboriginal national media outlets, noted climate change denier Rex Murphy conjures up an entirely fictional vision of Canadian-Aboriginal relations in which racism no longer exists, not understanding that doing so is the very enactment of racism itself.

He imagines that colonialism is something that happened 100 years ago and couldn't possibly be happening or even be relevant today, especially because of "the almost manic efforts of companies and governments to work toward inclusion" of Aboriginal peoples. (He must have dug hard and deep to have revealed such generosity, since I've never actually heard of such "manic" efforts unless they've been forced through the extremely hard-won authority of a document like the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.)

According to Murphy, when people talk about the issue of one people occupying and dominating the land and resources of another and call it colonialism, it's not because colonialism is a force with any power in the modern world. Rather, it's the result of whiny, spoiled NDNs who can't appreciate their mould-infested reservation buildings or their traditional lands being sold to American oil companies to poison through fracking, and who therefore attempt to "force-frame every dispute in the tendentious framework of the dubious 'oppression studies' and 'colonial theory' of latter-day universities."

No, for Murphy, Canada is full of loving people who deeply respect Aboriginal people and cultures (like Christie Blatchford, who argued last December that there's no such thing as "Native culture or traditions"--she's got an article in Sunday's Post too, but I'm not going to bother reading that).

These are loving and respectful people, like those who read the National Post and the Sun, who are sick to death of ungrateful Aboriginal people with shortened life-expectancies and higher likelihoods of living in poverty being ungrateful for their generosity. "When [they] hear 'settler' or 'colonialist' or 'genocide' tossed scornfully at them, quite reasonably ask themselves whether everything done to right our historical wrongs has been for nothing."

Murphy doesn't offer a lot of examples of "everything done to right our historical wrongs" (no wrongs have been committed in the last 50 years, obviously), except the "august and dignified ceremony" of the 2008 IRS apology, which he claims (!) "was the real public window on how Canada feels towards its native peoples."

Really! The millions of dollars in cuts to Aboriginal organization funding since then, the Omnibus legislation forced through in violation of First Nations' constitutional and treaty rights, the aggressive push for dirty oil and pipelines First Nations strongly oppose--what kind of public window do those offer?

The lack of a single dollar offered toward reconciliation without WINNING A COURT CASE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, the Federal Government's continued attempts to stall or slip by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, while spending $1.5-million to spy on and challenge in court child-welfare advocate Cindy Blackstock's attempt to get the same funding for Aboriginal Children as white kids get, rather than 20 per cent less--these real-world issues with real-world consequences of continued poverty, continued addiction, continued lack of drinking water, and continued murders and disappearances of Native women, to old Reactionary Rex, aren't expressions of "how Canada feels towards its native peoples."

That's something only a cornball parliamentary ceremony--with no promise of further spending--could express. It's almost like Murphy deliberately avoided listening to what thousands of Idle No More activists who've made the news over past year had to say so his slack-jawed awe at the government's "august and dignified" curtsey toward Native People would remain unperturbed.
Rex Murphy and the Frames of Settler Colonial War

By Corey SnelgroveAs the title implies, Murphy relies on a tired image of benevolent Canada: from Canadians “singular respect for native peoples” as demonstrated in “the honour given at various times to native ceremonies” to “the honour most non-natives have for the wisdom and ways of native peoples” to the “immense openness and goodwill of the Canadian citizenry.”

Is Murphy talking about the RCMP officer who said “land belongs to the government, not to fucking natives” as an example of Canadian’s “singular respect for native peoples”? Or is he talking about this past week’s Throne Speech in which, reflecting on Canada’s foundation, Governor General David Johnston read these words:

“They were undaunted. They dared to seize the moment that history offered. Pioneers, then few in number, reached across a vast continent. They forged an independent country where none would have otherwise existed.”

These words not only discursively produce the territory temporally termed ‘Canada,’ as terra nullius–a clear demonstration of not only disrespect for, but dehumanization of Indigenous peoples, but it also erases the centuries of violence that was and continues to be used in order to forge this “independent country.” A violence that re-emerged in the public eye at Elsipogtog on Thursday.

No, perhaps Murphy wasn’t referring to that either.

Maybe he was referring to the “hundred different ways” everyday Canadians show respect for native peoples. Like the camper a couple summers ago who said “Lets get Indian!” and opened a beer. Or perhaps Murphy is referencing the guy at the bar, who, when seeing Theresa Spence on the television last December told me “they should all die.” Or maybe Murphy overheard the Canadian woman in Oak Bay who called the Indigenous woman a liar when discussing the jawbone and bones of an infant that were removed illegally in order to build a bigger house. The Canadian instead argued that it was simply midden–refuse, waste, trash–coincidentally, this is perhaps a more honest statement of Canada’s views of Indigenous peoples: refuse, waste, trash.

Given all these examples of Canadian’s “respect” for native peoples, Murphy states that Canadians “quite reasonably ask themselves: Have all the efforts to respond to native grievance, both financial and political–the very real and dedicated efforts of so many years to get beyond the distrust and anger–been for nothing?” Have the efforts that “every government […] has made […] to end poverty on reserves, to offer programs to rescue youth from the perils of drugs and addiction, to keep basic services working” been for nothing?

Yeah, like the continued underfunding of education, inadequate water quality and over-housing in many reserve communities, environmental contamination, elimination of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, withholding documents from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, agreements based on surrender, the continued placement of children in care, the over 600 confirmed missing and murdered Indigenous women, the statement by Prime Minister Harper nearly a year after the 2008 apology that Canada “has no history of colonialism” and this past week’s Throne Speech which essentially repeats the claim, the failure to substantively address dispossession through restitution… I could go on.Dear Rex: Colonialism exists, and you’re itDear Rex Murphy,

When you write that Canadians are offended at the term ‘settler’ and ‘genocide,’ you don’t speak for all of us. I’m a Canadian citizen, my ancestors came to Canada from Europe a few centuries ago, and I understand myself as a settler. It’s not disrespectful for indigenous peoples to remind us of Canada’s legacy of genocide. It’s not rude for indigenous peoples to label as ‘colonial’ the connections between the industries of resource extraction, the RCMP, and the corporate media you write for. What’s insulting is your attempt to paint Canada as benevolent, open, and respectful of indigenous peoples, and your contempt for any understanding of present-day colonialism and oppression in Canada.

I’m not an expert on colonialism, but clearly neither are you. In reading your vitriolic editorial, it struck me that you clearly hate the term ‘settler’ and ‘colonialism’; however, your writing also indicates that you probably don’t actually understand what these terms mean. So I’m writing to you, one white settler to another, to explain to you what settler colonialism means to me, and why I think it’s important for understanding (and living in) present-day Canada. With that said, I’m not convinced you’re really ignorant of these terms; I think you have a sense of their meaning and the implications, and it terrifies you, but that terror turns to anger before you can really feel it. I think you—and many other Canadians—know that something is deeply wrong, even if you can’t admit it to yourself. It’s something in the air, something we feel in our gut: we’re caught up in something horrible, and we can’t go on this way.

I think that’s why the truths spoken by indigenous people provoke so much resentment in people like you: because you know they’re speaking the truth. It’s plain for everyone to see: Elsipogtog and other instances of indigenous resistance aren’t political stunts by over-educated ‘radicals’ as you’d like to portray them; they are principled stands by everyday people—grandmothers, fathers, mothers, and their children—against rampant and unending extraction, exploitation, and destruction. These communities are not motivated by abstract ideologies or university jargon, but by deep responsibilities and commitments to protect land and people.

Leanne Betasamosake Simpson puts it clearly:The story here, the real story, is virtually the same story in every Indigenous nation: Over the past several centuries we have been violently dispossessed of most of our land to make room for settlement and resource development. The very active system of settler colonialism maintains that dispossession and erases us from the consciousness of settler Canadians except in ways that is deemed acceptable and non-threatening to the state. We start out dissenting and registering our dissent through state sanctioned mechanisms like environmental impact assessments. Our dissent is ignored. Some of us explore Canadian legal strategies, even though the courts are stacked against us. Slowly but surely we get backed into a corner where the only thing left to do is to put our bodies on the land. The response is always the same—intimidation, force, violence, media smear campaigns, criminalization, silence, talk, negotiation, “new relationships,” promises, placated resistance and then more broken promises. Then the cycle repeats itself.This is the structure of settler colonialism. One of the basic assumptions of your editorial—and virtually all other mainstream media coverage of Elsipogtog—is that colonialism happened sometime in the past, and since then Canada has done a lot to “right our historical wrongs.” When do you imagine colonialism stopped happening in Canada? When the last piece of land was mapped, surveyed, and appropriated for the Crown? When government officials first broke their treaties with indigenous nations so that settlement and resource exploitation could continue? When the last residential school was closed? When Stephen Harper issued an official apology five years ago? When he declared that Canada has no history of colonialism a year later? Of course, Canada has changed, and so have settler attitudes. But the structure of settler colonialism is still very much intact.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Columbus Day Celebrates White Superiority and Indians Don't Fit American Myth.

Below:  Rex Murphy.

Media frames Elsipogtog as "clashes"

While the Mi'kmaq in Elsipogtog discuss the next phase of protest:

Elsipogtog regroups as chief ponders new anti-fracking leadership

Others are discussing what the protest tells us about Canada's relations with its First Nations.

First, some key points about the legality of the police action:

Op-Ed: Heavy-handed response to the Elsipogtog blockade in New Brunswick

By Peter Raaymakers On Thursday morning, RCMP officers were deployed with rifles, non-lethal bullets, pepper spray, and dogs to enforce a court injunction and attempt to disperse a blockade of protesters on New Brunswick Route 134, about an hour north of Moncton. At least 40 people were arrested for continuing a protest against natural gas exploration in the area, which comprises traditional lands of the Mi’kmaq people.

Perhaps it can be seen as an extension of the Canadian “pioneer” spirit mentioned by Governor General David Johnston in the most recent speech from the throne. That spirit, according to the current government, pushed settlers to build “an independent country where none would have otherwise existed.”

Of course, Canada wasn’t depopulated when settlers arrived here from Europe. Our country’s wealth and prosperity has been built through the persistent and usually violent removal of First Nations from their traditional lands in order to make room for resource development—and, as we saw Thursday, that’s as true today as it was centuries ago.And:The Mi’kmaq people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, including the Elsipogtog First Nation, have never signed a treaty relinquishing authority to the land on which the Route 134 blockade stands today, or that on which SWN Resources is conducting exploratory testing. They signed a Peace and Friendship Treaty in 1761, which was re-affirmed in 1982 with Canada’s Constitution Act and then again in a 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision, but that agreement included no mention of the surrender of any lands. Although the federal and New Brunswick governments are currently engaged in exploratory discussions to address issues of land ownership, rights, and sovereignty, there has been no agreement yet.

Given this reality, SWN Resources’ exploration permits aren’t legitimate. Nor was the court injunction criminalizing the blockade, and the police action was ridiculously illegitimate, not to mention unjust, unreasonable in its heavy-handedness, and terribly bad public relations for the RCMP.

In the above-mentioned Supreme Court case, the federal government was encouraged to negotiate with all First Nations in Canada in order to resolve the many outstanding issues and fulfill its treaty obligations. The negotiation process takes a lot of time, but that’s the point. It’s designed to be a meaningful engagement to avoid violent confrontation and find a mutually acceptable solution to these complex issues. If we hope to avoid more destructive events like that which took place on Thursday in New Brunswick, negotiation is the only way forward.Activist Communique: Mi'kmaq and Elsipogtog First Nations resistance like a bright sunriseOpponents of fracking contend that it takes an estimated 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job and 40,000 gallons of chemicals. That is a lot of pollution.

So essentially, if you drink water, then fracking is an issue you should be concerned with.

Digging deeper into the relationship between First Nations communities and the government--which should be a nation-to-nation relationship--Indigenous rights activists contend that the territory in question was never ceded to Canada.

It also should be noted that, “ever since 2010, when New Brunswick handed out 1.4 million hectares of land--one-seventh of the province--to shale gas exploration, opposition had been mounting.”Media bias

Next, some points on the framing done by the mainstream media, which generally protects corporate interests and the status quo:

After Police Assault on Unarmed Crowd 34 Tribal Chiefs Meet in New BrunswickThe blockades are an attempt to express frustration with the energy conglomerates attempt to control all land and resources. This is already clearly understood both in Canada and here in the US. What is even more discouraging is the apparent control through large sums of money by these oil corporations of not only political parties but the media. If it were not for courageous journalists and social media, most of us would be unaware of the insidious machinations destroying our legal rights in so many areas.Elsipogtog EverywhereCanadians will hear recycled propaganda as the mainstream media blindly goes about repeating the press releases sent to them by the RCMP designed to portray Mi’kmaw protestors as violent and unruly, in order to justify their own colonial violence. The only images most Canadians will see is of the three hunting rifles, a basket full of bullets and the burning police cars, and most will be happy to draw their own conclusions based on the news–that the Mi’kmaq are angry and violent, that they have no land rights, and that they deserved to be beaten, arrested, criminalized, jailed, shamed and erased.Elsipogtog: "Clashes" 400 Years in the Making

Corporate media coverage creates ignorance, which enables violence"NB protest turns violent," a CBC headline solemnly proclaims. 1,280 news stories about anti-fracking protests in Rexton, New Brunwick, indexed by Google use the word "clashes." Most stories are decorated with photos of burning police cars.

All this points to one thing: the way that Canada's corporate media discusses Indigenous protests is fundamentally broken.Elsipogtog solidarity is spreading across CanadaIt’s a growing grassroots response similar to that of the IdleNoMore movement. Groups across the country are mobilizing Thursday after violence broke out on the anti-fracking protest line in rural New Brunswick.Serving a Corporate Agenda: Canada’s RCMP Brutalize Indigenous People for Opposing Fracking on Their Land[W]hile the mainstream media will go far to paint this as a “Native” issue, it is vital to remember that the blockade, until yesterday, had been supported by various allies from across the province. It is also key to note that an original 28 groups, representing New Brunswickers from all walks of life, had demanded an end to all shale gas exploration or development.

Fighting Indian Stories #1

Midget Comics #1 (Fighting Indian Stories)--Matt Baker coverMidget Comics v1 #1 (Fighting Indian Stories), 1950--An Indian raises his tomahawk to strike, just as another arrives to the rescue (presumably). Matt Baker's cover is capably designed and illustrated, leading the reader's eye from the masthead to the helpless victim. Native American-inspired patterns, icons and hand drawn letters further enhance the cover's appeal. Only two issues were published in this smaller format (about 5x7), both in the western genre.

Redskin #9, April 1952.

Comment:  These are two of the many comics that featured "fighting Indians" in the 1950s. Indeed, you could say the phrase "fighting Indians" was redundant, since fighting is the only thing Indians apparently did.

From the cover of Redskin #9, we can't tell if the "redskin" is a hero or a villain. Either way, he's a savage: a half-naked warrior whose presence is defined by a physical attack.

Mascot lovers want to control Indians

The Redsk*ns Moniker Monopolizes on Genocide Committed Against Native Americans

By Danielle MillerNative Americans have been dehumanized since conquistadors coined the term “savage.” Just as the U.S. military dehumanized their enemies with terms like “gooks” and “japs” to justify fighting war, Natives were dehumanized to be red skinned, savage, devil worshippers as justifications for atrocities committed. The U.S. has clung to racist depictions of Native Americans so long it could be argued that these depictions justify cultural imperialism and play out as subconscious control mechanisms against the threat of inherent tribal sovereignty.

Colonizers have committed genocide, stolen land, broken treaties, made Native culture and ceremonies illegal, and now they want to colonize the remaining dignity Natives have left; the culture and identity that they have held on to despite the decimation and destruction caused by whites during imperialism and colonization. When you tell me to just “get over it” you are telling me that you own our image and will force your views upon us despite how disrespectful that representation may be. You might as well be the same as those who attempted to control Natives during assimilation and termination eras. By attempting to control this image you are restricting tribal sovereignty and self-representation, which trivializes our Native culture and interactions in modern discourse.

Even if another Native says they aren’t offended, that shouldn’t vilify me. My opinion has no connection to whether you claim to be offended or not. The ultimate goal of oppressors is to make those who are oppressed become their own instruments of oppression. When certain Natives say only their opinion matters and they support racist imagery, they are unintentionally contributing to lateral oppression and silencing their own people.

I don’t fathom how the representation is as anything but disrespectful and unethical. Erasing a culture, pushing a racial slur and stereotype is not “honoring,” that seems simple to understand. What makes us any less human that we should ask to be respected? Blackface isn’t acceptable so redface shouldn’t be acceptable either.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Indians Don't Fit American Myth and Indians Are Inconvenient to Americans.

Below:  "Indians are comically primitive and savage, like unsupervised children, so we'll break their treaties and take their land."

ESPN's Seminole minstrel show

Here's a perfect example of how Indian mascots are racist, offensive, and insulting:



ESPN Has ‘No Comment' on Its College GameDay 'Minstrel Show'This weekend, during the preview for the college football game between Florida State University and Clemson on ESPN’s College GameDay, actor-comedian Bill Murray delighted a crowd of students by selecting Clemson to win the game. Moments later, ESPN analyst Lee Corso entered the set dressed as FSU mascot Chief Osceola, and danced around for several seconds, holding a staff covered in yellow, red and white feathers. Murray, pretending to be a pro wrestler, then “body-slammed” Corso and hurled the staff into the crowd.

ESPN declined on Sunday to comment about the incident.

The FSU tradition, which some members of the Seminole tribe have called a “minstrel show.” dates back to 1978: A man dressed up like a tribal 'chief' named Osceola (né William Powell), rides out onto the field at Doak Campbell Stadium in Tallahassee on a horse before home games and throws a flaming spear into the ground at midfield while the crowd goes wild.And:"This is a perfect example of how Native Americans are ridiculed in the course of sports entertainment. Good-natured rivalries are one thing. Wearing the native equivalent of black face is quite another,” said an NCAI spokeswoman of this weekend’s FSU incident.A commenter on Deadspin summed it up nicely:That would be a lot more tolerable if somebody as notoriously out-of-touch as "Disco! Hey I like that" Lee Corso wasn't the guy making a "comedic" mockery of Native Americans. I'm all for Blazing Saddles, but having a 200 year old white male football commentator do a five-year-old's version of a native american ritual in the cartoonish guise of a revered leader of a tribe eradicated 150 years ago by old white men is pretty offensive.

ESPN: No Comment on Talent 'Wearing the Native Equivalent of Black Face'

This is not how you honor Native American heritage.

By Andrew CohenEach week, Lee Corso, a nationally known college football commentator, dons the garb of the team he is picking to win the feature game of the weekend. Sometimes, Corso wears a mascot head. Sometimes he dresses up. The college kids eat it up. It's great fun and great for the show's ratings. On Saturday, Corso, an alum of FSU, happened to pick his alma mater to beat Clemson (which FSU did, by a lot), which is why he was dressed up like Osceola. (Update: I don't mean to suggest this is the first time he has done this. Here is how he did it last year)

It's nothing personal against Native Americans, ESPN wants you to know. It's strictly business and entirely part of the show's routine. So a white man dresses up like an American Indian "chief," dances around the set like a clown, gets tackled by Bill Murray, the spear gets tossed into the crowd at Clemson, and everyone has a grand old time, including the on-air talent and ESPN's own online tribunes.

Evidently, no one at ESPN stopped to think: "Hey, maybe some folks might consider Corso's dance inappropriate" especially for a network that has covered the "Redskins" controversy and has a huge stake in the success and reputation of the National Football League (and college football, for that matter). And clearly no one afterward at the network seemed inclined to offer any sort of explanation or rationale for what had just aired.

But the fact is that many people did consider the episode highly offensive.More commentaries on Corso's minstrel show:

ESPN Makes a Mockery of Native Americans on National Television

ESPN’s “Red-face” Minstrel Show by Matt Remle

Native American group unhappy with Lee Corson for portraying Seminole on College GameDay

For more on the Seminole mascot, see Seminole Fans in Plains Headdresses and Why FSU's Seminoles Aren't Okay.

Patriarchal culture encourages violence

The Perils of Patriarchy for Men as Well as Women: Another Mass Shooting, Another Reason to Begin Discussing Violence and Gender

By Jeffrey NallViolence has long been the weapon of choice to assert one's self-worth within patriarchal culture and is often motivated to overcome perceived "dignity-denial" or dehumanization--denying one's moral status. Drawing on his research and direct experience with perpetrators of violence, psychiatrist James Gilligan notes that "the basic psychological motive, or cause, of violent behavior is the wish to ward off or eliminate the feeling of shame and humiliation ... and replace it with its opposite, the feeling of pride." In addition to feelings of profound shame, triggers for violence include a variety of factors including the feeling that nonviolent alternatives to restoring one's dignity are unavailable and the failure to feel "empathy, love and concern for others." These violence-abating feelings are linked to femininity, and men who embrace them are often chastised for weakness. And the devaluation of "feminine feelings" such as empathy increasingly marks broader social and governmental practices. As Henry Giroux has pointed out, Americans are increasingly encouraged to limit their compassion and to adopt such "masculine" hardness. This phenomenon is growing not only in terms of interpersonal relations, but also in social policy.

Bell hooks contends that the patriarchy is the "most life-threatening social disease assaulting the male body and spirit in our nation." Throughout its more than 4,000-year history, Western patriarchal culture has never meaningfully wavered from its advocacy of violence as the fundamental tool to resolve disputes, be it between nations or between individuals, and to establish support for claims of "manhood," a term that has historically been synonymous with "dignity" or inherent worth. As Gilligan explains: "Masculinity, in the traditional, conventional stereotypical sex-role of patriarchy, is literally defined as involving the expectation, even the requirement, of violence, under many well specified conditions: in time of war; in response to personal insult; in response to extramarital sex on the part of a female in the family; while engaging in all-male combat sports; etc."

Armed with the threat of shame and emasculation, patriarchy fosters the expectation and demand that males seek control over connection, silence their emotions or risk identification with the "inferior sex," and resolve major problems including profound internal turmoil by turning to force. They are to form identities based on the pillars of emotional detachment, stoic toughness and mental and physical exhibitions of dominance. This patriarchal model of masculinity does not encourage nonviolent emotional expression nor does it remind others that men's well-being requires such opportunities. Instead, "real" men are encouraged to act impervious and indifferent to physical and emotional pain. In practice, this means men are supposed to contain and shove down their feelings. But these feelings cannot be repressed forever. For this reason, anger is perhaps the most commonly glamorized and accepted form of manly emotional expression. Patriarchy's bargain with men deprives them of human wholeness, giving them anger--much of it socially condoned--as their defining quality and mode of expression.Comment:  Masculine violence is what American culture is all about. We define ourselves by our macho heroes: the frontiersman, the cowboy, the soldier, the astronaut, the crimefighter, et al.

What someone said about Iraq:

Former Bush Official: We Went Into Iraq Because 'We Were Looking For Somebody's Ass To Kick': Report

applies to almost any problem or situation. From killing Indians to defending sports mascots, our goal is to prove ourselves the alpha male, the winner, the chosen one.

For more on the subject, see Zimmerman Verdict Shows America's Pathology and America's Culture Based on Violence.

Tonto's craziness justifies crow headdress?

Johnny Depp's Tonto supposedly is half-crazed because of a childhood trauma. Does that excuse the bird on his head and other oddities?

*** spoiler alert ***

I saw The Lone Ranger so you don’t have toI think this was the “twist” everyone kept telling me would “explain everything.” Saginaw’s character tells the LR about how, as a child, Tonto showed the bad guys where all the silver was, in exchange from a pocketwatch from “Sears and Roebuck” (a weird detail that stuck out–product placement? ha). The bad guys come back and murder his entire village to keep the location a secret–of which they show the aftermath. They show the village burnt to the ground, dead women and men everywhere, and then Tonto picks up his dead raven from the rubble and stripes his face with the soot. Saginaw tells us all this (starting with “many moons ago”–I kid you not) and that now Tonto is a “man apart (or departed? I can’t read my notes. It was dark.)” and has basically gone crazy and taken on this “Wendigo hunter” thing as a means to cope with what he did. So, I think this whole thing was supposed to excuse his crazy antics and look, because his own people don’t endorse it. But I’m pretty sure most movie audiences aren’t going to pick up on that nuance.I'm not buying the movie's excuse that Tonto isn't right in the head. Fact is, there's almost always an excuse for the uncivilized or savage Indian:

The hunter is trapped in a world of dinosaurs, so of course he's a savage Indian.

The white man killed his wife and children, so of course he's a savage Indian.

The burial ground is haunted, so of course he's a savage Indian (ghost).

The military veteran was traumatized by war, so of course he's a savage Indian.

The tribe was cursed by an evil shaman, so of course he's a savage Indian (werewolf).

What do these tropes have in common? The Native character is uncivilized or savage every time.

Sure, there's a reason, but the reason is an invention to justify the savagery. It's not historically or culturally valid. Whether they're Native or not, half-crazed people don't act out their mental problems by wearing strange headgear.

In short, we want a character who isn't a half-naked warrior in facepaint and a (crow) headdress, not another excuse for the same old stereotypes.

Commenters debate issue

A debate on this issue in the comments section of this posting:karen
In Thomas King's Inconvenient Indian he discusses the portrayal of "dead Indians" (preferred) and the avoidance of any decent, realistic representation of live, modern-day Indians. This is the reference I am making in the above comment. I stand by my comment.

RapidDescent
Why on earth would the movie have any representation of modern-day natives when the movie itself doesn't take place anywhere near present day? The framing device, that is decidedly locked in place in the 1930's fair--in a tent, no less--isn't exactly the best place to feature anything of the sort.

It is your peragotive to be offended, if you want, but I hope you realize that it's not because of the movie--it's because you're looking for excuses to be offended.

Terrie_S
And you seem to be looking for reasons to excuse the problems with the movie. You can't defend writer choices with the in-story justification, because the writers CREATED that justification. Maybe they came up with trauma reason after they decided that Tonto would speak broken English (problematic), or maybe they decided to have Tonto speak broken English because they wanted a way to show he was traumatized (not as problematic, though, psychologically, that doesn't make any sense), but either way, they made the CHOICE to have the main Indian character speak broken English when there was no objective reason to do so.

Terrie_S
Let's back up. Everything we see in a movie is a deliberate choice on the part of someone. Some choices are required by the story. If you're going to make a movie about the Lone Ranger, there are somethings that are objectively required for it to be the story of the Lone Ranger. You need the white horse. You need Tonto. You need the Ranger. You do not need a senile old guy in a fair tent. You don't need a narrator who casts himself in a supporting role. You don't need broken English. All of those are deliberate choices by the writers, the actors, the director, etc. The decision to have Tonto speak in broken English was obviously not driven by a desire for historical accuracy. Otherwise, someone (not the Comanche, but someone) if not multiple someones would speak Spanish. So you can't defend that choice by pointing to history. Nor can you defend it based on Tonto's trauma history, because 1) that history is another deliberate choice by the writers, not an objective requirement of the story and 2) it is not the only way to show a trauma history. IMO, it is a very bad way of showing such.

The fact that people who claimed they were trying to challenge stereotypes instead made a movie full of them shows the problem with these pervasive images. When this is all they see, they are unable to imagine anything else.What's the alternative to an aged Tonto narrating the story from his point of view? It would've been easy to have a modern Indian--Tonto's grandson or great-grandson--serve as the framing device. But that wouldn't have conveyed the same message about the tragic, vanishing Indians.

As Terrie S. said, having Depp play a sideshow freak in the 1930s was a choice, not a necessity. This choice "solidifies the continuing views of Native peoples as lesser, as relics of the past, as disappearing, as roadblocks to 'progress.'"

Depp's Tonto = sidekick?

The debate continued with a similar issue:Terrie_S
Since I was replying to your comments on his speech, that's why I focused on his speech. It's not my main concern, its simply the topic of the discussion. And I'd say Tonto's still a sidekick. Maybe not as low ranking, but still a sidekick. I would argue that, in some ways, this is worse, because Tonto is the one telling the story, yet is not the focus of the movie. He casts himself in the supporting role. This is not the story of how Tonto, with the help of a white guy, got justice for the slaughter of his people. It's the story of how John Reid, with the help of a crazy Indian guy with a bird on his head, became the Lone Ranger. Which would be fine, except that, again, this is apparently how Tonto himself thinks of his own story--that it's the story of someone else.

RapidDescent
No, that is not fact, that is how you want to view the story--which is simply inaccurate. Tonto tells the story exactly how it happened in his view. He is never a sidekick--he even has a big scene where he SMACKS DOWN Reid and calls him out for being a coward. He SAVES Reid not once, not twice, but three times in the story. He has his own story of vengeance come to a close because he managed to work together with a person he initially didn't want to work with.

To call him a sidekick is to knowingly tear down the character to make a point in an argument that is only created by you.

Terrie_S
He can do all those things and still be a sidekick. After all, DC gave Robin leadership of the Titans, with his own stories and moments of awesomeness but he was still Batman's sidekick. Understand, I'm looking at this from a meta, narrative level, not the level of character actions. The story starts with John Reid on a train, setting in motion the events which will result in him meeting Tonto. From a narrative perspective, this places Tonto's story subordinate to his. This is something that (again, narratively) is very hard to avoid. The movie Rush Hour is a good example of how writers might try to avoid this in the buddy movie--start with one character, but have the story take places on the other character's home territory. But that's not an option here, so one story must be given more weight than the other and the writers chose to give more weight to Reid. And, by using the framing device they did, they gave that view to Tonto. Ironically, it would have not been an issue had they dropped the framing, but they didn't make that choice, so that's simply a case of what might have been. Which leads me back to what you said.

Tonto does not tell the story as how it happened in his view, because Tonto does not exist. The writers and actors and directors made all those choices. They are the ones who made the choice to have a movie where a Native character tells a story that follows the arc of someone else. They made the choice to make Tonto, narratively, the sidekick and to combine that with the choice to make him the "narrator" of the story.

Terrie_S
My most basic problem with the movie is this: Depp talked about wanting to move Tonto and Native characters out of the role of sidekick, yet when the character of Tonto has a chance to tell the story, it's the story of... the white guy. The character casts himself as the sidekick. And we, the audience, are told this from the get-go. Most stories that use the framing device of "And it was told by X side character" reveal this at the end, which makes us relook at what we've just seen, read or heard, to reconsider that "side" character or wonder if what we've been told is reliable. But we're not given any of that, so the framing device just reinforces all the issues of the movie.To reiterate the point, you can justify anything within a movie's "logic." The black guy had to die and the woman had to be taken hostage because they were the only characters available. These things "had" to happen so the white guy could be the hero.

But again, these are choices by the creators, not immutable facts. If you look for and find an excuse to portray a savage Indian, you're not giving yourself a valid out. You're still portraying a savage Indian. And that's still stereotypical if not racist.

Natives support Elsipogtog protest

Molotov Cocktails & Guns Confiscated; Support Pours in for Mi'kmaq ProtestersSupport for Mi’kmaq protesters in New Brunswick spread throughout Turtle Island on Friday October 18, as events were held as far away as Vancouver and New York City, and the Sierra Club announced its solidarity with the anti-fracking demonstrators.Halifax takes to the street in protest of RCMP actions in Elsipogtog

Hundreds march down Robie StreetClose to three hundred people listened to speeches and marched down Robie Street on Friday in solidarity with the anti-shale gas protesters in Elsipogtog.RCMP crackdown on Elsipogtog anti-fracking blockade spurs over 50 protests in support[A]n APTN reporter heard one police officer shout at blockaders, “Crown land belongs to government, not to f**king natives.” Those words echoed Ontario’s Ipperwash-era premier Mike Harris, who, it was reported, told his staff, “I want the f**king Indians out of the park,” immediately before [Dudley] George’s killing.

Obama = "trifecta of Otherness"

Inside the Conservative Brain: Why Tea Partiers Are Desperately Afraid

To understand how Tea Partiers view the world, you have to know how they see themselves.

By Lynn Stuart ParramoreThe Tea Party is a fascinating case study for how these questions and ideas play out. Its members are bonded in anxiety and terror—a very powerful glue—over what America is becoming: something other than the “real America” they wish to belong to. Their America is white, Protestant and Anglo-Saxon (it’s no accident that the Right’s leading think tank is called the Heritage Foundation).

powell notes that while Tea Party members will tolerate a bit of diversity—the occasional Catholic or Jew—they primarily wish to protect the distinctiveness of their chosen group in the past, present and future. For them, someone like Obama represents the ultimate threat to maintaining this distinctiveness, the thing that makes them feel special. With his black/Muslim/immigrant associations he becomes the “trifecta of Otherness”—an unholy trinity that must be resisted at all costs. The Tea Partier perceives the President as the incarnation of a malevolent force that will take from them and give to Others. He is both the incarnation and the welcoming committee for the Stranger who doesn’t belong in America.

As an illustration, powell looks at how Tea Partiers feel about Social Security, which is coming under vigorous attack just as default has been avoided. When asked individually, powell finds that the Tea Partier likes the program a lot. But she only likes it for her own group—for people who have, in her view, “worked for it.” She doesn’t want the Others to have it because she doesn’t want to be connected to “Them.” “They” don’t work the way she does. “They” don’t care about America as she does. “They” don’t belong in America. This divide between the small group and the larger community can be leveraged by politicians who wish to sway them.

Because the government wants to extend Social Security to the Other, the government itself becomes the Big Other—an alien entity. If only “They" could be excluded from this otherwise excellent deal—as blacks and many women were excluded from Roosevelt’s original New Deal—then Social Security would have stronger support from the right.Race is central to the fear and angst of the US right

By Gary YoungeSecond is the perceived beneficiaries of government spending. Republicans are more likely to regard intervention as being to support minorities rather than to support the poor. This goes not only for food stamps and welfare but also for Obamacare–which was the issue that initially sparked the shutdown.

“Obamacare is a racial flashpoint for many evangelical and Tea Party voters,” writes Greenberg. Their despair is largely rooted in the assumption that by championing programs that disproportionately help minorities, Obama is effectively buying votes and securing a growing tranche of the electorate who will for evermore be dependent on government. One participant, echoing the views of many, said: “Every minority group wants to say they have the right to something, and they don’t. It’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t say happiness. You get to be alive and you get to be free. The rest of it’s just a pursuit … you’re not guaranteed happiness. You have to work for it.”

Finally, there is Obama–the black son of an African immigrant and white mother–who stands as an emblem for all this unease, personifying, in their minds, not only their political impotence today but their demographic irrelevance tomorrow. The word they’re most likely to use to describe him is “liar”. But their hostility goes beyond his policies and pronouncements to a deeply rooted suspicion of his authenticity.

“[There] is a sense of him being foreign, non-Christian, Muslim–and they wonder what really are his motives for the changes he is advancing.” As he moves into his second term, there is now an elision in the Republican mind between what they think he is (an immigrant, a fraudster, a non-American) and what they think he does (assist immigrants and fraudsters in contravention of American ideals).No, America is not a Christian nation

Why is the Right so obsessed with pushing revisionist history?

By Amanda MarcotteSo why do conservative Christians care so much? Why is it so important to them to establish that rights come from God that they will make up imaginary liberals to argue the point with, rather than just move on?

Two reasons: One, this argument makes it easier for the right to actually restrict the number of rights they will accept that people have, all while pretending to be pro-rights. Two, it gives them an excuse to ignore the First Amendment and the well-established fact that the U.S. is, like France, a secular democracy and not a Christian theocracy.

What’s nice about the “rights come from God” theory is that it makes it easier to deny that new rights can be established. Since the 18th century, a lot of rights have been granted that didn’t exist back then: The right not to be enslaved, the right of all adults to vote, the right to have some time off from your job. Conservatives resisted each of these rights and continue on that path today, resisting more recently established rights, such as the right to be free from discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. By saying that God informed the Founding Fathers what rights there were, conservatives can claim that any rights that have been developed since then are illegitimate. Sure, it’s a lie, but it’s an awfully convenient one.Comment:  For more on conservative racism, see Republicans Want to Restore Confederacy, Shutdown = White Minority Asserting Power, and "Defund Obamacare" = "Nigger, Nigger."

Mi'kmaq protest against fracking

RCMP bring 60 drawn guns, dogs, assault rifles, to serve injunction on the wrong road

After van, main blocker removed the night before, RCMP seem hell-bent for violence in early dawn encounter with Warriors[W]ith tensions now becoming highly escalated between the encroaching line of police in the field adjacent to the encampment and the Warriors now on a public dirt road, two officers approached Seven Bernard, chief of the Warrior Society. They attempted to serve Bernard with SWN's contentious injunction. Dozens of guns from all angles were pointed at all of us.Police in Riot Gear Tear-Gas and Shoot Mi'kmaq Protesting Gas Exploration in New BrunswickChaos has erupted as Chief Arren Sock and council members from Elsipogtog First Nation are among at least 40 people arrested by riot-gear-clad police raiding a Mi'kmaq blockade protesting shale gas exploration in New Brunswick.UPDATE: Mi’kmaq Resist! 6 RCMP Cars Torched, Fracking Equipment ConfiscatedAs of the time of writing this, six RCMP vehicles have been torched, and melees of stones have been hurled in response to tear gas, plastic bullets, and pepper spray from the RCMP.RCMP, protesters withdraw after shale gas clash in Rexton

40 arrested, 5 police vehicles burned but no one seriously injured in violent clashNative protesters against shale gas fracking in Rexton, N.B., have mostly dispersed after a day of clashes with RCMP officers who moved to enforce an injunction against a blockade, prompting a violent reaction in which five RCMP vehicles were burned and 40 people arrested.

Poll: "Redskins" is offensive to Indians

Poll: Majority see why Redskins name offensive

By Erik BradyThe Oneida Indian Nation commissioned a poll that shows 59% of adults in the Washington region say that American Indians would have a right to feel offended if called "redskin."

The poll, scheduled to be released Wednesday, also showed that if the Washington pro football club changed its name, 55% said it would not affect their support for the team while 25% said it would lessen their support and 18% said it would increase it.And:"You cannot poll morality, and our hope is that Mr. Snyder will demonstrate true leadership and change the offensive name, not because of what any public opinion studies show, but because it's the right thing to do," Oneida Indian Nation representative Ray Halbritter said in a statement. "However, this polling information is valuable because it shows that the team has nothing to fear economically by changing its name."

The poll showed that even among those who identified themselves as fans of the Washington team, as opposed to fans of another team or no team, 46% said a name change would not lessen their support while 30% said it would make them less of a fan and 23% said it would make them more of a fan.The survey data in detail:

Results of SurveyUSA News Poll #20802

Comment:  Finally a poll asks the right questions. You can pretty much ignore the previous polls that didn't ask these questions.

Two of the key questions are:

If the name of the team were changed, would you be ... more of a fan of the team than you are now? Less of a fan of the team than you are now? Or would it make no difference to you either way?

Forgetting for the moment about the football team, and just thinking about the word itself ... if someone referred to a Native American person as a "redskin," do you think that Native American person would have the right to feel offended?

The first question addresses the issue of whether self-pitying Redskins fans actually care about the nickname. Answer: No. Seventy-three percent would have the same or more appreciation of the team with a new name.

The second question addresses the issue of whether the nickname is offensive to Indians. In contrast, the typical poll asks whether the name offends you--who is probably a non-Native fan. Well, who cares what you think if you're not an Indian? Fifty-nine percent agree the name is offensive to Indians; another 18% aren't sure.

As we've seen, the only substantive argument that Dan Snyder and his lawyer Lanny Davis have is the previous polls. Oops. This just ended the substance of their arguments.

All they have left is "the ethnic slur is a longstanding tradition" and "we didn't intend to insult Indians with an ethnic slur." These are weak to the point of nonexistence.

To reiterate, a majority thinks "Redskins" is offensive to Indians. End of story.

Indigenous nations fight corporate power

Indigenous Nations Are at the Forefront of the Conflict With Transnational Corporate Power

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret FlowersOn Monday, October 7, 2013, indigenous nations and their allies held 70 actions throughout the world proclaiming their sovereignty. The call to action was issued by Idle No more and Defenders of the Land to coincide with the 250th anniversary of the British Royal Proclamation of 1763, which was the first document in which an imperial nation recognized indigenous sovereignty and their right to self-determination. As we wrote last week, treaties with First Nations are not being honored, and even the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not adequately recognize the sovereignty of indigenous peoples.

In Canada, where the Idle No More movement was founded, an attack is being waged by the Harper government on the rights of the First Nations. A bill referred to as C-45 weakens laws that protect the land and allows transnational corporations to extract resources from First Nations' lands without their consent. Idle No More was founded on December 10, 2012 (the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), when Chief Theresa Spence began a hunger strike to protest C-45 on an island across from the Canadian Parliament.

The Idle No More (INM) movement has grown exponentially during the past year to become a worldwide movement. At its core, the INM taps into issues that are essential to all people. INM is a struggle against transnational corporations that collude with governments to allow the exploitation of people and the planet for profit, and it is a struggle for a new economic paradigm. INM is also about facing up to the horrific history of the way that colonizers have abused and disrespected indigenous peoples so that there can be reconciliation and justice and so that the peoples of the world can coexist peacefully. And INM is about the recognition that indigenous peoples are stewards of the Earth and must lead the way to protect the Earth and teach others to do the same.

Throughout the year, there have been teach-ins, round dances, flash mobs and rallies to raise awareness of the ongoing racist and exploitative treatment of indigenous nations as well as the continued decimation of their land to extract resources. There have been long walks, rides and canoe trips to call for healing of the Earth and for the recognition of indigenous sovereignty. And there have been blockades and other nonviolent direct actions to stop further degradation of the planet. INM has already achieved some successes.Below:  "January 9, 2013. The Idle No More protests reach Moncton (Canada), as about 200 people march on City Hall in support of First Nations rights." (Stephen Downes/Flickr)

Diverse TV shows get higher ratings

Study finds TV shows with ethnically diverse casts, writers have higher ratings

By Cynthia LeeTelevision viewers are more likely to watch shows that employ racially diverse casts and writers, according to a new study done at UCLA's Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies.

In an analysis of more than 1,000 television shows that aired on 67 cable and broadcast networks during the 2011–12 season, UCLA researchers studying racial diversity in the entertainment industry found that more viewers were drawn to shows with ethnically diverse lead cast members and writers, while shows reflecting less diversity in their credits attracted smaller audiences.

Racial diversity does make a marked and measurable difference to television's bottom line, said Bunche Center director Darnell Hunt, a professor of sociology in the UCLA College of Letters and Science and author of the new study, "Hollywood Diversity Brief: Spotlight on Cable Television."

"It's clear that people are watching shows that reflect and relate to their own experiences," said Hunt, who has worked for two decades on several projects exploring issues of access and diversity in Hollywood.

Yet, according to the study, released on Oct. 8 at the 27th annual National Association for Multi-Ethnicity in Communications conference in New York, ethnic minorities and women remain woefully underrepresented on both cable and broadcast programs as lead actors, writers and show creators.Comment:  Once again, facts puncture the "bottom line" argument offered by Hollywood and its apologists. If you want to make more money, you include minorities--at least in television.

Since the explanation isn't money, Hollywood needs to find another explanation for featuring mostly white actors. My explanation is that Hollywood execs are racists, either consciously or unconsciously. I wonder what their explanation is.

For more on the subject, see Adam Beach in Revolution and Late-Night Hosts = White Men.Diverse TV shows have higher ratings

How to Write the Great American Indian Novel

Excerpt from a poem by Sherman Alexie:

How to Write the Great American Indian Novel

By Sherman AlexieAll of the Indians must have tragic features: tragic noses, eyes, and arms.
Their hands and fingers must be tragic when they reach for tragic food.

The hero must be a half-breed, half white and half Indian, preferably
from a horse culture. He should often weep alone. That is mandatory.

If the hero is an Indian woman, she is beautiful. She must be slender
and in love with a white man. But if she loves an Indian man

then he must be a half-breed, preferably from a horse culture.Comment:  Follow the link to read the whole thing.

Bob Costas criticizes "Redskins"

Bob Costas Says Redskins Name Is 'An Insult, A Slur' During NBC's 'Sunday Night Football'

By Chris GreenbergBob Costas felt that halftime of the latest installment of NBC's "Sunday Night Football" was "an appropriate time" to address the controversy swirling around the Washington Redskins.

Not everyone agreed.

With RG3 and the reigning NFC East champions facing off against the Cowboys in Dallas on Sunday, Costas tackled the team's name and iconography. After briefly surveying the issues, as he sees them, plaguing teams with Native American monikers and mascots, Costas took aim at the franchise owned by Dan Snyder.

"But think for a moment about the term 'Redskins' and how it truly differs from all the others," Costas said. "Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way, 'Redskins' can't possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait, nor could it possibly be considered a neutral term. It's an insult, a slur no matter how benign the present-day intent. It's fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended but if you take a step back, isn't it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken?"Bob Costas says Redskins’ team name is offensive during halftime essay on NBC



Racists react

Anti-Redskins Stance by Costas on SNF Draws a Storm of ReactionsThe reactions to Costas’s commentary varied. Some said he should not have weighed in on the debate or used two-minutes during the halftime show to make a political argument. Others, including Washington Post’s Dan Steinberg, said Costas stopped short of legitimizing the debate because he said that mascots like the Braves and Chiefs were not offensive, just politically incorrect. And Fox and Friends hosts asked why Costas took 30 years to say he was offended by the name.

Costas tried to clarify some of his comments on Dan Patrick’s radio broadcast yesterday. Patrick asked Costas if he used Football Night in America for “social causes.”

“Nonsense. Nonsense. Dan, I’m surprised,” Costas said. “This is so obvious. No, it’s a football issue. It’s right there. It’s a football issue.”

Many NFL fans disagreed on Facebook.10 worst reactions to Bob Costas declaring Redskins name an “insult” and “a slur”[S]ome Redskins fans and conservatives who were preparing for a sermon have responded by insulting Costas, further marginalizing Native Americans, or dismissing Costas’ commentary as self-righteous ranting.Fox’s trivializing, dismissive take on the offensive Redskins nameFox, unsurprisingly, has compared the controversy—and the president’s comments—to “those waterskiing squirrels you see at the end of local news,” a “light” throwaway story.Kilmeade asks Native Americans offended by ‘Redskins’: ‘Why now?’“Here’s my question, they’ve been the Redskins for 81 years, why is everyone offended now?” Kilmeade wondered.Uh, Indians have been offended, and have said so, for about half a century. That you're ignorant of their protests says a lot more about you than about them.

Profile in courage

On the other hand, some people saluted Costas. For instance:

Bob Costas Spoke Out Against ‘Redskins,’ and It Was a Big Deal

By Dave ZirinMy view, and I cannot say this forcefully enough, is that whatever problems people may have with the content of what Bob Costas said, the veteran broadcaster seized the moment and was a profile in courage. Costas did the unthinkable: he took a stand against racism on national television. He also openly—as he did a year ago by addressing gun culture after the horrific murder suicide perpetrated by Chiefs’ player Jovan Belcher against Kasandra Perkins—willingly courted the ire of disturbingly violent right-wing sports fans and their droogs in the conservative blogosphere. (These right-wingers seem to always ignore that the greatest backer of changing the name in Congress is Oklahoma Republican and Choctaw Nation member Tom Cole.)

Take a step back and look at what Costas did. He faced the camera on the most watched television show in the United States and said the following.

“Think for a moment about the term ‘Redskins,’ and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed towards African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians or any other ethnic group. When considered that way, ‘Redskins’ can’t possibly honor a heritage or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent.”

If you had told me even two months ago that Bob Costas would be saying those words, I would have been in a state of shock. The terrain has changed. Credit for this should go to The Oneida Nation, the Choctaw, Suzan Harjo, and—unsung in the media—the longtime work on this in hostile environs by Washington Post columnist Mike Wise. Credit should also go to RG3, the team quarterback whose greatness—on display even in last night’s terrible loss to the Cowboys—has made the team relevant for the first time in fifteen years. Credit should also go to team owner Dan Snyder for being so ineffably obnoxious about the whole issue, it makes anyone who stands alongside him feel like they need to shower with steel wool afterwards. And credit should truly go to Bob Costas for having the guts to take what is still a minority position and put it to the widest possible audience.

I believe that support for the “Redskins” name is 1,000 miles wide and one inch thick. Most people just, in the words of former coach Joe Gibbs, “haven’t really thought about it.” Bob Costas now has people thinking about it, and that is the first step toward a long overdue change.

Columbus Day celebrates white superiority

I thought this was going to be a quiet Columbus Day. I hadn't seen the usual spate of anti-Columbus articles a week or two before the holiday. But a last-minute flurry suggests people are still campaigning against the so-called discoverer.

Live protests

Genocide on the Quad: In NYC, Students Mark Columbus Day With 'Die-In'On October 14, Columbus Day, a group of students at Columbia University staged a grim protest dubbed a "Die-In." In fact, the display happened four times over the course of the day; according to Tristin Moone of the Native American Council of Columbia University, about 60 different people participated, with each Die-In consisting of about 30 individuals posing as corpses.

"The goal of the demonstration was to show that when celebrating 'Columbus Day,' people are celebrating genocide and the continual effects of it," Moone told ICTMN. "This wasn't a cultural showcase, it was demonstrating the impact of colonization on Indigenous peoples."

Bay Area American Indians Demand Removal of Columbus Statue

'We Have Nothing to Celebrate': Columbus Day Protesters Fill Streets of Santiago

Arguments against Columbus Day

I'm not sure there's anything new to say about what's wrong with Columbus Day. But here are some of the best articles I read on the subject this year:

Today is Columbus Day in the United States of America

Mutilation and Other Carnage: War Crimes Committed by Columbus

Stop Saying Columbus 'Discovered' the Americas—It Erases Indigenous History

Why I Celebrate Indigenous People’s Day (Not Columbus Day)

By Sarah J. JacksonI remember when I first posted the above video to my Facebook page in 2009 a high school classmate who wasn’t friends with me in high school but ended up connected to me online (you know how it goes) responded with “Oh come on, without Columbus none of us would be here.” To me, that small comment sums up everything that is wrong with celebrating Columbus Day. It entirely excludes the Native people of the Americas by assuming that without colonialism “none of us” would be here. Actually, there would be people here. There were people here. And those people, 565 tribes of them, are still here no matter how much more convenient it is for people to imagine the contrary. Further, this sentiment assumes that those of us who did end up in the Americas wanted to be here, that European colonialism helped us, and that we and are better off because of it. Needless to say the decedents of the millions of Africans whose native lands were also colonized, who were enslaved and forcibly brought to “the New World” didn’t choose to be here. Years later many Asians we’re brought to the Americas as cheap labor or immigrated after their own countries were physically and economically colonized and exploited. It goes without saying that globally colonialism didn’t benefit people of African and Asian decent any more than it did indigenous Americans. Yet, we’re all here now together expected to celebrate this holiday as if it is not political and as if it does not completely ignore the history of black, Asian, Native/Pacific Islander Americans and Latinos, people who together will make up 50-percent of this county’s population by 2050.Don’t Honor Columbus or the Colonial Notion of “Discovery”

By Sloane Cornelius[T]his co-opt of discovery is truly just coded language for playing the racial superiority game. It is deeply rooted in the idea that whomever discovers first gets to claim, and whoever can claim more is obviously superior. This is a heavily colonized attitude wherein people attempt to elevate themselves and their communities at the cost of our humanity and at the expense of our history, all so that they can gain legitimacy in this white world that we live in. It perpetrates this violent idea that the only way to prove your worth is by proving how much you have and by how much you have dominated.Columbus' Principles of Discovery

By Sherri MitchellInterestingly, when you engage in actual conversation over the actions of Columbus, there seems to be very little debate regarding the atrocities that he committed. Rather, the debate tends to be centered on how we should view the act of discovery itself; is it an act of terrorism or heroism? The unfortunate truth is that many have simply come to accept that with conquest comes carnage, and that destruction of place, loss of life and departure from humanity is an acceptable price to pay for the discovery of new lands. In fact, these principles of discovery seem to have become part of the social value structure of this country. One commentator even stated that the goal of those who oppose Columbus Day is to denigrate the values of western civilization. I found this particular comment to be quite telling. Shouldn’t the goals of a just society include the denigration of values that are attached to genocide, conquest, domination and slavery? America claims to be a just society, yet it continues to instruct its youth to emulate the horrific history of conquest that brought Columbus to the Americas.Today We Honor Columbus, An Inspiration to Cruel Half-Wits EverywhereIn many ways, Christopher Columbus is the perfect American. He was loud, ignorant, greedy and evil, and his intolerance was fueled by his religious extremism. His life's work was stealing wealth, bamboozling the government, and crushing the little people—whether his own shipmates or the Caribbean natives.Celebrating Indians instead

Celebrating Indigenous Peoples’ Day

Let's Get Rid of Columbus Day Forever!

"Redskins" approaching a tipping point?

Redskins nickname debate begins to overshadow team's play

By Eric Adelson"The whole thing is bigger than it needs to be," former Redskins tight end Chris Cooley told Yahoo Sports after the game. "And once that happens, it goes where it goes."

That's it exactly: the size of the issue, whether you hate the name or not, has become too large to tamp down or shrug off anymore. The tipping point of this debate will be measured by sociologists and football historians, but it certainly feels closer than ever. It almost feels like it's happening right now.

"You have to address it," Cooley said. "It's something that matters."

The polls don't matter as much anymore. Change happens in the polls after it happens in the hearts and minds of people, and that process feels like it's building. Even if a majority of fans don't want the name changed, a majority of fans are aware of the debate and have an opinion. Costas' soliloquy can be downplayed as part of a larger media agenda, but when a fan is given one opportunity to ask the commissioner anything in the world, and he asks about the nickname, that means this is more than just a "politically correct movement."Redskins’ Owner Stubbornly Clings to Wrong Side of History

By William C. Rhoden[Segregationists] Marshall and Wallace were on the wrong side of history. Wallace created an atmosphere of fear, hatred and divisiveness. Marshall barred players who could have helped his franchise avoid mediocrity during the 1950s and 1960s.

Snyder might object to being placed alongside Wallace and Marshall. By his insistence on using a term that offends even one person, however, he contributes to an atmosphere of intolerance and bigotry. Snyder has an opportunity to get on the right side of history, though I don’t expect someone as vain as he appears to be to change his team’s nickname voluntarily.

His refusal to change an offensive name is emblematic of our society’s tendency to wrap ourselves in the armor of self-interest regardless of who might be wounded or offended.

Sports has historically been a vehicle to bring us together. Increasingly, the enterprise is becoming one more tool of divisiveness.

Those of us who are appealing to Snyder’s sense of ethics and morals are barking up the wrong tree. If this were about morality, Snyder would not need surveys and handpicked American Indians to validate his point. He would stand alone on principle.Goodell confident Snyder weighing Redskins debate

By Associated PressNFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said he believes Washington owner Daniel Snyder is "way down the road" in consideration of whether the team should change its nickname.

Goodell got a question Sunday about the latest debate over the name during a question-and-answer session with Dallas season ticket-holders before the Cowboys' game against the Redskins.Hall of Fame Coach Marv Levy: Redskins Name is 'Crude'

Columbus Raped the Redskins ... Time to Change the Name

Final answer

Face It, Washington Fans: Your Team's Name is Racist

By Lily Bolourian

The pressure led Snyder to pen his letter to the Post, which defended the team and its name by pointing to its history. Conveniently, he leaves out the racist roots of the franchise.

"I think it is a sign that you are doing something wrong if you have to spend so much time and effort defending the idea that you are honoring Native Americans rather than disrespecting them," said Indigenous activist Samantha White of the Haliwa-Saponi tribe. White found Snyder’s letter to be disingenuous.

White takes issue with the term because it "reinforces the stereotypical image of a Native American as being someone who has very dark (almost red) skin, as well as war paint and the ever present feathers in the hair." Plus, it takes away from Native Americans' freedom to define who they are. "This is an image that we have tried to escape, but with the continued use of [derogatory depictions of Natives] along with negative terms like redskin it makes it more difficult to redefine what it means to be Native American and what a Native American looks like," she said.

Red Cloud Indian School denounces "Redskins"

Mike Florio provides a good summary of another Redskins faux pas:

Effort to defend Redskins name continues to backfire

By Mike FlorioIn his “we hear the opponents but we don’t care” manifesto to Redskins fans, owner Daniel Snyder shoehorned a reference to one of the most popular figures in team history.

“In 1971, our legendary coach, the late George Allen, consulted with the Red Cloud Athletic Fund located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota and designed our emblem on the Redskins helmets,” Snyder wrote. “Several years later, Coach Allen was honored by the Red Cloud Athletic Fund. On the wall at our Ashburn, Virginia, offices is the plaque given to Coach Allen—a source of pride for all of us.”

Apart from failing to mention that George Allen created the Red Cloud Athletic Fund, Snyder and/or his people also neglected to check with the group about its views.

In response to Snyder’s letter, the primary beneficiary of the Red Cloud Athletic Fund has denounced the ongoing use of the team name.

“As an organization, Red Cloud Indian School has never—and will never—endorse the use of the name ‘Redskins,’” leadership of the school wrote in a letter to the Washington Post. “Like many Native American organizations across the country, members of our staff and extended community find the name offensive.”

The group also contends that Snyder misrepresented the Red Cloud Athletic Fund’s role in the development of the team’s helmet logo.

“We call on Dan Snyder and managers to engage in further discussion with Native groups across the country and, ultimately, to move toward changing the name, once and for all,” the letter states.

So the people who gave that plaque to George Allen—the plaque that according to Snyder remains on the wall at the team facility as a source of pride—want Snyder to change the name.Indian School Calls Out Redskins Owner

By Maya Rhodan“Like many Native American organizations across the country, members of our staff and extended community find the name offensive,” the school wrote. “We call on Dan Snyder and managers to engage in further discussion with Native groups across the country and, ultimately, to move toward changing the name, once and for all.”

The Oneida Indian Nation, which is leading the most recent charge for the team to change its name, said Sunday that said this incident joins a growing list of Snyder’s “examples of trying to rewrite the team’s history.”

“Mr. Snyder must set the record straight and immediately send a new letter to season tickets holders highlighting these misrepresentations and omissions,” Joel Barkin, a spokesman for the Oneida Nation, said in a statement. “Mr. Snyder should stop trying to rewrite history and instead rewrite his misleading and inaccurate letter and stop pretending that the targets of the R-word slur support his agenda.”

Representatives from the National Football League and the Oneida Indian Nation are scheduled to meet in late November.Comment:  Add this to Rick Reilly's fibs about what his father-in-law, and we can see the Redskins propaganda machine growing desperate. Next they'll tell us Sitting Bull was secretly a Redskins fan.

As NMAI director Kevin Gover noted, it's amazing what lengths a football team will go to mythologize its origins. The team can't have picked its name out of a hat; the name has to be tied to the area's history and culture.

Below:  Chief Zee, the unofficial Redskins mascot. (Alex Brandon/Associated Press)

Indians don't fit American myth

Guilt And The Conservative Antipathy For American Indians

By T. SteelmanOn this Columbus Day, I asked myself why some of those whose ancestors come from Europe have so much animosity towards the people who already lived here? The Republican party and conservatives seem to have a big problem with American Indians; their lifestyle, their religion, their traditions, their culture. Just this year an American Indian girl was fined for wearing a feather in her cap. It was discovered that South Dakota was kidnapping American Indian children in an attempt to keep them from their culture. A so-called “Christian” televangelist told us to repent for our ancestors. Another “Christian” sued Oklahoma because of an American Indian image on his license plate. The Supreme Court decided that a Cherokee child’s American Indian father had no parental rights. Even a movie was attacked for depicting white men slaughtering Indians–can’t have folks see the truth, can we? Even several Republican women voted not to renew the Violence Against Women Act because it would extend protection to women on American Indian reservations.These examples are a small subset of the examples anyone who knows Indians could provide. They're enough to confirm the thesis of conservative antipathy toward Indians.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Namely, why?David C. Williams of the Indiana University School of Law and author of In Praise of Guilt, has a theory. He points out that the United States came into being only through taking the sovereignty of the American Indian tribes. This doesn’t fit with the American myth.The United States has always insisted that it rests on the consent of the governed. According to our national mythology, America was “born liberal,” isolated by the ocean and created by a self-governing citizenry. But in fact America’s territorial sovereignty is the result of conquest. And that reality plays out in the legal approach to reparations because American judges have to develop an account that makes the conquest seem legitimate. Otherwise, because their own power arises from conquest, they would be forced to declare themselves illegitimate.Americans do not like guilt. We have a self-image that includes our being fair. Our exceptionalism implies that we always do the right thing. And, if we don’t, we make reparations. Like we did with slaves or the Japanese that we sent to internment camps during WWII. But the idea of our nation being founded on theft, murder and marginalization of its original inhabitants just doesn’t sit well with us.Comment:  Shaping our self-image includes encouraging Halloween costumes and Indian mascots. We allow these things because, whether consciously or unconsciously, we want Indians "kept in their place." Which is out of sight on a reservation, or--better yet--safe in the romanticized past.

What we don't want is real live Indians in our face talking about oppression and injustice. So when they pop up to remind us of the broken treaties and stolen land, we tell them to vanish. "You lost, what's past is past, get over it."

For more on the subject, see What Conservatives Consider "Objective History" and Conservatives Use "Language of Savagery."

Below:  "God Bless America" and "Positively No Beer Sold to Indians."

Republicans want to restore Confederacy

Columnist Dennis Hamill tells us what the government shutdown, aka the Obamacare battle, is all about:

Frightened white people in Congress who won't accept a black President are what's causing the deadlock

Even on Columbus Day extremist Republicans are stopping progress

By Dennis Hamill[T]his isn’t about money, debt or deficit. It’s about race.

Five centuries after Columbus and his nervous white crew arrived, there is still a small crew of frightened white people in Congress who refuse to accept an America with a black man in charge.

These extremists have not yet been able to accept, even after two decisive national elections, that a black man occupies the White House.

For some of them, their single goal as members of Congress is to make this first African-American President fail.A Southerner confirms the conservatives' irrational fear and loathing of minorities:

The irrational fear of President Obama

By Jonathan CapehartCapehart: The president and the Obama administration say the whole reason he did this is to get the 50 million Americans without health insurance to have health insurance.

Jackson: They figured out a way to get money out of the American people’s pockets. It won’t benefit—it’ll benefit a very small amount of people, and it’ll be the ones that are too lazy or unwilling to work, along with the millions and millions of illegal aliens in this country.

Capehart: You do know that the Affordable Care Act is not … undocumented workers are not eligible for Obamacare. That’s specific in the law.

Jackson: They can go into any Social security agency, welfare office, social services and they’re giving them stuff. They are handing it out to them left and right.

Capehart: What exactly are they handing out?

Jackson: Benefits! Look at them. They get food stamps. They get welfare, dependent children…. They help them with their housing, and they’re not even supposed to be in our country. They are here illegally, but, yet, they know how to work our system to get what they want. They want our health care. They want our food. They want our money, yet they don’t pay taxes. And they’ll look right at you and they’ll tell you, “No habla the English,” and laugh. But you understand what they’re saying. That really makes me angry.As does this sign:

Arkansas Restaurant Sign Claims Obamacare Is 'America's Punishment For Slavery Years'



That pretty much says it all. Passing Obamacare = helping black and brown people = punishing white people. In short, those who oppose Obamacare are motivated by racism.

Racist Tea Party

Let's look more closely at the Republican Tea Party's racism. I added the red emphasis to highlight the key points.

Ex-GOP insider unloads: Blame “neo-Confederate insurrectionists” for shutdown!

"I would take Boehner drunk over Cruz sober," former 28-year GOP staffer-turned-author Mike Lofgren tells Salon

By Josh EidelsonThese people are basically neo-Confederate insurrectionists. They are in substantive rebellion against the orderly government of the country. And one of the things I noticed—and it’s something that’s very common in human beings—we all try to mollify or appease the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. You know, “Don’t make a scene.” Well, I noticed in the last few years of my service on the Hill that a number of Democrats seemed to be afraid of Republicans. And Obama pretty much wasted his first term trying to mollify them. I think he’s finally stumbled upon a strategy that’s better: simply not give them what they demand. Because this is a deliberate strategy to hold the government hostage.Pollsters: GOP will become even more extreme (if that’s possible)

New research suggests the factions currently leading the war on Obamacare will grow even more intransigent

By Steven RosenfeldRace is very much at play in right-wing politics and identity, the pollsters found.

“While few explicitly talk about Obama in racial terms, the base supporters are very conscious of being white in a country with growing minorities,” they said. They believe that “their party is losing to a Democratic Party of big government whose goal is to expand programs that mainly benefit minorities.”And:Evangelicals were clearly the most aggrieved and discouraged GOP faction.

“They believe their towns, communities and schools are suffering from ‘culture rot’ that has invaded from the outside,” the 30-page analysis said. “The central focus here is homosexuality, but also the decline of homogenous small towns. They like the Tea Party because they stand up to the Democrats.”

Evangelicals are a third of the GOP base, the report said. More than three-quarters are married. More than 90 percent are white and older. Eighty percent vote only Republican. And like the other factions, they can’t stand President Obama, labeling him as a “liar” who panders to middle-class worries.“I think that his picture of the people in this room would be that we’re all a bunch of racist, gun-clinging, flyover state, cowboy hat-wearing yokels—because we didn’t go to Harvard, and we’re not from New York, and we’re pretty white, we’re pretty middle-class,” said one man in Roanoke, Virginia. “We’re going to be in a very politically incorrect minority very soon,” added another, objecting to how the mainstream culture supports gays, schools allow same-sex teenagers to hold hands, and the political left beats up on them for anti-gay beliefs.

The notion that their corner of American life—described by a Virginian as “a little bubble”—is under attack extends to feeling “invaded” by immigrants, and taking offense that they have to tell their phones to talk to them in English, not Spanish. “Don’t come here and make me speak your language,” another man said.Tea Party radicalism is misunderstood: Meet the “Newest Right”

Our sense of the force currently paralyzing the government is full of misconceptions--including what to call it

By Michael LindWhen the post-Civil War system broke down during the Civil Rights Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the South’s local notable class and its Northern and Western allies unexpectedly won a temporary three-decade reprieve, thanks to the “Reagan Democrats.” From the 1970s to the 2000s, white working-class voters alienated from the Democratic Party by civil rights and cultural liberalism made possible Republican presidential dominance from Reagan to George W. Bush and Republican dominance of Congress from 1994 to 2008. Because their politicians dominated the federal government much of the time, the conservative notables were less threatened by federal power, and some of them, like the second Bush, could even imagine a “governing conservatism” which, I have argued, sought to “Southernize” the entire U.S.

But then, by the 2000s, demography destroyed the temporary Nixon-to-Bush conservative majority (although conceivably it could enjoy an illusory Indian summer if Republicans pick up the Senate and retain the House in 2016). Absent ever-growing shares of the white vote, in the long run the Republican Party cannot win without attracting more black and Latino support.

That may well happen, in the long run. But right now most conservative white local notables in the South and elsewhere in the country don’t want black and Latino support. They would rather disenfranchise blacks and Latinos than compete for their votes. And they would rather dismantle the federal government than surrender their local power and privilege.

The political strategy of the Newest Right, then, is simply a new strategy for the very old, chiefly-Southern Jefferson-Jackson right. It is a perfectly rational strategy, given its goal: maximizing the political power and wealth of white local notables who find themselves living in states, and eventually a nation, with present or potential nonwhite majorities.

Christian delusions are driving the GOP insane

Why aren't Republicans more frightened of a shutdown and a default? Part of the reason is magical thinking

By Amanda MarcotteThe press often talks about the Tea Party like they’re secularist movement that is interested mainly in promoting “fiscal conservatism”, a vague notion that never actually seems to make good on the promise to save taxpayer money. The reality is much different: The Tea Party is actually driven primarily by fundamentalist Christians whose penchant for magical thinking and belief that they’re being guided by divine forces makes it tough for them to see the real world as it is.

It’s not just that the rogue’s gallery of congress people who are pushing the hardest for hostage-taking as a negotiation tactic also happens to be a bench full of Bible thumpers. Pew Research shows that people who align with the Tea Party are more likely to not only agree with the views of religious conservatives, but are likely to cite religious belief as their prime motivation for their political views. White evangelicals are the religious group most likely to approve of the Tea Party. Looking over the data, it becomes evident that the “Tea Party” is just a new name for the same old white fundamentalists who would rather burn this country to the ground than share it with everyone else, and this latest power play from the Republicans is, in essence, a move from that demographic to assert their “right” to control the country, even if their politicians aren’t in power.

It’s no surprise, under the circumstances, that a movement controlled by fundamentalist Christians would be oblivious to the very real dangers that their actions present. Fundamentalist religion is extremely good at convincing its followers to be more afraid of imaginary threats than real ones, and to engage in downright magical thinking about the possibility that their own choices could work out very badly. When you believe that forcing the government into default in an attempt to derail Obamacare is the Lord’s work, it’s very difficult for you to see that it could have very real, negative effects.

It’s hard for the Christian fundamentalists who run the Republican Party now to worry about the serious economic danger they’re putting the world in, because they are swept up in worrying that President Obama is an agent of the devil and that the world is on the verge of mayhem and apocalypse if they don’t “stop” him somehow, presumably be derailing the Affordable Care Act. Christian conservatives such as Ellis Washington are running around telling each other that the ACA will lead to “the systematic genocide of the weak, minorities, enfeebled, the elderly and political enemies of the God-state.” Twenty percent of Republicans believe Obama is the Antichrist. Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner argued that Obama is using his signature health care legislation to promote “the destruction of the family, Christian culture,” and demanded that Christians “need to engage in peaceful civil disobedience against President Obama’s signature health care law.”"Neo-Confederate insurrectionists" isn't just rhetoric, as the flag-waving teabagger below demonstrated. The Republican Tea Party literally champions a Southern white Christian power structure where minorities are second-class citizens.



How Republicans became racists

How Racism Caused The Shutdown

By Zack BeauchampBy the Johnson-Goldwater election, it had become clear that overt racism and segregationism was politically doomed. Brown v. Board of Education and LBJ’s support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act saw to that. As this scary recognition dawned on Southern whites, they began searching for a new vehicle through which to shield themselves and their communities from the consequences of integration. The young conservative movement’s ringing endorsement of a minimalist federal government did the trick—it provided an on-face racially neutral language by which Southerners could argue against federal action aimed at integrating lily-white schools and neighborhoods.

Kevin Kruse, a Princeton historian whose work focuses on the South and the conservative movement, finds deep roots in segregationist thought for this turn. “In their own minds, segregationists were instead fighting for rights of their own,” Kruse suggests. These “rights” included “the ‘right’ to select their neighbors, their employees, and their children’s classmates, the ‘right’ to do as they pleased with their private property and personal businesses, and, perhaps, most important, the ‘right’ to remain free from what they saw as dangerous encroachments by the federal government.”Modern GOP is still the party of Dixie

How the South poisons American conservatism and sabotages our politics

By Kim MessickFor black Americans slavery was a holocaust and a nightmare. For white Southerners it meant (among other things) living intimately with millions of human beings who were permanent outsiders—persons whose natural incapacities, as the white South saw them, meant they could never be trustworthy members of the community. For white supremacists, citizenship had one very definite condition of entry: white skin, and the potential for moral personality that came with it. The racial divide defined the difference between civilized society and the enthralled barbarism that lay beyond and beneath it.

It would be hard to overstate the influence of this experience on the mind of the South. For one thing, it meant that the white South was, in effect, a garrison state. White Southerners lived in close proximity to a large population they routinely abused, terrorized and defiled. Fear of black violence and revolt is a constant theme of white society before and after the Civil War. The South’s noisily martial version of patriotism has its roots here, as does the region’s love affair with guns. And there are obvious connections between these facts and its stubborn embrace of patriarchy and misogyny. (Does the name “Todd Akin” ring any bells?)

Of greater relevance to our present concerns, however, are the implications for the South’s political psychology. Here the region’s history as a slave society left a very particular imprint, one that lingered long after slavery and Jim Crow collapsed. I mean the habit of imagining society as a two-tiered structure, with the “normative” community on top and a degenerate class of outsiders below. The former consists of those who satisfy the prerequisites of citizenship, and can therefore be trusted to fulfill the social contract voluntarily; the latter of those whose inherent debilities ensure that coercion is the only reliable guarantee of cooperation.This is a fraught subject, so I want to make my meaning clear. I am not arguing that all Southerners—or all conservatives—are racists or paranoids; I’m not even arguing that all Southerners are conservatives. (I myself would personally disprove that assertion.) Slavery, thankfully, disappeared long ago, and Jim Crow is now almost two generations behind us. Racism lingers on in the South as in America generally, but for the most part must now keep its head down and its voice low; it’s the vice that dare not speak its name. (This is not to deny, of course, that it retains considerable social valence.) What I am arguing is that a certain habit of thought, powerfully shaped by the experience of slavery, survived the passage of that curse and continues to influence some Southern conservatives to this day. It no longer takes the form of a blatant assertion that only the white race is worthy of social trust; its definition of the normative community has shifted. (Though it remains associated with racialist, or at least race-conscious, themes.) It is now more likely to define that community in ideological terms—to see it as consisting of those who endorse a particular view of government and its rightful relations with traditional mores and economic power. It has, however, retained certain aspects of its earlier, darker origins. It is still obsessed with purity—ideological if not racial—and still invests those it regards as impure with a harsh, acute animus. And it continues to equate difference with illegitimacy. Those on the outside—the liberals, the Democrats, the “socialists”—cannot be trusted partners in political life; they want only to undermine our institutions and must therefore be expelled from them.Tea party wants to take America back--to the 18th century

Their ultimate destination appears to be the 1780s and our dysfunctional government under the Articles of Confederation.

By Joseph J. EllisClearly, most of the tea party radicals in the House of Representatives come from gerrymandered districts, which function as cocoons that resist penetration by alien ideas, like Keynesian economics, Darwinian evolution, global warming and yes, the potential popularity of Obamacare. They live in a parallel universe in which a rejection of any robust expression of government power is an unquestioned and unexamined article of faith.

Where does this irrational but obviously deep-felt impulse come from? Talk radio and Fox News obviously feed the beast. But the seminal convictions of the tea partiers defy any modern conceptions of government power. How far back in history do they want to take us?

My initial impression was that they wanted to repeal the 20th century. Radical Republicans of the tea party persuasion object to all federal programs that have an impact on our daily lives, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Federal Reserve Board. Even though tea partiers, like all the rest of us, are beneficiaries of these federal programs, especially Medicare and Social Security, ideology trumps self-interest in their worldview, though one wonders how they would respond if they had their way and their Social Security checks stopped coming.

Now, I believe these radicals want to go even further back in time. Though it wouldn't be fair to pin a defense of slavery on them, they agree with the states' rights agenda of the Confederacy and resist the right of the federal government to make domestic policy, which is their visceral reason for loathing Obamacare.

But their ultimate destination, I believe, is the 1780s and our dysfunctional government under the Articles of Confederation. The states were sovereign in that post-revolutionary arrangement, and the federal government was virtually powerless. That is political paradise for the tea partiers, who might take comfort in the fact that their 18th century counterparts also refused to fund the national debt. Their core convictions are pre-Great Society, pre-New Deal, pre-Keynes, pre-Freud, pre-Darwin and pre-Constitution.

For more on conservative racism, see Shutdown = White Minority Asserting Power and "Defund Obamacare" = "Nigger, Nigger."