Review time! with Cape Horn
By Greg Burgas
The Native aspects
June 17, 2014
Greg Burgas reviews Cape Horn
This may be the best comic book on Tierra del Fuego ever:
Review time! with Cape Horn
By Greg BurgasCape Horn is a rousing old-school adventure story, with bold men (and one bold woman) making bold choices in a larger-than-life environment, but because Perrissin and Riboldi are able to make it more than that, it resonates a bit more. The themes of the book aren’t new, obviously, but because Perrissin gives us so many characters and gives them well-developed personalities, it feels like the choices they make–even if they lead to tragedy–are logical ones. The setting does help, of course, as it feels fresh to read about a place that’s so unfamiliar, but Perrissin uses the time and place very well, which makes the book more subtle and fascinating. The process of colonization was never pretty and never straight-forward, and the creators bring that to vivid life. Cape Horn is a marvelous comic, and it would make a fine addition to your library.
The Native aspectsCape Horn, like so much of fiction, is about power. When you introduce a colonial element to it, it becomes more about cultural power, as the frontier of Tierra del Fuego, like the frontier of the West in the United States and Canada or any frontier, really, is about the clash between “civilization” and “barbarism.” Just because Perrissin sets this in a place unfamiliar to most people doesn’t change the paradigm too much. The natives in the area, mainly the Yamana, have a choice to make–accommodate the Europeans and try to learn their ways, or resist as fiercely as possible and get killed or die out. Ultimately, Perrissin comes down on the same side as most liberal writers–that the natives would have been better off without the “benefits” of “civilization”–but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t try to show the kindness of people like Bridges, who really do believe they’re working to make the natives’ lives better. For another of Burgas's reviews, see Greg Burgas Reviews Scalped.
Review time! with Cape Horn
By Greg Burgas
The Native aspects
June 16, 2014
Over Snyder's dead body
Here's a posting that reiterates Dan Snyder's assertion that he'll "NEVER" change the Redskins name:
Dan Snyder on name change: “Over my dead body”
By Darin GanttAt a time when public pressure seems greater than ever, Redskins owner Dan Snyder seems to be digging in deeper on the subject of his team’s nickname.
During an interview with Jim Rome on Showtime this week, NBC Sunday Night Football play-by-play man Al Michaels was asked if he thought Snyder would try to hang onto the name despite the complaints.
“It seems to me as if he is going to hold on,” Michaels said, via the Washington Post. “I mean all of the sudden—I mean, for 70-some odd years this was a zero issue, and then it became an issue. I understand we live in this politically correct environment. It’s crazier than ever; you know, senators want to weigh in on this, like there’s nothing better to do in Congress. This becomes a big issue. I mean, I just think it’s nuts.
“And I do know, I’ve talked to Snyder about it—not recently but when we were in Washington last year—and he basically said ‘over my dead body.’”
The defiant stance is nothing new from Snyder, which is unsurprising since rich people seldom like hearing they’re wrong.
But when respected players (and former players) such as Champ Bailey chime in, and name-change commercials air during the NBA Finals to a nationwide audience, at some point the voices may turn into a roar that Snyder can no longer pretend to not hear. Michaels is wrong that the name suddenly became an issue. So is every Redskins apologist who falsely claims white liberal do-gooders have invented the controversy. Here's the proof:
The Great Redskins Name Debate of … 1972?
Over Snyder's racist body
Therefore, pundits continue to note the racism inherent in Snyder's position. For instance:
Why Dan Snyder Won't Relent on 'Redskins,' and Why I Did
By Mike FreemanAs a child, I rooted for the team and didn't care about the nickname. As a teen, the same. In my 20s, the same. After the DNA test, in my 30s, the change was sudden and transformational.
I was related to the people that were being caricatured. The moment was instructive in many ways. It showed, to me, the hypocrisy of a black man ignoring a slur his entire life because a football team meant so much to him.
It showed something else. I looked around at the diversity in my life, which was extensive, and noticed something: Long into my adulthood, there were few American Indians in my life. There was no one to express their displeasure.
And this is a key point in my change, and in the argument overall. Since the American Indian population is around 1 percent of the total in the U.S., it's safe to assume most of the people who have expressed their support of the nickname have never had a face-to-face discussion with someone of American Indian heritage who disagrees with it.
It's one thing to read in a newspaper the objections of American Indians, or see it on television. It is another to have someone voice his or her displeasure to your face.
Maybe the nickname did or didn't start as a slur, but at the very least, it evolved into one. John Oliver Bashes Dan Snyder Over Refusal To Change Redskins Name [VIDEO]
By Thomas BarrabiJust a week after his scathing, 13-minute rant against FIFA, HBO host John Oliver mocked Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder's refusal to change his franchise’s team name.
Oliver, who hosts “Last Week Tonight” on HBO, made note of a commercial aired by a California Native American tribe during Game 3 of the 2014 NBA Finals. The ad, titled “Proud To Be,” makes a critical reference to Snyder’s continued use of the “Redskins” moniker for his NFL franchise, despite repeated pleas from America’s Native American community.
“The strongest possible pushback after watching something amazing like that is, ‘You’re right, you’re right, we’ve got to change the name.’ But one person remains unmoved, and unfortunately, he is the only one that matters,” Oliver said, in a reference to Snyder.
Oliver went on to refer to Snyder as “Chief Runs-Without-Moral Compass.” The HBO host then aired a fake “commercial” full of examples of indefensible arguments. The entire four-minute segment can be viewed below.
Dan Snyder on name change: “Over my dead body”
By Darin Gantt
During an interview with Jim Rome on Showtime this week, NBC Sunday Night Football play-by-play man Al Michaels was asked if he thought Snyder would try to hang onto the name despite the complaints.
“It seems to me as if he is going to hold on,” Michaels said, via the Washington Post. “I mean all of the sudden—I mean, for 70-some odd years this was a zero issue, and then it became an issue. I understand we live in this politically correct environment. It’s crazier than ever; you know, senators want to weigh in on this, like there’s nothing better to do in Congress. This becomes a big issue. I mean, I just think it’s nuts.
“And I do know, I’ve talked to Snyder about it—not recently but when we were in Washington last year—and he basically said ‘over my dead body.’”
The defiant stance is nothing new from Snyder, which is unsurprising since rich people seldom like hearing they’re wrong.
But when respected players (and former players) such as Champ Bailey chime in, and name-change commercials air during the NBA Finals to a nationwide audience, at some point the voices may turn into a roar that Snyder can no longer pretend to not hear.
The Great Redskins Name Debate of … 1972?
Over Snyder's racist body
Therefore, pundits continue to note the racism inherent in Snyder's position. For instance:
Why Dan Snyder Won't Relent on 'Redskins,' and Why I Did
By Mike Freeman
I was related to the people that were being caricatured. The moment was instructive in many ways. It showed, to me, the hypocrisy of a black man ignoring a slur his entire life because a football team meant so much to him.
It showed something else. I looked around at the diversity in my life, which was extensive, and noticed something: Long into my adulthood, there were few American Indians in my life. There was no one to express their displeasure.
And this is a key point in my change, and in the argument overall. Since the American Indian population is around 1 percent of the total in the U.S., it's safe to assume most of the people who have expressed their support of the nickname have never had a face-to-face discussion with someone of American Indian heritage who disagrees with it.
It's one thing to read in a newspaper the objections of American Indians, or see it on television. It is another to have someone voice his or her displeasure to your face.
Maybe the nickname did or didn't start as a slur, but at the very least, it evolved into one.
By Thomas Barrabi
Oliver, who hosts “Last Week Tonight” on HBO, made note of a commercial aired by a California Native American tribe during Game 3 of the 2014 NBA Finals. The ad, titled “Proud To Be,” makes a critical reference to Snyder’s continued use of the “Redskins” moniker for his NFL franchise, despite repeated pleas from America’s Native American community.
“The strongest possible pushback after watching something amazing like that is, ‘You’re right, you’re right, we’ve got to change the name.’ But one person remains unmoved, and unfortunately, he is the only one that matters,” Oliver said, in a reference to Snyder.
Oliver went on to refer to Snyder as “Chief Runs-Without-Moral Compass.” The HBO host then aired a fake “commercial” full of examples of indefensible arguments. The entire four-minute segment can be viewed below.
June 15, 2014
Native stereotypes in Mandala
The publisher or someone sent me the first issue of Mandala, a new comic-book series. They did it because they think Blue Corn Comics is a retailer, not a publisher. Wrong!
Anyway, Mandala features a Native subtext, so it's worth a look. Here's the official site:
MandalaARE YOU AWAKE?
Earth--here and now. Humankind is secretly enslaved by a global mind-control system called the GRID. Mike Morningstar and his spiritual spec-ops unit, the Thirteen, must alter time and take down the GRID before it's too late.
As fiction meets reality, the Thirteen need your help if they are to succeed in awakening humanity and changing the future...
Enter the Mandala...
And a couple of reviews:
Mandala by Stuart Moore and Bruce Zick
By Brad HawleyMandala is the story of Michael Patrick Murphy who has the potential to be a mythic hero, Morningstar, savior of all mankind, but often he is just Michael, a confused man, or even worse, he turns into his lower, demonic self. Borrowing a page from Michael Moorcock, author Stuart Moore has Morningstar drift from one reality to another, trying in each new plane of existence to fight the serpents and evil gods who control all humans in a post-apocalyptic world. He fights alongside the rest of “The Thirteen,” an organization made up of men and women similar to Michael Morningstar: They all have a human side and must learn to “wake up” their higher selves to unite and defeat serpents who are led by the evil Natasmia.
Moore borrows the time-traveling part of the plot from the Hawkman and Hawkgirl storyline at DC: Hawkman and Hawkgirl keep struggling to find each other again and again, but every time they do, they die and are reborn to seek each other out again—star-crossed lovers doomed by their rebirth-induced amnesia. Morningstar has his female counterpart in Mary Lozen Many Colors, or Raven. Raven’s Grandfather acts as spiritual guide for Michael and the rest of “The Thirteen.” He teaches Michael about the Empyrean and transformation, part of which has to be Michael’s willingness to be the “hanged man,” a familiar image seen in most Tarot decks. Evil Geek Book Report--Mandala
By C-MartMandala is the story of how human evolution has been stopped dead in it’s tracks by an invading entity know as Natasmia and the mysterious world enveloping energy field known as the GRID. The Mayans predicted that humanity would take a great leap forward in terms of development and evolution in 2012, but thanks to Natasmia, that leap forward never came to be. Natasmia has her sights set on ruling all of humanity for the rest of existence and as anyone who’s ever dabbled in mind control knows; it’s easier to control a simpleton than it is to control a highly evolved being. And:Michael’s more evolved form, known as the Morningstar, is a superpowered demon king, destined to lead a group of other superpowered individuals known as the Thirteen into battle against Natasmia. With the help of his love Mary Lozen and her shamanic grandfather, the Morningstar is awakened within Michael and slowly he learns to use his powers in an attempt to save different timelines from the invading evil. Moore Tackles a Multiverse's Nightmarish Future in "Mandala"
The Native aspects
Angels, shamans, mandalas, Tarot, prophecies...if that sounds like a New Age mishmash to you, you probably have the right idea. I'd say the above descriptions give you a fair notion of how sprawling and mixed-up the story is.
In the story's centerpiece, we meet Mary Lozen Many Colors and her grandfather Charlie Many Colors--both supposedly Hopi. First, the names...oh my!
For starters, Lozen is an Apache name, and the Apache were traditionally enemies of the Hopi. It's unlikely that any Hopi would use the name Lozen.
Then there's the last name Many Colors. Really?! That's even worse than the usual stereotypical names such as Grey Wolf or White Eagle. It reeks of trying to give the Hopi a multicultural flavor--as if they represent all the "multicolored" tribes of the world. In other words, pure New Age claptrap.
FYI, real Hopi names include Honanie, Humetewa, Masayesva, Selestewa, Batala, Talayumptewa, and Keevama. You can see they follow a style that does not include English phrases such as "Sitting Bull" or "Crazy Horse." The "Many Colors" kind of name is found mostly among Plains tribes, not Southwestern tribes.
Michael and Mary materialize on the Hopi reservation--to find themselves in an Anasazi-style dwelling under a cliff. No. The Hopi's ancestors used to live in such dwellings, but that was 800 years ago. Such dwellings are uninhabited ruins now--protected and off-limits. And there are no ruins this well-preserved on the Hopi rez.
The whole concept conveys the unavoidable impression that the Hopi people are prehistoric, not modern. Even the furnishings visible in one panel--a wooden chair and cot--could be pre-modern. There's no hint that the Hopi have done anything since the 18th or 19th century.
Then Charlie, Michael, and Mary descend a ladder into what could be a giant underground kiva. Let's hope it isn't one, because that would be a gross violation of Hopi religion. No one's supposed to know what happens in a kiva except the Hopi themselves.
What they actually find isn't a Hopi shrine, but rather a warehouse of religious icons from around the world. Including an Aztec sun stone, a Plains headdress, and a phony totem pole:
The message is that non-Western and indigenous religions are somehow related--part of the "nexus" or "multiverse" or interdimensional whatever. That they're not complete, standalone religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Instead, these religions are exotic, unfathomable, and otherworldly--perhaps literally. They're part of some vast, mysterious, cosmic sphere beyond the comprehension of modern minds.
This is a classic New Age belief, and it's an insult to all these religions. They're not exotic or unfathomable to their adherents. They don't require blood or virgin sacrifices to demons in the middle of the night.
Really, they're no stranger than the religions we're familiar with. To hide them away in an underground vault as some sort of dark secret is badly stereotypical. It's an Indiana Jones mentality from the racist era of tomb-robbing--but people should know better in 2014.
In a later issue, a Hopi sun god (below) leads the other "ancient" gods in holding hands and singing "Kumbaya." Or something. But don't expect the Christian God to show up and join them. Unlike these "mythical" gods, he's "real."
As the kicker, Charlie mentions a Hopi legend that a "true white brother" will appear to lead the everyone into the light. Yes, it's the "white savior" complex, uttered explicitly by a Native character, in 2014. Save us, Great White Father and Jesus Christ substitute! Only you are strong and brave and true enough to conquer evil.
I believe the Hopi do have such a legend. But it's one of many legends, not all Hopi believe it, and they certainly don't emphasize it. Author Stuart Moore easily could've avoided it and chosen some other legend to use. Instead, he's invented a pretext for why a white men should lead the "Thirteen," who are mostly nonwhite characters from non-Western cultures. Another white American to the rescue...yay!
I get a strong impression that Moore knows little or nothing about Native cultures. He probably skimmed a couple of books or websites before putting together this muddled stew of Hopi and Native lore. The result isn't much different from what you could read in any bad comic from the mid-20th century. If the scary masked figures and statues came alive and tried to kill our heroes, I wouldn't be surprised.
Like the previous image, the scene below wasn't in the issue I read. But it tells you all you need to know about Moore's ignorance. A Hopi "shaman" in a Plains headdress fighting a demon with a tomahawk: pure supernatural pan-Indian stereotyping.
This is something I might've done in the first few months of putting together my Peace Party comics. But I soon realized how much I didn't know and kept studying. It was only after years of research that I felt I had a solid concept that didn't violate or trivialize the Hopi culture.
If I were Moore, I'd go back to the drawing board and start over. But he's invested too much time and energy in this venture to do that, of course. So we're left with another wrongheaded take on Native cultures in comics.
Anyway, Mandala features a Native subtext, so it's worth a look. Here's the official site:
Mandala
Earth--here and now. Humankind is secretly enslaved by a global mind-control system called the GRID. Mike Morningstar and his spiritual spec-ops unit, the Thirteen, must alter time and take down the GRID before it's too late.
As fiction meets reality, the Thirteen need your help if they are to succeed in awakening humanity and changing the future...
Enter the Mandala...
And a couple of reviews:
Mandala by Stuart Moore and Bruce Zick
By Brad Hawley
Moore borrows the time-traveling part of the plot from the Hawkman and Hawkgirl storyline at DC: Hawkman and Hawkgirl keep struggling to find each other again and again, but every time they do, they die and are reborn to seek each other out again—star-crossed lovers doomed by their rebirth-induced amnesia. Morningstar has his female counterpart in Mary Lozen Many Colors, or Raven. Raven’s Grandfather acts as spiritual guide for Michael and the rest of “The Thirteen.” He teaches Michael about the Empyrean and transformation, part of which has to be Michael’s willingness to be the “hanged man,” a familiar image seen in most Tarot decks.
By C-Mart
The Native aspects
Angels, shamans, mandalas, Tarot, prophecies...if that sounds like a New Age mishmash to you, you probably have the right idea. I'd say the above descriptions give you a fair notion of how sprawling and mixed-up the story is.
In the story's centerpiece, we meet Mary Lozen Many Colors and her grandfather Charlie Many Colors--both supposedly Hopi. First, the names...oh my!
For starters, Lozen is an Apache name, and the Apache were traditionally enemies of the Hopi. It's unlikely that any Hopi would use the name Lozen.
Then there's the last name Many Colors. Really?! That's even worse than the usual stereotypical names such as Grey Wolf or White Eagle. It reeks of trying to give the Hopi a multicultural flavor--as if they represent all the "multicolored" tribes of the world. In other words, pure New Age claptrap.
FYI, real Hopi names include Honanie, Humetewa, Masayesva, Selestewa, Batala, Talayumptewa, and Keevama. You can see they follow a style that does not include English phrases such as "Sitting Bull" or "Crazy Horse." The "Many Colors" kind of name is found mostly among Plains tribes, not Southwestern tribes.
Michael and Mary materialize on the Hopi reservation--to find themselves in an Anasazi-style dwelling under a cliff. No. The Hopi's ancestors used to live in such dwellings, but that was 800 years ago. Such dwellings are uninhabited ruins now--protected and off-limits. And there are no ruins this well-preserved on the Hopi rez.
The whole concept conveys the unavoidable impression that the Hopi people are prehistoric, not modern. Even the furnishings visible in one panel--a wooden chair and cot--could be pre-modern. There's no hint that the Hopi have done anything since the 18th or 19th century.
Then Charlie, Michael, and Mary descend a ladder into what could be a giant underground kiva. Let's hope it isn't one, because that would be a gross violation of Hopi religion. No one's supposed to know what happens in a kiva except the Hopi themselves.
What they actually find isn't a Hopi shrine, but rather a warehouse of religious icons from around the world. Including an Aztec sun stone, a Plains headdress, and a phony totem pole:
The message is that non-Western and indigenous religions are somehow related--part of the "nexus" or "multiverse" or interdimensional whatever. That they're not complete, standalone religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Instead, these religions are exotic, unfathomable, and otherworldly--perhaps literally. They're part of some vast, mysterious, cosmic sphere beyond the comprehension of modern minds.
This is a classic New Age belief, and it's an insult to all these religions. They're not exotic or unfathomable to their adherents. They don't require blood or virgin sacrifices to demons in the middle of the night.
Really, they're no stranger than the religions we're familiar with. To hide them away in an underground vault as some sort of dark secret is badly stereotypical. It's an Indiana Jones mentality from the racist era of tomb-robbing--but people should know better in 2014.
In a later issue, a Hopi sun god (below) leads the other "ancient" gods in holding hands and singing "Kumbaya." Or something. But don't expect the Christian God to show up and join them. Unlike these "mythical" gods, he's "real."
As the kicker, Charlie mentions a Hopi legend that a "true white brother" will appear to lead the everyone into the light. Yes, it's the "white savior" complex, uttered explicitly by a Native character, in 2014. Save us, Great White Father and Jesus Christ substitute! Only you are strong and brave and true enough to conquer evil.
I believe the Hopi do have such a legend. But it's one of many legends, not all Hopi believe it, and they certainly don't emphasize it. Author Stuart Moore easily could've avoided it and chosen some other legend to use. Instead, he's invented a pretext for why a white men should lead the "Thirteen," who are mostly nonwhite characters from non-Western cultures. Another white American to the rescue...yay!
I get a strong impression that Moore knows little or nothing about Native cultures. He probably skimmed a couple of books or websites before putting together this muddled stew of Hopi and Native lore. The result isn't much different from what you could read in any bad comic from the mid-20th century. If the scary masked figures and statues came alive and tried to kill our heroes, I wouldn't be surprised.
Like the previous image, the scene below wasn't in the issue I read. But it tells you all you need to know about Moore's ignorance. A Hopi "shaman" in a Plains headdress fighting a demon with a tomahawk: pure supernatural pan-Indian stereotyping.
This is something I might've done in the first few months of putting together my Peace Party comics. But I soon realized how much I didn't know and kept studying. It was only after years of research that I felt I had a solid concept that didn't violate or trivialize the Hopi culture.
If I were Moore, I'd go back to the drawing board and start over. But he's invested too much time and energy in this venture to do that, of course. So we're left with another wrongheaded take on Native cultures in comics.
June 14, 2014
Churches call for Redskins boycott
Mid-Atlantic United Church of Christ leaders vote to boycott Redskins games and gear
By Theresa VargasThe United Church of Christ’s regional governing body has passed a resolution that calls on its members to do more than just speak against the name of the Washington Redskins—it asks them to boycott the football team.
The Central Atlantic Conference, which oversees 180 congregations with 40,000 members from Richmond to New Jersey, voted unanimously for a boycott of the team’s games and gear at its annual meeting Saturday in Newark, Del. The matter will now probably be brought to the national governing body of the church, which oversees 5,100 congregations with about 1 million members.
“I hope this debate will continue to draw attention to an unhealed wound in our cultural fabric,” Conference Minister John Deckenback said about the resolution’s passage. “Changing the name of the Washington NFL team will not solve the problems of our country’s many trails of broken promises and discriminatory isolation of our Native American communities. However, a change in the nation’s capital can send a strong message.”
The vote comes weeks after 50 U.S. senators signed a letter calling for a name change and during the same week that a California tribe paid for an anti-Redskins ad to run during television broadcasts of the National Basketball Association’s championship series in eight major cities. United Church of Christ Eastern Bloc Votes to Boycott ‘Redskins’The United Church of Christ’s Central Atlantic Conference passed a resolution calling for its members to boycott the Washington ‘Redskins’. The church’s 180 congregations and more than 40,000 local members were asked to refrain from supporting the team by buying its merchandise or going to any of the team’s games.
The Washington Post reported that the Conference voted unanimously for the boycott during its annual meeting Saturday in Newark, Delaware. “I hope this debate will continue to draw attention to an unhealed wound in our cultural fabric,” Conference Minister John Deckenback said in a news release. “Changing the name of the Washington NFL team will not solve the problems of our country’s many trails of broken promises and discriminatory isolation of our Native American communities. However, a change in the nation’s capital can send a strong message.”
The church’s central region includes congregations in Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and parts of Virginia and West Virginia. The matter will most likely be brought to the national governing body of the church, which oversees 5,100 congregations with about 1 million members, The Post reported.
Ray Halbritter, CEO of the Oneida Indian Nation, which created the Change the Mascot campaign, spoke to the conference members before they voted on Saturday. “It is truly an honor to partner with and have the support of the United Church of Christ, an organization that has such a historic record standing up for the cause of civil rights,” said Halbritter in a news release. “It is important to have the support of organizations like theirs as we work to relegate one of the last vestiges of racism to the historical scrap heap and come together to usher in an era where mutual respect finally becomes the norm, rather than the exception.” UCC Central Atlantic Conference Passes Resolution Calling for Washington NFL Team Name Change & Calls for Member Boycott
By Theresa Vargas
The Central Atlantic Conference, which oversees 180 congregations with 40,000 members from Richmond to New Jersey, voted unanimously for a boycott of the team’s games and gear at its annual meeting Saturday in Newark, Del. The matter will now probably be brought to the national governing body of the church, which oversees 5,100 congregations with about 1 million members.
“I hope this debate will continue to draw attention to an unhealed wound in our cultural fabric,” Conference Minister John Deckenback said about the resolution’s passage. “Changing the name of the Washington NFL team will not solve the problems of our country’s many trails of broken promises and discriminatory isolation of our Native American communities. However, a change in the nation’s capital can send a strong message.”
The vote comes weeks after 50 U.S. senators signed a letter calling for a name change and during the same week that a California tribe paid for an anti-Redskins ad to run during television broadcasts of the National Basketball Association’s championship series in eight major cities.
The Washington Post reported that the Conference voted unanimously for the boycott during its annual meeting Saturday in Newark, Delaware. “I hope this debate will continue to draw attention to an unhealed wound in our cultural fabric,” Conference Minister John Deckenback said in a news release. “Changing the name of the Washington NFL team will not solve the problems of our country’s many trails of broken promises and discriminatory isolation of our Native American communities. However, a change in the nation’s capital can send a strong message.”
The church’s central region includes congregations in Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and parts of Virginia and West Virginia. The matter will most likely be brought to the national governing body of the church, which oversees 5,100 congregations with about 1 million members, The Post reported.
Ray Halbritter, CEO of the Oneida Indian Nation, which created the Change the Mascot campaign, spoke to the conference members before they voted on Saturday. “It is truly an honor to partner with and have the support of the United Church of Christ, an organization that has such a historic record standing up for the cause of civil rights,” said Halbritter in a news release. “It is important to have the support of organizations like theirs as we work to relegate one of the last vestiges of racism to the historical scrap heap and come together to usher in an era where mutual respect finally becomes the norm, rather than the exception.”
June 13, 2014
Derek Royal reviews Scalped
After Gregory Burgas's review of Scalped, here's an academic take on it. This review also mentions my critique of it:
Native Noir: Genre and the Politics of Indigenous Representation in Recent American Comics
By Derek Parker RoyalMost reviewers have read Scalped within the context of crime fiction--"Sopranos on the rez," as many have called it--but perhaps a more precise way of reading the series is through the lens of noir fiction, a subgenre of crime and detective narrative. More than any comic discussed in this essay, Scalped bears the characteristic stamp of noir by almost anyone's definition. Dash Bad Horse is certainly a detecting figure, working not only to uncover the criminality of Chief Red Crow, but also to expose the amoral actions of Agent Nitz. Like many noir protagonists, he displays self-destructive tendencies--as evidenced by his growing heroin addiction--and becomes an unwitting victim of the world he inhabits. As the series evolves, Dash finds himself with shrinking options, trapped by the uncompromising demands of both Red Crow and Nitz. Against his better judgment, he is irresistibly drawn to the comic's femme fatale, Carol Ellroy, the promiscuous and drug-addicted daughter of Red Crow. She functions as a narrative doppelganger, since both of them are estranged from their one remaining parent--Dash's father and Carol's mother are introduced only in brief flashbacks--and both withdraw into themselves, and into their dysfunctional sexual relationship, as the pressures around them build. As such, the tone of the series is both alienating and claustrophobic--panels framing skewed angles and extreme close-ups are common throughout.
Guéra's art, gritty and saturated with dark, dull browns and blues, creates a foreboding atmosphere that parallels the sinister fate that seems to await all involved. Even the daylight scenes are illustrated as if under shadow. All in all, the series is one that resonates with the noir tradition established by such practitioners as Dashiell Hammett, James M. Cain, Raymond Chandler, and James Ellroy.
Yet, what is perhaps most significant about Scalped is its narrative use of indigenous predicaments as a way into the noir genre. More times than not--and as demonstrated by critics such as Sheyahshe, Pewewardy, and King--when not represented in the historical past and in Western settings, Native Americans are typecast as superheroes. And usually it is those characteristics most stereotyped, such a shamanistic connection to the spiritual world or the extraordinary ability to "read" nature, that find expression within that genre. Some even claim that Scalped, as is the case with many superhero comics, does harm to Native Americans by playing into common stereotypes. Schmidt, for example, condemns what he sees in the series as an "ultra-negative portrayal of life on the rez," "a grotesque look at reservation life," and a tendency to "tak[e] the worst possible scenario and presen[t] it as the norm." He bluntly concludes that "[t]o portray Indians worse than the reality isn't 'realistic.' It's a textbook example of unrealistic. Since [Scalped] reinforces a thousand previous portrayals of Indians as drunks, savages, and killers, it's stereotypical as well as unrealistic" (Scalped).
What is apparently at issue in Schmidt's critique is the need for verisimilitude. As with most studies on Native American comics, the assumption here is that the value of a comic should be based largely on the writer's and artist's accuracy of representation. That is, the more "true" one is in one's rendition of Native culture, the better the comic. But faithfully illustrating contemporary reservation life has never been Jason Aaron's primary concern. In his response to Schmidt's review--one that judged the new Vertigo series solely by its first issue--Aaron stated, "I'm not writing Scalped with any sort of agenda in mind, and I'm not nearly pretentious enough to think that I'm here to educate the country on the state of Native life." Instead, he set out to write "a crime series, so it's obviously going to focus on criminal elements" (qtd. in Schmidt, Scalped). Given Aaron's sentiments, the question then becomes, why base the crime (or noir) series in a reservation setting? Aaron has stated elsewhere that Native American history is "just one of those things I'd always read about, especially the American Indian movement and the Red Power movement of the '70s, and the Leonard Peltier story. So all that just kind of worked together with my desire to do a crime series. ... I wanted to do, like, a familiar genre, but something that was a little different" ("Sticking with Scalped"). In essence, the comic book has its genesis in Aaron's fascination with generic forms: "It all really came from me loving both westerns and crime stories and wanting to combine the two" (qtd. in Rozier).
Questions of ethnic stereotyping in Scalped are certainly open for discussion. Whether intended or not, Aaron's representation of indigenous contexts could strike some readers as unflattering or even insensitive, and this matter has sparked quite a bit of debate on blogs and networking sites devoted to comics and pop culture. Rob replies
A few points here:
It's quite common to review the first issue of a series, so let's not pretend it's something strange or unusual.
I addressed the issue of Jason Aaron's agenda when I wrote:Also, you've said in interviews that you want people to learn about conditions in Indian Country, or words to that effect. That again implies the situation in Prairie Rose is typical or representative. No, it isn't. Even if Aaron denied his own words and claimed Scalped was pure entertainment, it wouldn't change my point. Someone can have a conscious agenda or an unconscious one he isn't even aware of. For instance, gaining fame and fortune by portraying people in a dark, ugly way.
I'd say Aaron's agenda is something along those lines. He's exploiting Indians to tell tales of depravity and doom and score points with fans and critics. And I'm pointing out this exploitation.
Verisimilitude is an important factor in almost every kind of writing. In stories set in an unfamiliar place and time, it's imperative to make the setting realistic so people will suspend their disbelief. Even in pure fantasies, most things operate just as they do in the real world.
I don't think I've ever said verisimilitude is the primary factor in fiction--something that determines the "value of a comic." Rather, I expect the plots, characters, themes, settings, and other elements of fiction to work together to produce optimal stories. Verisimilitude is a thread that weaves through all these factors, strengthening and enriching them. Other things being equal, a believable story is almost always better than an unbelievable one.
Suppose we concede that "faithfully illustrating contemporary reservation life has never been Jason Aaron's primary concern." Not being faithful to reality means using racist and stereotypical tropes to tell one's fantasies of modern-day Indian savages. If we agree that Aaron is doing this, what's the problem? I say Aaron uses racist stereotypes and his defenders don't deny it. End of story?
You see, you can't have it both ways. Either Aaron is being "unfaithful" to reality and using negative stereotypes or he isn't. If he is, I'm criticizing him for it. Period.
False and stereotypical depictions of a particular race are racist by definition. Racist portrayals done in the name of art are still racist portrayals. I for one will never defend or excuse racism for any reason, including "art."
Any questions?
For more on Scalped, see "Native Spiritual Adviser" Warns Rob and Aaron on Ending Scalped.
Below: Chairman Red Crow shoots it out with Hmong gangsters for control of his casino? Because Indians are modern-day savages no different from the thieves and killers around them. And reservations are lawless hellholes akin to a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Native Noir: Genre and the Politics of Indigenous Representation in Recent American Comics
By Derek Parker Royal
Guéra's art, gritty and saturated with dark, dull browns and blues, creates a foreboding atmosphere that parallels the sinister fate that seems to await all involved. Even the daylight scenes are illustrated as if under shadow. All in all, the series is one that resonates with the noir tradition established by such practitioners as Dashiell Hammett, James M. Cain, Raymond Chandler, and James Ellroy.
Yet, what is perhaps most significant about Scalped is its narrative use of indigenous predicaments as a way into the noir genre. More times than not--and as demonstrated by critics such as Sheyahshe, Pewewardy, and King--when not represented in the historical past and in Western settings, Native Americans are typecast as superheroes. And usually it is those characteristics most stereotyped, such a shamanistic connection to the spiritual world or the extraordinary ability to "read" nature, that find expression within that genre. Some even claim that Scalped, as is the case with many superhero comics, does harm to Native Americans by playing into common stereotypes. Schmidt, for example, condemns what he sees in the series as an "ultra-negative portrayal of life on the rez," "a grotesque look at reservation life," and a tendency to "tak[e] the worst possible scenario and presen[t] it as the norm." He bluntly concludes that "[t]o portray Indians worse than the reality isn't 'realistic.' It's a textbook example of unrealistic. Since [Scalped] reinforces a thousand previous portrayals of Indians as drunks, savages, and killers, it's stereotypical as well as unrealistic" (Scalped).
What is apparently at issue in Schmidt's critique is the need for verisimilitude. As with most studies on Native American comics, the assumption here is that the value of a comic should be based largely on the writer's and artist's accuracy of representation. That is, the more "true" one is in one's rendition of Native culture, the better the comic. But faithfully illustrating contemporary reservation life has never been Jason Aaron's primary concern. In his response to Schmidt's review--one that judged the new Vertigo series solely by its first issue--Aaron stated, "I'm not writing Scalped with any sort of agenda in mind, and I'm not nearly pretentious enough to think that I'm here to educate the country on the state of Native life." Instead, he set out to write "a crime series, so it's obviously going to focus on criminal elements" (qtd. in Schmidt, Scalped). Given Aaron's sentiments, the question then becomes, why base the crime (or noir) series in a reservation setting? Aaron has stated elsewhere that Native American history is "just one of those things I'd always read about, especially the American Indian movement and the Red Power movement of the '70s, and the Leonard Peltier story. So all that just kind of worked together with my desire to do a crime series. ... I wanted to do, like, a familiar genre, but something that was a little different" ("Sticking with Scalped"). In essence, the comic book has its genesis in Aaron's fascination with generic forms: "It all really came from me loving both westerns and crime stories and wanting to combine the two" (qtd. in Rozier).
Questions of ethnic stereotyping in Scalped are certainly open for discussion. Whether intended or not, Aaron's representation of indigenous contexts could strike some readers as unflattering or even insensitive, and this matter has sparked quite a bit of debate on blogs and networking sites devoted to comics and pop culture.
A few points here:
I'd say Aaron's agenda is something along those lines. He's exploiting Indians to tell tales of depravity and doom and score points with fans and critics. And I'm pointing out this exploitation.
I don't think I've ever said verisimilitude is the primary factor in fiction--something that determines the "value of a comic." Rather, I expect the plots, characters, themes, settings, and other elements of fiction to work together to produce optimal stories. Verisimilitude is a thread that weaves through all these factors, strengthening and enriching them. Other things being equal, a believable story is almost always better than an unbelievable one.
You see, you can't have it both ways. Either Aaron is being "unfaithful" to reality and using negative stereotypes or he isn't. If he is, I'm criticizing him for it. Period.
False and stereotypical depictions of a particular race are racist by definition. Racist portrayals done in the name of art are still racist portrayals. I for one will never defend or excuse racism for any reason, including "art."
Any questions?
For more on Scalped, see "Native Spiritual Adviser" Warns Rob and Aaron on Ending Scalped.
Below: Chairman Red Crow shoots it out with Hmong gangsters for control of his casino? Because Indians are modern-day savages no different from the thieves and killers around them. And reservations are lawless hellholes akin to a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
June 12, 2014
Bailey, Tyson condemn "Redskins"
Champ Bailey: Controversial ‘Redskins’ name like N-word
By Jarrett BellCount Champ Bailey amid the growing number of people who believe that it is time for Washington’s NFL franchise to change its controversial name.
The New Orleans Saints veteran cornerback, who broke into the NFL as Washington’s first-round pick in 1999, told USA TODAY Sports that the racial insensitivity of the word “Redskins” is reason enough for the team to make the bold move of changing the name.
“When you hear a Native American say that ‘Redskins’ is degrading, it’s almost like the N-word for a black person,” Bailey told USA TODAY Sports. “If they feel that way, then it’s not right. They are part of this country. It’s degrading to a certain race. Does it make sense to have the name?”
Bailey, a 16th-year veteran with 12 Pro Bowl selections on his resume, is one of the most prominent NFL players to take a stand on the polarizing issue. Mike Tyson: What's the Difference Between Washington 'Redskins' and 'Black C**ns'?The Washington "Redskins" is no less offensive than a team name like the Washington "Black Coons," said Mike Tyson at a Turning Stone Casino Resort event on June 5.
Tyson was at Turning Stone last week for several events, including “Kings of the Ring: A Conversation with Mike Tyson and Larry Holmes” on June 4, and ESPN Friday Night Fights, promoted by Iron Mike Productions, on June 6.
Watch a video of Tyson discussing the need to end the use of the racial slur “redskins” as the mascot and name of the NFL team:
Tyson, a former heavyweight champion and International Boxing Hall of Fame member, debuted as a professional promoter during the 2013 season finale of ESPN’s Friday Night Fights. The legendary fighter has strong roots in Upstate New York, having trained with the late Cus D'Amato in Catskill as a teenager, and has established Turning Stone as his hometown ring.
By Jarrett Bell
The New Orleans Saints veteran cornerback, who broke into the NFL as Washington’s first-round pick in 1999, told USA TODAY Sports that the racial insensitivity of the word “Redskins” is reason enough for the team to make the bold move of changing the name.
“When you hear a Native American say that ‘Redskins’ is degrading, it’s almost like the N-word for a black person,” Bailey told USA TODAY Sports. “If they feel that way, then it’s not right. They are part of this country. It’s degrading to a certain race. Does it make sense to have the name?”
Bailey, a 16th-year veteran with 12 Pro Bowl selections on his resume, is one of the most prominent NFL players to take a stand on the polarizing issue.
Tyson was at Turning Stone last week for several events, including “Kings of the Ring: A Conversation with Mike Tyson and Larry Holmes” on June 4, and ESPN Friday Night Fights, promoted by Iron Mike Productions, on June 6.
Watch a video of Tyson discussing the need to end the use of the racial slur “redskins” as the mascot and name of the NFL team:
Tyson, a former heavyweight champion and International Boxing Hall of Fame member, debuted as a professional promoter during the 2013 season finale of ESPN’s Friday Night Fights. The legendary fighter has strong roots in Upstate New York, having trained with the late Cus D'Amato in Catskill as a teenager, and has established Turning Stone as his hometown ring.
June 11, 2014
Right-wingers ignore right-wing terrorists
How Republicans react to the right-wing terrorism they've fomented:
Home-Grown, Right-Wing Terrorism: The Hate the GOP Refuses to See
As the Las Vegas shootings show, right-wing extremism is real and on the rise. But for Republicans, better to focus on the Muslims.
By Dean ObeidallahRemember in 2009, right at the start of the Obama era, when then-Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a report (PDF) entitled: “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”? The report was truly prescient. It alerted us to the rise of right-wing extremism, such as from white supremacist groups, and warned that unchecked, it could lead to violence.
How did Republicans respond? They went ballistic attacking the report. John Boehner was especially upset that Napolitano would use the term “terrorist” to “describe American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation,” adding, “using such broad-based generalizations about the American people is simply outrageous.”
Well, what have we seen since 2010? An explosion in the number of hate groups and a rash of domestic terrorist acts committed by those very right-wing groups Napolitano warned us about. Per the Southern Poverty Law Center, since 2010, there have been 32 instances of terrorism by far-right groups—that equals eight attacks per year. And:So how have Republicans responded to the rise of attacks by right-wing groups? By ignoring it and keeping their focus on foreign terrorists and Muslim-Americans. Perhaps the Republican members of Congress would find it instructive to reread the oath they took upon being sworn into office that provides in part: “I do solemnly swear to defend the United States…against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
I’m sure they are fully aware of these words. The actual reason Republicans won’t investigate right-wing extremists is that it would not only anger their base, it would actually indict some parts of it. Let’s be honest: In a time when establishment Republicans are concerned about getting challenged in primaries by more conservative Tea Party types, calling for hearings to investigate right-wing organizations could be political suicide. How Fox News Covers Right-Wing Cop Killers
When Political Violence Doesn't Warrant Collective Blame
By Eric BoehlertThe chilling details of Sunday's Las Vegas ambush produced public shock and intense media coverage. One major news outlet seemed to lag behind, though: Fox News.
Primetime hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity both ignored the shocking cop-killer story last night, while Megyn Kelly devoted four sentences to it. (By contrast, the story covered extensively during CNN and MSNBC's primetime.) Fox talkers on Monday were still far more interested in debating the prisoner swap of Bowe Bergdahl than they were examining the political ambush in Las Vegas.
For Fox News, the Las Vegas killing spree represents a toxic mix of guns, far-right insurrectionism, tea party implications, and the Cliven Bundy ranch standoff. For Fox News, the story about right-wing gun violence and the seeds of a bloody political revolution present all kinds of problems for the channel and its outspoken hosts, some of whom have previously championed limitless gun rights, insurrectionism, the Tea Party, and racist rancher Bundy.
In the 36 hours after the shooting, Fox News tread lightly around the Las Vegas story, producing regular news updates about the crime spree. But Fox provided almost no commentary, no context, and certainly no collective blame for the executions.
And that's how Fox News deals with right-wing domestic terrorism in America, when it even bothers to acknowledge the killings and the crimes. (The channel barely covered Georgia's courthouse siege last week.) At Fox, the deadly and disturbing events are treated as isolated incidents that are mostly void of politics. And more importantly, on Fox the perpetrators are always portrayed as lone gunmen (and women) who do not represent any cultural or political movement.
But when Fox covers breaking U.S. news events involving terror acts by Arabs or Muslims? Recall that in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing last year it was a Fox talker who suggested American mosques be bugged and other Constitutional rights for Muslims be eliminated. And it was on Fox that viewers were told, "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." It's where there was a concerted effort to blame the larger Muslim community for the isolated event.
The obvious double standard is not only unfair but it's misguided, as homegrown right-wing terrorists in America have proven to be a deadlier threat over the last decade. As CNN's Peter Bergen reported earlier this year, since 9/11, "extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology." 
Fox News Has Ceased Coverage of Las Vegas Tea Party Cop Killers
By Mark NCFox has replaced the Sunday massacre with older stories about the Bergdahl prisoner swap, the Veterans Administration, and Hillary Clinton’s book release and presidential aspirations. The producers and editors at Fox News have never been shy about reporting acts of alleged terrorism, even before any evidence has emerged. But for this story they have refused to even refer to the crime as terrorism. There are some obvious reasons why Fox would skew their reporting and ultimately remove this story from their news coverage. And all of them represent biases that are a long-standing part of what can be called the Fox News Creed.
First of all, the perpetrators are not who Fox’s racist producers typically profile as terrorists. Rather than being brown-skinned, Muslim, foreigners, the Millers are white Christians from Indiana. So not only would it run counter to Fox’s philosophy to implicate the Millers in terrorism, it would offend their 90% white, right-wing audience.
Secondly, the issue raises concerns about access to dangerous firearms. The NRA constituency at Fox is loathe to focus on such events that make the public uncomfortable with the wild west society that is favored by the gun fetishists and right-wingers who program and watch the network. Fox avoids or downplays most stories about gun violence, but jumps on any report that they can frame as an Obama attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.
Thirdly, Fox is well known for promoting some of the very same political ideologies as the Millers. They have featured guests who advocate secession from the United States, as well as armed resistance to federal law and authorities. An example of that is the recent Cliven Bundy affair where Jerad Miller just happened to show up threatening to use “the language of violence” against representatives of the Bureau of Land Management. Fox has also hyped Republican leaders, like Texas governor Rick Perry, who have made public statements that come just short of declaring secession.
Finally, the Millers’ association with Tea Party groups is something that Fox will work vigorously to excise from the public discourse. The Millers were supporters of the biggest Koch brothers-bankrolled Tea Party organizations (Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks), and openly espoused their anti-government views. It was only a matter of time before people who came to rallies with signs that said “We Came Unarmed--THIS TIME,” would keep their promise of violence. Of course, Fox News also supports the same groups and views, and has been instrumental in creating and promoting the Tea Party. In fact, there would be no Tea Party without Fox News. Consequently, Fox is not going to risk alienating such a critical part of their audience. CNN is almost as bad as Fox News. It's part of the conservative mainstream media that doesn't want to anger the Republican Tea Party by calling right-wing terrorists what they are.
Why Is Cable Television So Afraid to Admit That Many of America's Terror Attacks Are Right-Wing?
CNN is afraid to call a major social threat by its real name.
By CJ WerlemanFielder told NBC News she had heard Jared Miller make anti-government statements in the past—including a desire to overthrow the government and President Obama and kill police officers—but was not alarmed by them.
It takes no degree of sophisticated insightfulness to conclude the obvious: that the Millers are right-wing extremists, identifying with Tea Party anti-government views. It’s also reported that the Millers were among those in attendance at the Cliven Bundy ranch, when right-wing extremists, egged on by Fox News, pointed assault rifles at U.S. federal agents.
But don’t expect CNN to include the prefix “right-wing” to the use of the word extremism or terrorism, for their, and the mainstream media’s, fear of the right-wing hysteria machine is ever present and always palpable. In fact, CNN refused to identify the Tea Party flag. Dan Simon of CNN went so far as to avoid the far right’s wrath that he said the killers “left behind some type of flag with some kind of insignia.” The cable network’s 24/7 ticker feed reads, “Killers had extremist views.”
No, CNN, the killers had RIGHT-WING extremist views. That is established and clearly evident. Wolf Blitzer asked a guest, “What kind of anti-government groups are associated with this type of extremism?” Again, that much is obvious. The right-wing of today’s Republican Party is in itself an anti-government group, and has been ever since Goldwater Republicans became the loudest voice in the GOP’s shrinking tent, culminating with Reagan’s, “Government is not part of the solution. Government is the problem.” Comment: For more on conservatives and terrorism, see Right-Wing Terrorism Worse Than Jihadism and Report Documents Right-Wing Terrorism.
Home-Grown, Right-Wing Terrorism: The Hate the GOP Refuses to See
As the Las Vegas shootings show, right-wing extremism is real and on the rise. But for Republicans, better to focus on the Muslims.
By Dean Obeidallah
How did Republicans respond? They went ballistic attacking the report. John Boehner was especially upset that Napolitano would use the term “terrorist” to “describe American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation,” adding, “using such broad-based generalizations about the American people is simply outrageous.”
Well, what have we seen since 2010? An explosion in the number of hate groups and a rash of domestic terrorist acts committed by those very right-wing groups Napolitano warned us about. Per the Southern Poverty Law Center, since 2010, there have been 32 instances of terrorism by far-right groups—that equals eight attacks per year.
I’m sure they are fully aware of these words. The actual reason Republicans won’t investigate right-wing extremists is that it would not only anger their base, it would actually indict some parts of it. Let’s be honest: In a time when establishment Republicans are concerned about getting challenged in primaries by more conservative Tea Party types, calling for hearings to investigate right-wing organizations could be political suicide.
When Political Violence Doesn't Warrant Collective Blame
By Eric Boehlert
Primetime hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity both ignored the shocking cop-killer story last night, while Megyn Kelly devoted four sentences to it. (By contrast, the story covered extensively during CNN and MSNBC's primetime.) Fox talkers on Monday were still far more interested in debating the prisoner swap of Bowe Bergdahl than they were examining the political ambush in Las Vegas.
For Fox News, the Las Vegas killing spree represents a toxic mix of guns, far-right insurrectionism, tea party implications, and the Cliven Bundy ranch standoff. For Fox News, the story about right-wing gun violence and the seeds of a bloody political revolution present all kinds of problems for the channel and its outspoken hosts, some of whom have previously championed limitless gun rights, insurrectionism, the Tea Party, and racist rancher Bundy.
In the 36 hours after the shooting, Fox News tread lightly around the Las Vegas story, producing regular news updates about the crime spree. But Fox provided almost no commentary, no context, and certainly no collective blame for the executions.
And that's how Fox News deals with right-wing domestic terrorism in America, when it even bothers to acknowledge the killings and the crimes. (The channel barely covered Georgia's courthouse siege last week.) At Fox, the deadly and disturbing events are treated as isolated incidents that are mostly void of politics. And more importantly, on Fox the perpetrators are always portrayed as lone gunmen (and women) who do not represent any cultural or political movement.
But when Fox covers breaking U.S. news events involving terror acts by Arabs or Muslims? Recall that in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing last year it was a Fox talker who suggested American mosques be bugged and other Constitutional rights for Muslims be eliminated. And it was on Fox that viewers were told, "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." It's where there was a concerted effort to blame the larger Muslim community for the isolated event.
The obvious double standard is not only unfair but it's misguided, as homegrown right-wing terrorists in America have proven to be a deadlier threat over the last decade. As CNN's Peter Bergen reported earlier this year, since 9/11, "extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology."
Fox News Has Ceased Coverage of Las Vegas Tea Party Cop Killers
By Mark NC
First of all, the perpetrators are not who Fox’s racist producers typically profile as terrorists. Rather than being brown-skinned, Muslim, foreigners, the Millers are white Christians from Indiana. So not only would it run counter to Fox’s philosophy to implicate the Millers in terrorism, it would offend their 90% white, right-wing audience.
Secondly, the issue raises concerns about access to dangerous firearms. The NRA constituency at Fox is loathe to focus on such events that make the public uncomfortable with the wild west society that is favored by the gun fetishists and right-wingers who program and watch the network. Fox avoids or downplays most stories about gun violence, but jumps on any report that they can frame as an Obama attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.
Thirdly, Fox is well known for promoting some of the very same political ideologies as the Millers. They have featured guests who advocate secession from the United States, as well as armed resistance to federal law and authorities. An example of that is the recent Cliven Bundy affair where Jerad Miller just happened to show up threatening to use “the language of violence” against representatives of the Bureau of Land Management. Fox has also hyped Republican leaders, like Texas governor Rick Perry, who have made public statements that come just short of declaring secession.
Finally, the Millers’ association with Tea Party groups is something that Fox will work vigorously to excise from the public discourse. The Millers were supporters of the biggest Koch brothers-bankrolled Tea Party organizations (Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks), and openly espoused their anti-government views. It was only a matter of time before people who came to rallies with signs that said “We Came Unarmed--THIS TIME,” would keep their promise of violence. Of course, Fox News also supports the same groups and views, and has been instrumental in creating and promoting the Tea Party. In fact, there would be no Tea Party without Fox News. Consequently, Fox is not going to risk alienating such a critical part of their audience.
Why Is Cable Television So Afraid to Admit That Many of America's Terror Attacks Are Right-Wing?
CNN is afraid to call a major social threat by its real name.
By CJ Werleman
It takes no degree of sophisticated insightfulness to conclude the obvious: that the Millers are right-wing extremists, identifying with Tea Party anti-government views. It’s also reported that the Millers were among those in attendance at the Cliven Bundy ranch, when right-wing extremists, egged on by Fox News, pointed assault rifles at U.S. federal agents.
But don’t expect CNN to include the prefix “right-wing” to the use of the word extremism or terrorism, for their, and the mainstream media’s, fear of the right-wing hysteria machine is ever present and always palpable. In fact, CNN refused to identify the Tea Party flag. Dan Simon of CNN went so far as to avoid the far right’s wrath that he said the killers “left behind some type of flag with some kind of insignia.” The cable network’s 24/7 ticker feed reads, “Killers had extremist views.”
No, CNN, the killers had RIGHT-WING extremist views. That is established and clearly evident. Wolf Blitzer asked a guest, “What kind of anti-government groups are associated with this type of extremism?” Again, that much is obvious. The right-wing of today’s Republican Party is in itself an anti-government group, and has been ever since Goldwater Republicans became the loudest voice in the GOP’s shrinking tent, culminating with Reagan’s, “Government is not part of the solution. Government is the problem.”
Tamara Johnson ad sparks outrage
Tamara Johnson election ad 'shocks' Anishinabek Nation
Chronicle Journal defends 'business relationship' with advertisersA full page Thunder Bay newspaper ad that appears to take aim at First Nations' treaty rights is sparking some outrage.
The ad, published in the Tuesday Chronicle-Journal by Libertarian candidate Tamara Johnson, has left some questioning why the paper agreed to run it.
"When I see things like that, it's just, it's stunning,” said Anishinabek Nation communications director Maurice Switzer.
Statements in the ad include: "Crown lands are public lands. Not native lands." "Help me stop this doctrine of entitlement." Letter to the Thunder Bay Chronicle-JournalThis morning I read the following comments from your publisher on the CBC website:
“It’s important that we inform the public what … [the candidates'] opinions are … and when it’s advertising, it’s a business relationship. They write an ad and they let the community know what it is that they believe in.”
I understand and support wanting to provide accurate information of candidate’s opinion on a variety of platforms. I also understand that the advertising component is a business. However, I feel that media organizations have a responsibility in public trust.
The OPC (Ontario Press Council: Defending principles to inspire public trust) does list the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal as a news organization/member. Earlier today I took a look at the OPC website, as it pertains to advertising. In addition to the OPC viewing media organizations as a businesses, the website notes “As it considers it appropriate for media organizations to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions, no matter how controversial or unpopular, it believes it is only fair to extend such latitude to individuals who may wish to exercise it through advertising provided it does not generate hatred against another a person or group.” (http://ontpress.com/)
This is where the ad hits home for me. Many of the statements in the ad do generate hatred toward another group. The statements perpetuate stereotypes that continue to cause divide in Canadian society. The ad clearly gives the general impression that it is based on factual information. A subsequent reaction:
Mayor Keith Hobbs calls Tamara Johnson's statements 'disgusting'
Thunder Bay mayor says he categorically rejects “damaging statements" made by Libertarian candidate“We have no room for that,” Hobbs said during an interview with Superior North radio show host Lisa Laco.
When asked about Johnston's Facebook page, where she and others have posted negative comments about Aboriginal people, Hobbs said, "I'll be quite blunt. I thought it was disgusting what she said."
Hobbs said the city has "done a lot of work ... with our respect campaign, Diversity Thunder Bay, [and] our race relations. We're making great strides and then you can have one person tear that down in an ad. We have a lot more work to do in the city obviously.”
Hobbs says it's shocking Johnson received as many votes as she did, "and that people got up and left their homes in the rain and voted for that kind of platform."
Johnson received 922 votes in Thursday's provincial election. Green Party candidate Joseph LeBlanc received 993, Conservative Derek Park received 985, New Democrat Andrew Foulds received 8,144 and Liberal Michael Gravelle received 15,503. Comment: As always, treaty rights are concessions given by one government to another via negotiations. They're a trade--some rights for others--not a gift. And they're based on a political relationship, not race.
For more on Native "special rights," see Resisting "Special Treatment" for Indians and Non-Indians Complain About Inequalities.
Chronicle Journal defends 'business relationship' with advertisers
The ad, published in the Tuesday Chronicle-Journal by Libertarian candidate Tamara Johnson, has left some questioning why the paper agreed to run it.
"When I see things like that, it's just, it's stunning,” said Anishinabek Nation communications director Maurice Switzer.
Statements in the ad include: "Crown lands are public lands. Not native lands." "Help me stop this doctrine of entitlement."
“It’s important that we inform the public what … [the candidates'] opinions are … and when it’s advertising, it’s a business relationship. They write an ad and they let the community know what it is that they believe in.”
I understand and support wanting to provide accurate information of candidate’s opinion on a variety of platforms. I also understand that the advertising component is a business. However, I feel that media organizations have a responsibility in public trust.
The OPC (Ontario Press Council: Defending principles to inspire public trust) does list the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal as a news organization/member. Earlier today I took a look at the OPC website, as it pertains to advertising. In addition to the OPC viewing media organizations as a businesses, the website notes “As it considers it appropriate for media organizations to exercise wide latitude in expressing their opinions, no matter how controversial or unpopular, it believes it is only fair to extend such latitude to individuals who may wish to exercise it through advertising provided it does not generate hatred against another a person or group.” (http://ontpress.com/)
This is where the ad hits home for me. Many of the statements in the ad do generate hatred toward another group. The statements perpetuate stereotypes that continue to cause divide in Canadian society. The ad clearly gives the general impression that it is based on factual information.
Mayor Keith Hobbs calls Tamara Johnson's statements 'disgusting'
Thunder Bay mayor says he categorically rejects “damaging statements" made by Libertarian candidate
When asked about Johnston's Facebook page, where she and others have posted negative comments about Aboriginal people, Hobbs said, "I'll be quite blunt. I thought it was disgusting what she said."
Hobbs said the city has "done a lot of work ... with our respect campaign, Diversity Thunder Bay, [and] our race relations. We're making great strides and then you can have one person tear that down in an ad. We have a lot more work to do in the city obviously.”
Hobbs says it's shocking Johnson received as many votes as she did, "and that people got up and left their homes in the rain and voted for that kind of platform."
Johnson received 922 votes in Thursday's provincial election. Green Party candidate Joseph LeBlanc received 993, Conservative Derek Park received 985, New Democrat Andrew Foulds received 8,144 and Liberal Michael Gravelle received 15,503.
For more on Native "special rights," see Resisting "Special Treatment" for Indians and Non-Indians Complain About Inequalities.
June 10, 2014
Anti-Redskins ad airs during NBA finals
Anti-Redskins ad airing during NBA Finals
By Theresa VargasWhen sports fans tuned into the NBA finals Tuesday night to see the San Antonio Spurs take on the Miami Heat, they got a look into another fierce standoff.
A California tribe paid for the anti-Redskins advertisement “Proud to Be” to run in seven major cities during halftime. The airing marked the first time the ad, which initially appeared online in time for the Super Bowl, had run before such a wide television audience.
The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, based about an hour northeast of San Francisco, would not say how much it spent for the coveted advertising slot, only that it was a “significant investment” that was deemed necessary to further what its leaders describe as an important discussion of racism.
“It’s just a time to get people thinking about putting an end to outward hatred and using sports as a tool to focus on racism,” Marshall McKay, chairman of the Yocha Dehe Wintun tribal council, said in a video explaining the tribe’s involvement in the name controversy. Native Americans in metro support anti-Redskins TV commercials
By Sean McDowellDoctor Wildcat says the Kansas City Chiefs nickname is also potentially offensive, but to a lesser degree than the Washington name, because it doesn’t refer directly to the color of a person’s skin.
Professor Rhonda LeValdo also teaches at Haskell University, and has been an activist seeking change to sports names that refer to Native Americans. She believes the ads spread awareness, and from her viewpoint, common sense.
“I think it’s important to help non-native people understand how this word is demeaning to our people,” LeValdo said. “Just by explaining that, you’re educating a whole group of people as to why that word is offensive.”
Both professors say they hope the ads bring attention to practices like the ‘tomahawk chop,’ which Wildcat says is inherently offensive to his culture. In fact, Dr. Wildcat says so many of those instances have sprung up in sports, that he’s stopped watching the National Football League altogether. Brilliant Ad Protesting the Redskins Nickname Airs During the NBA Finals
Evocative, soulful, unsparing
By David GianatasioLast year, the Oneida Nation produced a series of pointed, high-profile radio ads on the subject, and the timing of the Yocha Dehe Wintun TV buy, against the backdrop of the Donald Sterling racism scandal, adds significant fuel to the fire.
You know what else Native Americans are? Media savvy, and skillful at playing the PR game. Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who famously told USA Today he'd never change the name—"NEVER. You can use caps"—looks more tone-deaf, mean-spirited and, in the eyes of some, flat-out racist the longer he holds the line. A Redskins rep declined to comment for this post, but Snyder has steadfastly maintained the name is not offensive but a badge of honor, and respectful of Native Americans.
Even if that's what Snyder and many die-hard fans truly believe, bad feelings will fester the longer this drags on. With each NFL season, we'll get more parking-lot protests at Redskins games, more commentators parsing the controversy on halftime shows and more indignant sports columnists who refer to the club as the R*dskins or "The Washington Football Team."
Ultimately, Snyder will be remembered as the villain, a guy who fumbled an opportunity to stand up for change and perhaps inspire a new generation—a legacy he could have been proud of. Why a Northern California Tribe spent millions on an anti-Redskins ad during the NBA Finals
By Stephen MagagniniThe “Change The Mascot!” ad was created by the National Congress of American Indians, which has been pushing to change the name of the Washington Redskins for nearly 30 years. The congress had intended to run the ad during the Super Bowl, but encountered financial problems. The wealthy Yocha Dehe tribe agreed to step in.
“By then, it happened to be basketball season,” McKay said.
He declined to divulge how much his tribe spent, other than to say the amount was “substantial.” The ad first ran in the Miami market during halftime of Sunday’s second game of the NBA Finals, then aired in Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Dallas and Chicago during the third game.
“I just want people to be aware of the feeling native people get when they hear the word, and to share the knowledge of its history and meaning so people can make their own decisions whether they want to continue to use it,” McKay said. “Hopefully the owner of the team will consider changing the name.”
By Wednesday afternoon, the ad had racked up more than 2.5 million views on YouTube, in addition to the millions of NBA fans who saw it on television. An excerpt from another posting shows how cartoonish Indian mascots dehumanize real Indians, leading to profound ignorance about said Indians.
Understand The Context Of Stirring Video Urging Redskins To Change Their Name
By Jeffrey EisenbandSometimes the toughest part of the struggle is just getting people to understand the historical context. Kohler recalls an incident when his daughter was 6, and the family ate in a Burger King in Napa, Calif. A group of teenagers from a rival of Napa High School walked in. The students were wearing shirts with a depiction of a steamroller flattening Indians, the namesake for Napa High School's athletic teams. Above the bloody bodies read, "Crush the Indians."
"My wife went over and sat next to them," Kohler said. "She said, 'What does that mean on your shirt?' And she pointed over to where my daughter and I were sitting, and she said, 'You see that little girl?' She said, 'Why are they killing all the Indians?'"
The teenagers claimed the shirts were part of their spirit day and they did not even know Native Americans were still around.
By Theresa Vargas
A California tribe paid for the anti-Redskins advertisement “Proud to Be” to run in seven major cities during halftime. The airing marked the first time the ad, which initially appeared online in time for the Super Bowl, had run before such a wide television audience.
The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, based about an hour northeast of San Francisco, would not say how much it spent for the coveted advertising slot, only that it was a “significant investment” that was deemed necessary to further what its leaders describe as an important discussion of racism.
“It’s just a time to get people thinking about putting an end to outward hatred and using sports as a tool to focus on racism,” Marshall McKay, chairman of the Yocha Dehe Wintun tribal council, said in a video explaining the tribe’s involvement in the name controversy.
By Sean McDowell
Professor Rhonda LeValdo also teaches at Haskell University, and has been an activist seeking change to sports names that refer to Native Americans. She believes the ads spread awareness, and from her viewpoint, common sense.
“I think it’s important to help non-native people understand how this word is demeaning to our people,” LeValdo said. “Just by explaining that, you’re educating a whole group of people as to why that word is offensive.”
Both professors say they hope the ads bring attention to practices like the ‘tomahawk chop,’ which Wildcat says is inherently offensive to his culture. In fact, Dr. Wildcat says so many of those instances have sprung up in sports, that he’s stopped watching the National Football League altogether.
Evocative, soulful, unsparing
By David Gianatasio
You know what else Native Americans are? Media savvy, and skillful at playing the PR game. Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who famously told USA Today he'd never change the name—"NEVER. You can use caps"—looks more tone-deaf, mean-spirited and, in the eyes of some, flat-out racist the longer he holds the line. A Redskins rep declined to comment for this post, but Snyder has steadfastly maintained the name is not offensive but a badge of honor, and respectful of Native Americans.
Even if that's what Snyder and many die-hard fans truly believe, bad feelings will fester the longer this drags on. With each NFL season, we'll get more parking-lot protests at Redskins games, more commentators parsing the controversy on halftime shows and more indignant sports columnists who refer to the club as the R*dskins or "The Washington Football Team."
Ultimately, Snyder will be remembered as the villain, a guy who fumbled an opportunity to stand up for change and perhaps inspire a new generation—a legacy he could have been proud of.
By Stephen Magagnini
“By then, it happened to be basketball season,” McKay said.
He declined to divulge how much his tribe spent, other than to say the amount was “substantial.” The ad first ran in the Miami market during halftime of Sunday’s second game of the NBA Finals, then aired in Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Dallas and Chicago during the third game.
“I just want people to be aware of the feeling native people get when they hear the word, and to share the knowledge of its history and meaning so people can make their own decisions whether they want to continue to use it,” McKay said. “Hopefully the owner of the team will consider changing the name.”
By Wednesday afternoon, the ad had racked up more than 2.5 million views on YouTube, in addition to the millions of NBA fans who saw it on television.
Understand The Context Of Stirring Video Urging Redskins To Change Their Name
By Jeffrey Eisenband
"My wife went over and sat next to them," Kohler said. "She said, 'What does that mean on your shirt?' And she pointed over to where my daughter and I were sitting, and she said, 'You see that little girl?' She said, 'Why are they killing all the Indians?'"
The teenagers claimed the shirts were part of their spirit day and they did not even know Native Americans were still around.
Jena Malone sings Indian Giver
Somebody Tell Jena Malone 'Indian Giver' Is a Racist TermActress and musician Jena Malone (as Jena Malone and The Shoe) has released a preview clip of her single for the celebrity-watching site JustJared, and it's the sort of cultural fumble likely to land her in quite a bit of trouble. She has entitled the song "Indian Giver."
As Crushable put it, the title is "a phrase she really should have Googled." Malone's most recent film work of note includes Sucker Punch, the TV miniseries Hatfields & McCoys, and a recurring role in the Hunger Games movies.
ICTMN's own Vincent Schilling wrote (in "What or Who Is an Indian Giver? A History of the Offensive Term") that the phrase dates back at least a century and a half, and is tied to the idea that the Indians encountered by Lewis and Clark and other exploers/invaders were unfair barterers. Really? We recall someone getting an unbeatable deal--you might call it a steal--on the island of Mannahatta and more than a few broken treaties and forced relocations. It's hard to think of a less accurate generalization, really.
In using the blatantly racist term without hesitation, Malone joins the ranks of Matt Lauer, Kris Jenner, Rush Limbaugh, and the 1910 Fruitgum Company. Comment: For more on "Indian giver," see Origin of "Indian Giver" and Limbaugh Calls Warren "Squaw Indian Giver."
As Crushable put it, the title is "a phrase she really should have Googled." Malone's most recent film work of note includes Sucker Punch, the TV miniseries Hatfields & McCoys, and a recurring role in the Hunger Games movies.
ICTMN's own Vincent Schilling wrote (in "What or Who Is an Indian Giver? A History of the Offensive Term") that the phrase dates back at least a century and a half, and is tied to the idea that the Indians encountered by Lewis and Clark and other exploers/invaders were unfair barterers. Really? We recall someone getting an unbeatable deal--you might call it a steal--on the island of Mannahatta and more than a few broken treaties and forced relocations. It's hard to think of a less accurate generalization, really.
In using the blatantly racist term without hesitation, Malone joins the ranks of Matt Lauer, Kris Jenner, Rush Limbaugh, and the 1910 Fruitgum Company.
June 09, 2014
Right-wingers create right-wing terrorists
Some analyses of Jared and Amanda Miller's right-wing domestic terrorism:
Hatriot Politics Created the Las Vegas Killers
Jerad and Amanda Miller, the Wingnuts whose killing spree left two policemen, a civilian, and themselves dead, were inspired by fright-wing radio hosts and militia movement groups.
By John AvlonJerad Miller’s anti-government frenzy was whipped up by the extreme right-wing echo chamber. Earlier this year, Miller responded to calls to stand with Cliven Bundy and declared common cause with the renegade rancher. “I will be supporting Clive Bundy and his family from Federal Government slaughter,” he wrote. “This is the next Waco! His ranch is under siege right now! The federal gov is stealing his cattle! Arresting his family and beating on them! We must do something, I will be doing something.” When Miller returned from Bundy’s ranch, he posted that “BLM [Bureau of Land Management] snipers were all over the place.”
Miller’s anti-government rants ramped up after he served seven days in jail for a pot-related conviction. After his sentencing in 2013, he proudly posted: “Mark one up for freedom today. I stood before a fascist judge today and implied that he was a Nazi.”
According to Amanda Miller’s Facebook page, she worked at the Hobby Lobby as head of the needlework department. (Hobby Lobby has been embroiled in a faith-based lawsuit over covering contraception as part of the Affordable Care Act.) In addition to dressing as The Joker and his date for a Halloween party and exchanging gun-related gifts, the couple’s favorite book according their Facebook page was the Bible. They apparently skipped over some key sections, such as the New Testament. And:[I]n the Las Vegas case, the extremist political fingerprints are clear. Jerad Miller was a product of his environment, the unhinged right-wing echo chamber and its constant drumbeat about government tyranny being imposed on freedom-loving citizens. “Either you stand with freedom, or you side with tyranny,” Miller wrote on his Facebook page in March. “There is no middle ground. We have deluded ourselves into such a notion. There is no grey area.”
Miller was a vocal supporter of libertarian Ron Paul, posting during the fall of 2012: “Ron Paul is the only hope for america and we have all failed him, our children and our grandchildren by failing to demand fair coverage of all presidential candidates. Today and everyday that passes by our country falls deeper into the clutches of fascist hands. Hope you wake up before its to late, hell, it may already be to late.”
Miller reposted articles from Alex Jones’s InfoWars website, promoted slogans about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives being a domestic terrorist organization, and was deeply into Second Amendment advocacy organizations. Significantly down the political food chain, Miller also seemed to identify with the sovereign citizens movement and the Three Percenters organization, whose founder Mike Vanderboegh’s homepage warns, “All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war.” Meet the Right-Wing Tea Party Domestic Terrorists Who Wanted to Start a ‘Revolution’ (Screenshots)
By John PragerHis Facebook Likes include the Three Percenter Nation, the leader of which recently threatened to remove Harry Reid’s testicles and promised civil war–twice, the NRA, the failure known as Operation American Spring, conservative think-tank FreedomWorks, and a number of pro-Second Amendment pages.
Miller’s profile picture is that of right-wing Facebook page, Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children, one of the many conservative bastion of racism and hatred on the Internet—and a group that was largely behind the miserable abyss of humiliation that was Operation American Spring.
Interestingly, the man who incoherently screamed “WHERE ARE YOU AT?” when Operation American Spring turned out to be a star-spangled flop, is a representative of that group. Not entirely relevant, but amusing none the less.
The group regularly preaches insane right-wing conspiracy theories, rants against President Obama and pro-Cliven Bundy misinformation. 
Fox News foments another violent outbreak: From Cliven Bundy to Jerad Miller, words matter
Five years after I clashed with O’Reilly about his network’s dangerous rhetoric, it's still promoting extremism
By Joan WalshBack then, I thought it might be worth asking whether Fox’s increasingly shrill attacks on Obama could be contributing to a spike in violent rhetoric, and actual violence. For context, my conversation with O’Reilly wasn’t just about Tiller: an African-American security guard at Washington’s Holocaust museum, Stephen Tyrone Johns, had just been murdered by a white supremacist birther. That came months after a fan of Glenn Beck (then at Fox) murdered four police officers in Pittsburgh. We were heading into a summer of hate that would soon spawn “town hells” trashing Democrats (and moderate Republicans) over healthcare reform, and gun-carrying “patriots” waving Gadsden flags at Obama rallies. I thought Fox might want to take a look at its role in fomenting an unhinged opposition that was starting to move from rhetoric to violence. Of course, I was wrong.
Five years later, just as Fox promoted anti-Obama extremism in the first months of his presidency, so did it try to turn Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters into the second coming of the American Revolution, rising against the “tyrant” in the White House. Over 12 days in April, Fox spent almost five hours covering the ranch standoff, led by Sean Hannity. (To be fair to O’Reilly, he actually challenged one Bundy backer he interviewed. Some Republican lawmakers joined in: Nevada Sen. Dean Heller called the Bundy Ranch defenders “patriots,” and 2016 contenders like Rand Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry also jumped on the Bundy bandwagon--only to disembark when their hero made predictably racist statements about “the Negro.” They never explained--and they never were forced to explain--why they endorsed an armed militia threatening federal agents with violence, merely because those agents were threatening to enforce the law.
And now we have the Millers, who were, to be fair, too extreme for even the Bundy encampment; apparently Jerad Miller was turned away because he had a felony record. But it’s not just the Millers; they were almost upstaged in the past week by “sovereign citizen” Dennis Marx, who shot a sheriff’s deputy and planned to take over the courthouse in Forsyth County, Georgia, before he was killed by police. The sovereign citizen “movement” doesn’t acknowledge the legitimacy of the U.S. government. (Oh, and by the way, Forsyth County was the site of an early 20th century race riot that resulted in 98 percent of its black population moving away. Fun fact.) Meanwhile, the parents of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl are facing what the FBI considers credible death threats for the crime of trying to get their son out of captivity by the Taliban. The beat goes on.
I’m getting tired of writing patient explainers like this one--thanks, Paul Waldman, for taking one for the team this time. I just want to say what Digby said: She quotes Waldman, and earlier pieces by Rick Perlstein and David Neiwert, showing how the election of Democratic presidents so often leads to spikes in violent rhetoric and violence itself. John F. Kennedy’s election was followed by rising hate from the John Birch Society and armed anti-Communist “Minutemen”; Bill Clinton coped with a rising militia movement and the Oklahoma City terrorist attack (along with the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre demonizing federal agents as “jack-booted thugs”); Barack Obama begat the paranoid and often racist anti-government Tea Party, abetted by Fox News and, of course, the NRA’s LaPierre.
What’s different is that under Obama, the rhetoric from elected Republicans and mainstream conservative pundits has gotten more extreme. One-term congressman and Fox News contributor Allen West has declared, “We have a tyrant in the White House.” As Congress and the White House debated common-sense gun regulation in the wake of the Newtown massacre, Fox’s guests and hosts were warning that Obama was planning massive gun confiscation and comparing him to Hitler. At CPAC this year Sen. Ted Cruz suggested that Obama’s use of executive orders means “you have a president picking and choosing which laws to follow and which laws to ignore,” and therefore “you no longer have a president.”
Which means you have a dictator, or, again, a tyrant; someone whose blood might need to water the “tree of liberty,” to quote from the T-shirt that gun-toting liberty lover William Kostric wore to a 2009 Obama rally in New Hampshire. And:But instead of quoting from my earlier pieces about all of this, I’ll give the last word to Paul Waldman, something for Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly and Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to think about before the next killings:When you broadcast every day that the government of the world’s oldest democracy is a totalitarian beast bent on turning America into a prison of oppression and fear, when you glorify lawbreakers like Cliven Bundy, when you say that your opponents would literally destroy the country if they could, you can’t profess surprise when some people decide that violence is the only means of forestalling the disaster you have warned them about. Comment: For more on conservatives and terrorism, see Right-Wing Terrorism Worse Than Jihadism and Report Documents Right-Wing Terrorism.
Hatriot Politics Created the Las Vegas Killers
Jerad and Amanda Miller, the Wingnuts whose killing spree left two policemen, a civilian, and themselves dead, were inspired by fright-wing radio hosts and militia movement groups.
By John Avlon
Miller’s anti-government rants ramped up after he served seven days in jail for a pot-related conviction. After his sentencing in 2013, he proudly posted: “Mark one up for freedom today. I stood before a fascist judge today and implied that he was a Nazi.”
According to Amanda Miller’s Facebook page, she worked at the Hobby Lobby as head of the needlework department. (Hobby Lobby has been embroiled in a faith-based lawsuit over covering contraception as part of the Affordable Care Act.) In addition to dressing as The Joker and his date for a Halloween party and exchanging gun-related gifts, the couple’s favorite book according their Facebook page was the Bible. They apparently skipped over some key sections, such as the New Testament.
Miller was a vocal supporter of libertarian Ron Paul, posting during the fall of 2012: “Ron Paul is the only hope for america and we have all failed him, our children and our grandchildren by failing to demand fair coverage of all presidential candidates. Today and everyday that passes by our country falls deeper into the clutches of fascist hands. Hope you wake up before its to late, hell, it may already be to late.”
Miller reposted articles from Alex Jones’s InfoWars website, promoted slogans about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives being a domestic terrorist organization, and was deeply into Second Amendment advocacy organizations. Significantly down the political food chain, Miller also seemed to identify with the sovereign citizens movement and the Three Percenters organization, whose founder Mike Vanderboegh’s homepage warns, “All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war.”
By John Prager
Miller’s profile picture is that of right-wing Facebook page, Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children, one of the many conservative bastion of racism and hatred on the Internet—and a group that was largely behind the miserable abyss of humiliation that was Operation American Spring.
Interestingly, the man who incoherently screamed “WHERE ARE YOU AT?” when Operation American Spring turned out to be a star-spangled flop, is a representative of that group. Not entirely relevant, but amusing none the less.
The group regularly preaches insane right-wing conspiracy theories, rants against President Obama and pro-Cliven Bundy misinformation.
Fox News foments another violent outbreak: From Cliven Bundy to Jerad Miller, words matter
Five years after I clashed with O’Reilly about his network’s dangerous rhetoric, it's still promoting extremism
By Joan Walsh
Five years later, just as Fox promoted anti-Obama extremism in the first months of his presidency, so did it try to turn Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters into the second coming of the American Revolution, rising against the “tyrant” in the White House. Over 12 days in April, Fox spent almost five hours covering the ranch standoff, led by Sean Hannity. (To be fair to O’Reilly, he actually challenged one Bundy backer he interviewed. Some Republican lawmakers joined in: Nevada Sen. Dean Heller called the Bundy Ranch defenders “patriots,” and 2016 contenders like Rand Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry also jumped on the Bundy bandwagon--only to disembark when their hero made predictably racist statements about “the Negro.” They never explained--and they never were forced to explain--why they endorsed an armed militia threatening federal agents with violence, merely because those agents were threatening to enforce the law.
And now we have the Millers, who were, to be fair, too extreme for even the Bundy encampment; apparently Jerad Miller was turned away because he had a felony record. But it’s not just the Millers; they were almost upstaged in the past week by “sovereign citizen” Dennis Marx, who shot a sheriff’s deputy and planned to take over the courthouse in Forsyth County, Georgia, before he was killed by police. The sovereign citizen “movement” doesn’t acknowledge the legitimacy of the U.S. government. (Oh, and by the way, Forsyth County was the site of an early 20th century race riot that resulted in 98 percent of its black population moving away. Fun fact.) Meanwhile, the parents of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl are facing what the FBI considers credible death threats for the crime of trying to get their son out of captivity by the Taliban. The beat goes on.
I’m getting tired of writing patient explainers like this one--thanks, Paul Waldman, for taking one for the team this time. I just want to say what Digby said: She quotes Waldman, and earlier pieces by Rick Perlstein and David Neiwert, showing how the election of Democratic presidents so often leads to spikes in violent rhetoric and violence itself. John F. Kennedy’s election was followed by rising hate from the John Birch Society and armed anti-Communist “Minutemen”; Bill Clinton coped with a rising militia movement and the Oklahoma City terrorist attack (along with the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre demonizing federal agents as “jack-booted thugs”); Barack Obama begat the paranoid and often racist anti-government Tea Party, abetted by Fox News and, of course, the NRA’s LaPierre.
What’s different is that under Obama, the rhetoric from elected Republicans and mainstream conservative pundits has gotten more extreme. One-term congressman and Fox News contributor Allen West has declared, “We have a tyrant in the White House.” As Congress and the White House debated common-sense gun regulation in the wake of the Newtown massacre, Fox’s guests and hosts were warning that Obama was planning massive gun confiscation and comparing him to Hitler. At CPAC this year Sen. Ted Cruz suggested that Obama’s use of executive orders means “you have a president picking and choosing which laws to follow and which laws to ignore,” and therefore “you no longer have a president.”
Which means you have a dictator, or, again, a tyrant; someone whose blood might need to water the “tree of liberty,” to quote from the T-shirt that gun-toting liberty lover William Kostric wore to a 2009 Obama rally in New Hampshire.
Redskins hire K Street lobbyist
Washington Redskins hire lobbyist
By Byron TauThe Washington Redskins has brought in K Street reinforcements amid a major political fight brewing over the team’s name.
The team hired McGuireWoods Consulting in late May, according to newly-filed lobbying disclosures.
The hire of a major K Street firm came just one week after 50 Democratic senators sent a letter to the National Football League asking the league to formally support a change in the Redskins name. “The N.F.L. can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the senators wrote.
McGuireWoods will work on “discussions of team origins, history and traditions, Washington Redskins Charitable Foundation and youth sports, activities of Original Americans’ Foundation,” according to the disclosure. Redskins hire D.C. lobbyist to convince you that their racist name isn’t racist
By Robyn PennacchiaTo put it mildly, the Washington Redskins have not had the best PR lately. Mostly because pretty much everyone thinks it’s gross that their team name is a super tacky racial slur and would really prefer that they just freaking change it already. However, Dan Snyder and crew really don’t want to change their name, and would really prefer that everyone just change their mind about it being racist or just let them have this one racist thing because it is all they have. You know, other than piles of money, which they cry themselves to sleep on every night because we hurt their feels.
We have mocked them on social media and antisocial media. 50 Senators signed a letter asking the NFL to change their name, and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation has bought airtime during the NBA finals to air this ad protesting the name.
And yet, they still think they have a chance to change the nations hearts and minds. To get them to embrace the racism rather than deride it. Which is why they’ve gone and hired K Street lobbyists McGuirreWoods Consulting to help them improve their image without changing their name, and to handle “discussions of team origins, history and traditions, Washington Redskins Charitable Foundation and youth sports, activities of Original Americans’ Foundation.”
What, at this point, could a lobbying firm even do for them? They would literally have to find a way to make that word not insulting or a slur to people, and it’s just not possible for that to happen. Political Animals and the Fight Over 'Redskins'
By Kavitha A. DavidsonNot to be outdone in the political maneuvering, however, Redskins owner Dan Snyder has enlisted his own group of Washington insiders to defend his team's racism--I mean, preserve its history. Aside from Snyder's contributing to Senator Warner's campaign--money well spent, clearly--Redskins president and general manager Bruce Allen sent a note of his own to Goodell explaining that the term "redskins" was originally used to express solidarity among the various native tribes. Funny, because the main thing the multifaction group seems to exhibit solidarity over is a fervent opposition to the slur. Incidentally, Bruce Allen's brother is George Allen, a former U.S. senator from Virginia and partner at McGuireWoods. Their father, George Allen Sr., coached the Washington Redskins in the 1970s and is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Defending the team's cultural insensitivity is a family affair. Comment: Can you say "desperation"? Why else would the Redskins take this step after explaining itself and courting the codetalkers and creating a foundation. Clearly their previous steps haven't worked and they're feeling the pressure.
By Byron Tau
The team hired McGuireWoods Consulting in late May, according to newly-filed lobbying disclosures.
The hire of a major K Street firm came just one week after 50 Democratic senators sent a letter to the National Football League asking the league to formally support a change in the Redskins name. “The N.F.L. can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the senators wrote.
McGuireWoods will work on “discussions of team origins, history and traditions, Washington Redskins Charitable Foundation and youth sports, activities of Original Americans’ Foundation,” according to the disclosure.
By Robyn Pennacchia
We have mocked them on social media and antisocial media. 50 Senators signed a letter asking the NFL to change their name, and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation has bought airtime during the NBA finals to air this ad protesting the name.
And yet, they still think they have a chance to change the nations hearts and minds. To get them to embrace the racism rather than deride it. Which is why they’ve gone and hired K Street lobbyists McGuirreWoods Consulting to help them improve their image without changing their name, and to handle “discussions of team origins, history and traditions, Washington Redskins Charitable Foundation and youth sports, activities of Original Americans’ Foundation.”
What, at this point, could a lobbying firm even do for them? They would literally have to find a way to make that word not insulting or a slur to people, and it’s just not possible for that to happen.
By Kavitha A. Davidson
Coyne presents man in headdress
WAYNE'S WORLD: Native American appropriation continues unabated
By Louis FowlerThis weekend, hundreds of Native Americans gathered in Oklahoma City for the historic Red Earth Festival, celebrating not only Native history, but Native futures as well.
Meanwhile, at the Wakarusa Festival on Mulberry Mountain in Ozark, Arkansas, hundreds of mostly Caucasian hipsters, many in mocking Native headdresses themselves, gathered as Flaming Lips frontman Wayne Coyne continued his “artistic” assault on the American Indian by having a man dressed in Native regalia on-stage.
The Wakarusa Music and Camping Festival, featuring four days of music and activities for people of all ages, has gained in popularity, especially for Oklahomans, considering how close it is to the Sooner State.
While eyewitness reports have been scattered, the most consistent anecdotes from attendees have been that this was all part of an on-stage wedding. Why the male needed to be in the warbonnet to be married is still anyone’s guess, but what is perhaps the most perplexing question to many Natives who’ve seen the photos is, if Coyne was serious about his label-mandated Rolling Stone apology (and many activists believe he truly wasn’t), why would he continue to add fuel to an already raging fire by allowing something like this on-stage?
The reaction from Indigenous activists on Twitter and Facebook has been one of continued hurt, disappointment and burgeoning anger, while many fans of the offensive rockers continue to defend the antics of the crackpot Coyne and crew under the guise of “art.”
“Maybe Coyne thinks he is the only one that can disrespect Natives and be the best at it? I don't know, but his apathy and lies know no bounds,” civil rights activist Jennie Stockle posted on social media. “I'm sure he will claim ‘innocence’ by blaming the headdress being on stage with him on that person wearing it. However, it is HIS show and knowing full well how Native Americans feel, he could have not allowed it to be on stage. He could have easily forbid it during his performance. The truth is he didn't give a second thought to the example he set to his young fans or harm he is doing to Native Americans and their honored family members.”
“Folks, Wayne Coyne is a liar and has now commonly engaged in racism against Native Americans to boost his own name-infamously so,” she added. Comment: For more on the subject, see Fallin Suffers Fallout from Stereotyping and Coyne Apologizes for Dog Headdress.
By Louis Fowler
Meanwhile, at the Wakarusa Festival on Mulberry Mountain in Ozark, Arkansas, hundreds of mostly Caucasian hipsters, many in mocking Native headdresses themselves, gathered as Flaming Lips frontman Wayne Coyne continued his “artistic” assault on the American Indian by having a man dressed in Native regalia on-stage.
The Wakarusa Music and Camping Festival, featuring four days of music and activities for people of all ages, has gained in popularity, especially for Oklahomans, considering how close it is to the Sooner State.
While eyewitness reports have been scattered, the most consistent anecdotes from attendees have been that this was all part of an on-stage wedding. Why the male needed to be in the warbonnet to be married is still anyone’s guess, but what is perhaps the most perplexing question to many Natives who’ve seen the photos is, if Coyne was serious about his label-mandated Rolling Stone apology (and many activists believe he truly wasn’t), why would he continue to add fuel to an already raging fire by allowing something like this on-stage?
The reaction from Indigenous activists on Twitter and Facebook has been one of continued hurt, disappointment and burgeoning anger, while many fans of the offensive rockers continue to defend the antics of the crackpot Coyne and crew under the guise of “art.”
“Maybe Coyne thinks he is the only one that can disrespect Natives and be the best at it? I don't know, but his apathy and lies know no bounds,” civil rights activist Jennie Stockle posted on social media. “I'm sure he will claim ‘innocence’ by blaming the headdress being on stage with him on that person wearing it. However, it is HIS show and knowing full well how Native Americans feel, he could have not allowed it to be on stage. He could have easily forbid it during his performance. The truth is he didn't give a second thought to the example he set to his young fans or harm he is doing to Native Americans and their honored family members.”
“Folks, Wayne Coyne is a liar and has now commonly engaged in racism against Native Americans to boost his own name-infamously so,” she added.
June 08, 2014
Samantha Barks in a headdress
You must be Barking! Samantha and boyfriend Richard Fleeshman wear controversial Native American headwear for Corrie star's birthday bash
By Jason ChesterUp until now they’ve enjoyed a low-key romance, largely conducted away from the spotlight--but there was no missing Richard Fleeshman and Samantha Barks when they stepped out in Manchester on Saturday evening in contentious Native American headdresses.
The couple were making a less than subtle appearance at Coronation Street star Ryan Thomas’s 29th birthday celebration at Victoria Warehouse Hotel--and they caught the eye thanks to their feathered headwear.
Samantha, 23, teamed hers with a striking butterfly sequinned crop-top and zebra print skirt ahead of the Burning Man themed bash, while red tinted Aviators an ethnic cuff bracelet added to a rather eccentric ensemble.
The singer and actress--a former contestant on BBC talent show I’d Do Anything--rounded of the outfit with a pair of chunky white trainers, distinctive by virtue of the LED lights embedded into each sole. Comment: For more on the subject, see Pharrell in a Headdress and Emerson Windy in a Headdress.
By Jason Chester
The couple were making a less than subtle appearance at Coronation Street star Ryan Thomas’s 29th birthday celebration at Victoria Warehouse Hotel--and they caught the eye thanks to their feathered headwear.
Samantha, 23, teamed hers with a striking butterfly sequinned crop-top and zebra print skirt ahead of the Burning Man themed bash, while red tinted Aviators an ethnic cuff bracelet added to a rather eccentric ensemble.
The singer and actress--a former contestant on BBC talent show I’d Do Anything--rounded of the outfit with a pair of chunky white trainers, distinctive by virtue of the LED lights embedded into each sole.
June 07, 2014
"Let It Go" in Frozen
Beyond the whitewashing in Frozen, I'm a bit confused about the movie's theme. I discussed it with a few Facebook friends:
So Elsa's big moment in Frozen is singing Let It Go. She's no longer afraid of anyone or anything. To prove it, she'll continue to hide away from everyone, alone in her ice palace, like Beast in Beauty and the Beast.
Great messaging, Disney! Let go of the past, and continue to hide like the monster you are, exactly as you did in the past.
Good thing she's no longer afraid of people. Because I'd hate to see what she'd do if she were afraid.
I'd say the plot was a hot mess, but it's more like a cold mess. For instance, Elsa has plunged the kingdom into winter. People are trying to save her or kill her...but no one has a clue how to undo the deep freeze.
Maybe killing her is the solution. Maybe not. The point is that no one knows, but they're acting as if they do.
But the humor is a lot of fun, and the rock version of Let It Go is nice. I give Frozen a weak 8.0 for the usual animation magic.I interpreted that moment very differently. Her parents had told her not to feel. She had tried to suppress her emotion. But that was impossible. Once she expressed herself, she felt free. She was glad to be able to let her emotions go and be herself. She let her emotions go for the duration of the song, yes. Then it was back to "conceal, don't feel."
What is Elsa's plan?
One Frozen article said the screenwriters came up with the idea of making Elsa and Anna sisters after years of development. I can believe that. It seems like an artificial and ill-considered choice, not something integral to the story.
Frozen: Two princesses, a wonderfully daft snowman, a loyal and adventurous reindeer—and yet, something’s missing …
Reasons Why I’m Not Supporting Disney’s Frozen
My advice: Go back to your earlier ideas. Even an evil snow queen might've worked better.
I read a few reviews in search of a good analysis. I didn't find one.
Most of them glided over the plot without discussing the psycho-social dynamics. Not to mention comparing these dynamics with those in the original story.
A psychologist with feminist leanings could have a field day taking this movie apart. It merits a college paper at least, if not a dissertation.
I think the same article said the screenwriters came up with Let It Go after coming up with the sister idea. Which figures, since the song doesn't fit. Its message:
"I've run away and hid myself because I'm a monster. I'm going to 'let it go' and finally become my true self. Then I'll continue to hide myself because I'm a monster."
After reading about 10,000 comic books, I think I know what happens when you "let it go" and embrace your powers. You return to society to confront those who doubted you. You become a hero to prove them wrong, or a villain to get revenge on them.
What you don't do is continue to hide because you're afraid, exactly as before. What is Elsa's plan after building herself a gorgeous ice palace? Is she gonna twiddle her thumbs and watch the ice melt for the next 50-60 years? Ridiculous.Don't forget the fact that she ran away and hid in a newly created hairstyle, dress, and high heels which are spectacularly unsuited for walking through her ice castle. Let It Go=I'm hiding and sulking, but Nyah Nyah, I look fabulous, so there. Right. We could go into several levels of analysis on just the "let it go" moment. Like what's the point of the palace, dress, hair, etc. when she's alone?
Is staring at herself in the mirror for 50-60 years enough to satisfy her? Then she's incredibly vain. Does it prove she's not a monster after all? Then she's incredibly deluded because no one can see her transformation.
She's built a palace to show off but refuses visitors, including her beloved sister. How is this different from a crazy person who finger-paints fictional worlds on the wall that no one else can comprehend? "I'm happy in my magic castle that no one else can see"...does that sound healthy?
What's next, since she's obviously still afraid of herself? Does she cut off her "offending" hands so she can't shoot ice rays anymore? Or does she just throw herself off a cliff?
I'd call mental services...stat. Her delusions of grandeur could quickly turn to manic depression and rage. Like, "If they think I'm a monster, I'll show them what a monster does!"Thank you. Yes. Write a piece on it. Feminist psychologist or not. This is it!
For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.
So Elsa's big moment in Frozen is singing Let It Go. She's no longer afraid of anyone or anything. To prove it, she'll continue to hide away from everyone, alone in her ice palace, like Beast in Beauty and the Beast.
Great messaging, Disney! Let go of the past, and continue to hide like the monster you are, exactly as you did in the past.
Good thing she's no longer afraid of people. Because I'd hate to see what she'd do if she were afraid.
I'd say the plot was a hot mess, but it's more like a cold mess. For instance, Elsa has plunged the kingdom into winter. People are trying to save her or kill her...but no one has a clue how to undo the deep freeze.
Maybe killing her is the solution. Maybe not. The point is that no one knows, but they're acting as if they do.
But the humor is a lot of fun, and the rock version of Let It Go is nice. I give Frozen a weak 8.0 for the usual animation magic.
What is Elsa's plan?
One Frozen article said the screenwriters came up with the idea of making Elsa and Anna sisters after years of development. I can believe that. It seems like an artificial and ill-considered choice, not something integral to the story.
Frozen: Two princesses, a wonderfully daft snowman, a loyal and adventurous reindeer—and yet, something’s missing …
Reasons Why I’m Not Supporting Disney’s Frozen
My advice: Go back to your earlier ideas. Even an evil snow queen might've worked better.
I read a few reviews in search of a good analysis. I didn't find one.
Most of them glided over the plot without discussing the psycho-social dynamics. Not to mention comparing these dynamics with those in the original story.
A psychologist with feminist leanings could have a field day taking this movie apart. It merits a college paper at least, if not a dissertation.
I think the same article said the screenwriters came up with Let It Go after coming up with the sister idea. Which figures, since the song doesn't fit. Its message:
"I've run away and hid myself because I'm a monster. I'm going to 'let it go' and finally become my true self. Then I'll continue to hide myself because I'm a monster."
After reading about 10,000 comic books, I think I know what happens when you "let it go" and embrace your powers. You return to society to confront those who doubted you. You become a hero to prove them wrong, or a villain to get revenge on them.
What you don't do is continue to hide because you're afraid, exactly as before. What is Elsa's plan after building herself a gorgeous ice palace? Is she gonna twiddle her thumbs and watch the ice melt for the next 50-60 years? Ridiculous.
Is staring at herself in the mirror for 50-60 years enough to satisfy her? Then she's incredibly vain. Does it prove she's not a monster after all? Then she's incredibly deluded because no one can see her transformation.
She's built a palace to show off but refuses visitors, including her beloved sister. How is this different from a crazy person who finger-paints fictional worlds on the wall that no one else can comprehend? "I'm happy in my magic castle that no one else can see"...does that sound healthy?
What's next, since she's obviously still afraid of herself? Does she cut off her "offending" hands so she can't shoot ice rays anymore? Or does she just throw herself off a cliff?
I'd call mental services...stat. Her delusions of grandeur could quickly turn to manic depression and rage. Like, "If they think I'm a monster, I'll show them what a monster does!"
For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies.
June 06, 2014
Whitewashing in Frozen
After watching the movie Frozen, I posted the following comment:
A demerit to Frozen for portraying wolves as evil maneaters.
This led to a discussion of its racial characteristics:Al
One more demerit for showing Sammi as blond white people. Most are brown haired with facial features closer to Asians.
Laurel
Haven't seen the film. Had no idea it was supposed to feature any Sami characters. Geeeeeez. I think Arendelle was supposed to be a generic Scandinavian kingdom, not indigenous Sami. Like something out of a Hans Christian Anderson story, which the movie listed as a source.
But I did think along the same lines as Al. If it's a fantasy kingdom, why not model it on Russian or indigenous (Sami, Siberian) cultures? Why did it have to be white and blond?
Since the story involved European-style palaces, ships, and trolls, it might've been difficult to make Arendelle's culture indigenous. But even the traders and wedding guests were white, I believe. Couldn't Disney have made them a multicultural mix?
P.S. A few critics noted the movie's snow-white world. They wondered why Disney didn't take the opportunity to include some indigenous culture.
Others note same thing
Al shared this informative article:
Disney's Frozen Whitewashing ControversyThe earliest known accusation of whitewashing against Frozen came in December 2012 from Tumblr user Thiscouldhavebeenfrozen, who put out a call for artists to create racebending fan art images of Frozen characters. The cause was picked up by other social justice bloggers, among them Tumblr blog Racebending. The phenomenon has since sparked much discussion, particularly on Tumblr, Twitter and Reddit. Many of the critics also accuse Disney of whitewashing the movie since the indigenous people of Scandinavia (the Sámi) featured in the movie are not depicted as persons of color. Frozen’s race bending artwork show the characters portrayed as belonging to various non-white Arctic and Asian peoples (e.g. Inuit. Mongol), of African origin, or as Native Americans.
People who defend the movie have argued that since the setting is inspired by Scandinavia of the 1800s, it would not be appropriate to include people of color. Anti-Frozen bloggers answer this by stating that the movie is set in a fantasy world and as such could choose to have people of any color as main characters, and that it would not be impossible to find people of color in Europe two hundred years ago.
The character Kristoff is confirmed by co-director Jennifer Lee to be a member of the Scandinavian indigenous people Sámi. Many anti-Frozen bloggers have argued that the portrayal of Kristoff as blonde constitutes “whitewashing,” because they believe that the Sámi are a people of color. A proposed reimagining of Kristoff as “authentically Sámi” has spread on Tumblr.
The Sámi, though a people who have experienced and continue to face ethnic discrimination, would in fact pass as “white” in the United States, the country where this debate originated. Hence, the “Whitewashed Sámi” campaign has met some backlash and ridicule, as seen in the photo below.
In response to this, some of the anti-Frozen bloggers have insisted that the Sámi would have appeared Asian at the time when the movie was set, and that they only appear white today due to genetic mixing that has taken place since the 1800s. However, photographs of Sámi people from the 1800s tend to indicate that the Sámi of old had just as broad a variation in appearance as the Sámi of today. Ethnic group should be ethnic
Interesting. If the screenwriter says Kristoff is supposed to be Sámi but he's a white blond, that's a problem.
Also, I noticed the opening chant and thought it sounded non-Western. That was Sámi too--written by a Sámi composer.
Seems like Disney was making a feeble attempt to be inclusive, but failed. Oops.According to the article, there are plenty of blonde Sami. Many of which have come from race-mixing.Woman on the left is a Sami elder I met on a speaking tour back in 2004. They took me to a restaurant to try reindeer. I only met one Sami who was blond. 
I wouldn't mind if the movie included *a* blond Sámi among the others. But to make all the Sámi pale and blond, exactly like the other Nordic characters? No. That would be an excuse to justify whitewashing, not a legitimate portrayal of an indigenous group.
Note also that the Sámi tend to have colorful clothing. Really, it's not hard to portray an ethnic group in fiction. You give them different traits: faces and skin, clothing, language, customs, religion, etc. If an ethnic group is indistinguishable from the (white) mainstream, you may be guilty of whitewashing.
A demerit to Frozen for portraying wolves as evil maneaters.
This led to a discussion of its racial characteristics:
One more demerit for showing Sammi as blond white people. Most are brown haired with facial features closer to Asians.
Laurel
Haven't seen the film. Had no idea it was supposed to feature any Sami characters. Geeeeeez.
But I did think along the same lines as Al. If it's a fantasy kingdom, why not model it on Russian or indigenous (Sami, Siberian) cultures? Why did it have to be white and blond?
Since the story involved European-style palaces, ships, and trolls, it might've been difficult to make Arendelle's culture indigenous. But even the traders and wedding guests were white, I believe. Couldn't Disney have made them a multicultural mix?
P.S. A few critics noted the movie's snow-white world. They wondered why Disney didn't take the opportunity to include some indigenous culture.
Others note same thing
Al shared this informative article:
Disney's Frozen Whitewashing Controversy
People who defend the movie have argued that since the setting is inspired by Scandinavia of the 1800s, it would not be appropriate to include people of color. Anti-Frozen bloggers answer this by stating that the movie is set in a fantasy world and as such could choose to have people of any color as main characters, and that it would not be impossible to find people of color in Europe two hundred years ago.
The character Kristoff is confirmed by co-director Jennifer Lee to be a member of the Scandinavian indigenous people Sámi. Many anti-Frozen bloggers have argued that the portrayal of Kristoff as blonde constitutes “whitewashing,” because they believe that the Sámi are a people of color. A proposed reimagining of Kristoff as “authentically Sámi” has spread on Tumblr.
The Sámi, though a people who have experienced and continue to face ethnic discrimination, would in fact pass as “white” in the United States, the country where this debate originated. Hence, the “Whitewashed Sámi” campaign has met some backlash and ridicule, as seen in the photo below.
In response to this, some of the anti-Frozen bloggers have insisted that the Sámi would have appeared Asian at the time when the movie was set, and that they only appear white today due to genetic mixing that has taken place since the 1800s. However, photographs of Sámi people from the 1800s tend to indicate that the Sámi of old had just as broad a variation in appearance as the Sámi of today.
Interesting. If the screenwriter says Kristoff is supposed to be Sámi but he's a white blond, that's a problem.
Also, I noticed the opening chant and thought it sounded non-Western. That was Sámi too--written by a Sámi composer.
Seems like Disney was making a feeble attempt to be inclusive, but failed. Oops.
I wouldn't mind if the movie included *a* blond Sámi among the others. But to make all the Sámi pale and blond, exactly like the other Nordic characters? No. That would be an excuse to justify whitewashing, not a legitimate portrayal of an indigenous group.
Note also that the Sámi tend to have colorful clothing. Really, it's not hard to portray an ethnic group in fiction. You give them different traits: faces and skin, clothing, language, customs, religion, etc. If an ethnic group is indistinguishable from the (white) mainstream, you may be guilty of whitewashing.
June 05, 2014
Why Pharrell's headdress was wrong
Pharrell seems like a nice, progressive kind of guy without a negative bone in his body. Therefore, most people didn't attack him with the usual invective. Rather, they tried to explain to him why wearing headdresses is wrong.
Dear Pharrell: Please Think Before You Put On A Headdress
By Megan Red Shirt-ShawIn Lakota society, the number of quills was representative of the number of battles won. Each feather was earned. The significance of eagle feathers is still honored today in contemporary Indigenous culture and the war bonnet specifically is not definitive of all Native American people today. Every community practices their own belief system.
Symbols like the headdress are owned by the tribes. They are sacred to our communities. It is hurtful to see them used in any other way. Culture is alive and well in Native America. I invite you to Gathering of Nations, or to any powwow across the country so you can see the ways in which we continue to celebrate who we are as America’s first nations. Visit a reservation. Visit an urban Indian center. Come and see us for who we are and understand why we celebrate our traditions. You too, stylists of Elle. We see you. Clearly.
Pharrell, you have earned a lot of respect and celebration for your music. For being an individual. For changing the scene. In the Sioux community, we believe in the ideas of bravery, fortitude, generosity and wisdom. I see none of these ideas in your cover with Elle. I appreciate your apology but hope you know why that apology was important and that it wasn’t because your publicist told you to do so. I hope Elle UK follows your lead and apologizes.
You are a musician, not a warrior. You are a man of many accolades but so were the men of our community who sacrificed their lives for us to come. We have warriors in our communities in different ways now--in spiritual healers, in advocates, the men and women who serve in the United States military. I would hope that you would want to be a symbol for something other than ignorance. Your music has been uplifting across all cultures around the world--but there is nothing uplifting about your cover with Elle. Why Pharell Williams' Hipster Headdress Is Offensive to Native Americans
By Gyasi RossFirst, let me make clear that very much like those white hip-hoppers in the Hammerstein Ballroom, I don't think that Pharrell Williams is, in any way, racist. Just like those hip-hoppers, he was stupid. He was obviously guided by stylists from Elle magazine who "persuaded" him to do something idiotic; he's accountable, but he's accountable for being stupid or naïve and not necessarily a racist. However...
There are things that are still sacred in 2014. Simply because I'm 1) part black or 2) a hip-hopper, that does not give me the right to use the word "nigger/nigga"; that loaded and powerful word is one of those things that cannot be "commodified," as the brilliant bell hooks termed it. Black folks have paid for EXCLUSIVE ownership of that word over the course of centuries of oppression, recovery and then redemption. Headdresses are another one of those things. Native people utilize headdresses as one of our highest honors, reserved for those select few people who did something so valorous and special--oftentimes in battle, fighting off genocide--that we must identify them by putting pieces of the soaring eagle on their head.
It is reserved for those special individuals. Exclusively.
It's not simply a matter of being "Native" either. It's not that simple. MOST Natives will never earn the right to wear a headdress. It's not a racial thing, it's an experience thing, a "merit" thing. Similar to the way that I--almost one quarter black--don't have the right to say the word "nigger/nigga" simply by biology. I come from a people--the Blackfeet Nation-- who honor exceptional individuals with headdresses. Yet, I have never been given this honor. There's a strong possibility I never will be given this honor in the future either. Ginnie Graham: Here is why wearing an American Indian headdress is not hip or ironic
By Ginnie GrahamThe U.S. has an open wound that is the history of broken treaties and stealing of land, money and resources from native tribal people.
Some American Indian tribes have lost their language, art and other important forms of cultural identity. Some tribes are extinct.
Tribes in the few decades have made efforts to reclaim what has been lost, such as the Cherokee Nation’s language immersion programs and heritage educational museums.
This is the background on which celebrities, artists and designers are stomping onto when they appropriate American Indian items for their own use.
It’s viewed as more stealing of what is considered sacred to American Indians.
It's also considered a form of blackface, encouragement to perpetuate stereotypes and mockery. Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Wear A Native American Headdress
Music fest-goers--take note.
By Brenna EhrlichIn light of Pharrell’s recent apology, and in prep for the long summer festival experience before us, MTV News hit up a series of experts and people in the Native American community to ask them all the questions you’ve ever wanted to pose about headdresses:
1). What Does Wearing A Headdress Mean?
“The headdress is reserved for our revered elders who, through their selflessness and leadership, have earned the right to wear one. It’s a spiritual garb, not just cultural; it’s not merely an addition to one’s attire. Wearing one, even an imitation headdress, belittles what our elders have spent a lifetime to earn.” — Simon Moya-Smith, citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation and journalist
2). Why Can’t I Wear A Headdress?
“As wearing a headdress reinforces stereotypes about Native people and appropriates our culture with little or no regard for our traditions, I think it is egregious and contributes to the dehumanization of our people.” — Jacqueline Keeler, founder of EONM (Eradicating Offensive Native Mascotry)
3). Can I Wear A Headdress If I’m Part-Native American, Like Pharrell?
“First of all, if he is part-Native American—which he very well may be—well maybe then he should know better than to put a war bonnet on. Just because you are part-Native American doesn’t mean you can put a war bonnet on. What do you do for Native Americans? What parts of the culture are you involved in? If the best you could do is say, ‘I am Native American and I can put a war bonnet on,’ that is pretty sad.” — Cliff Matias, Director of Redhawk Native American Arts Council Dear non-natives who like to wear headdresses: Just don't
"Part Native" is no excuse
The last excuse--that people who are part Native can do whatever they want--comes up often. If it isn't a celebrities themselves--Jessica Simpson, Miley Cyrus, or Kourtney Kardashian--it's their fans making excuses for them. That's the only feeble justification people can come up for Johnny Depp playing Tonto or Cher wearing a headdress.
Some of Pharrell's fans used that excuse too. In an editorial, Indian Country Today swatted it down:
Oh, Pharrell Is Part Native American? Here's Why It Doesn't Matter[W]ith the latest cultural-appropriation scandal, involving Pharrell Williams wearing a feather headdress on the cover of Elle UK, Pharrell fans and self-appointed experts are pushing back by citing a detail buried in an article on the O, the Oprah Magazine New Zealand site:
"The young man whose name is derivative of his father’s (Pharaoh) and who says he has Native American and Egyptian heritages..."
Bloggers, Facebook pundits and even journalists are speculating that this claim may dull the outrage over the image—but does it work that way? Does some American Indian DNA in Pharrell's double helix make the headdress fashion choice OK? In a word, no. Here are four reasons why:
1. Not All Indians Wear Feather Headdresses
While the feather, specifically an eagle feather, is a sacred symbol in many Native American cultures, the "war bonnet" style headdress Pharrell is wearing is very specific to Plains tribes. An article at native-languages.org cites the figure of 12 tribes; this is a very small number considering that there are 566 federally recognized tribes and innumerable others that either aren't federally recognized or simply gone due to assimilation or genocide. Some of the feather-headdress-wearing tribes are large and well-known—the Lakota, the Crow, the Cheyenne—but saying that all Indians wear feather headdresses is—to use a very superficial example—like saying all Europeans wear lederhosen. And:4. He's Not Paying Tribute to His Culture
For the sake of argument, say some of the above points didn't hold up. Say, perhaps, Pharrell's Native ancestor was from a Plains tribe that wore feather headdresses, and that he had studied the culture and it informed his daily life, and he had been given the feathers for accomplishments. The headdress remains a sacred ceremonial item, to be worn on special occasions. There's no tribute in wearing the headdress on the cover of Elle UK, flanked by "The Secret Life of Keira Knightley" and "All Natural Hair: 23 Products to Try Now." This is a spiritual item; on the cover of Elle UK it becomes secularized, trivialized, accessorized. Those who hold the headdress sacred might well say this is the opposite of a tribute. Plains chief = Zulu warrior
Some people objected to the following cartoon, claiming it was racist and saying you can't fight racism with racism.
I liked it for the same reasons I like these:
They all make the same point. Used stereotypically, the Indian headdress is no different from a Mexican sombrero or a Chinese coolie hat. Or a Zulu warrior's outfit from the same 19th-century era. They all serve to stereotype minorities as primitive peasants or savages, not modern people.
Pharrell wouldn't dress as an African savage, so why is he dressing as an Indian savage? The wrongness of his actions should be self-evident.
For more on the subject, see Pharrell Apologizes for Headdress and Pharrell in a Headdress.
Dear Pharrell: Please Think Before You Put On A Headdress
By Megan Red Shirt-Shaw
Symbols like the headdress are owned by the tribes. They are sacred to our communities. It is hurtful to see them used in any other way. Culture is alive and well in Native America. I invite you to Gathering of Nations, or to any powwow across the country so you can see the ways in which we continue to celebrate who we are as America’s first nations. Visit a reservation. Visit an urban Indian center. Come and see us for who we are and understand why we celebrate our traditions. You too, stylists of Elle. We see you. Clearly.
Pharrell, you have earned a lot of respect and celebration for your music. For being an individual. For changing the scene. In the Sioux community, we believe in the ideas of bravery, fortitude, generosity and wisdom. I see none of these ideas in your cover with Elle. I appreciate your apology but hope you know why that apology was important and that it wasn’t because your publicist told you to do so. I hope Elle UK follows your lead and apologizes.
You are a musician, not a warrior. You are a man of many accolades but so were the men of our community who sacrificed their lives for us to come. We have warriors in our communities in different ways now--in spiritual healers, in advocates, the men and women who serve in the United States military. I would hope that you would want to be a symbol for something other than ignorance. Your music has been uplifting across all cultures around the world--but there is nothing uplifting about your cover with Elle.
By Gyasi Ross
There are things that are still sacred in 2014. Simply because I'm 1) part black or 2) a hip-hopper, that does not give me the right to use the word "nigger/nigga"; that loaded and powerful word is one of those things that cannot be "commodified," as the brilliant bell hooks termed it. Black folks have paid for EXCLUSIVE ownership of that word over the course of centuries of oppression, recovery and then redemption. Headdresses are another one of those things. Native people utilize headdresses as one of our highest honors, reserved for those select few people who did something so valorous and special--oftentimes in battle, fighting off genocide--that we must identify them by putting pieces of the soaring eagle on their head.
It is reserved for those special individuals. Exclusively.
It's not simply a matter of being "Native" either. It's not that simple. MOST Natives will never earn the right to wear a headdress. It's not a racial thing, it's an experience thing, a "merit" thing. Similar to the way that I--almost one quarter black--don't have the right to say the word "nigger/nigga" simply by biology. I come from a people--the Blackfeet Nation-- who honor exceptional individuals with headdresses. Yet, I have never been given this honor. There's a strong possibility I never will be given this honor in the future either.
By Ginnie Graham
Some American Indian tribes have lost their language, art and other important forms of cultural identity. Some tribes are extinct.
Tribes in the few decades have made efforts to reclaim what has been lost, such as the Cherokee Nation’s language immersion programs and heritage educational museums.
This is the background on which celebrities, artists and designers are stomping onto when they appropriate American Indian items for their own use.
It’s viewed as more stealing of what is considered sacred to American Indians.
It's also considered a form of blackface, encouragement to perpetuate stereotypes and mockery.
Music fest-goers--take note.
By Brenna Ehrlich
1). What Does Wearing A Headdress Mean?
“The headdress is reserved for our revered elders who, through their selflessness and leadership, have earned the right to wear one. It’s a spiritual garb, not just cultural; it’s not merely an addition to one’s attire. Wearing one, even an imitation headdress, belittles what our elders have spent a lifetime to earn.” — Simon Moya-Smith, citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation and journalist
2). Why Can’t I Wear A Headdress?
“As wearing a headdress reinforces stereotypes about Native people and appropriates our culture with little or no regard for our traditions, I think it is egregious and contributes to the dehumanization of our people.” — Jacqueline Keeler, founder of EONM (Eradicating Offensive Native Mascotry)
3). Can I Wear A Headdress If I’m Part-Native American, Like Pharrell?
“First of all, if he is part-Native American—which he very well may be—well maybe then he should know better than to put a war bonnet on. Just because you are part-Native American doesn’t mean you can put a war bonnet on. What do you do for Native Americans? What parts of the culture are you involved in? If the best you could do is say, ‘I am Native American and I can put a war bonnet on,’ that is pretty sad.” — Cliff Matias, Director of Redhawk Native American Arts Council
"Part Native" is no excuse
The last excuse--that people who are part Native can do whatever they want--comes up often. If it isn't a celebrities themselves--Jessica Simpson, Miley Cyrus, or Kourtney Kardashian--it's their fans making excuses for them. That's the only feeble justification people can come up for Johnny Depp playing Tonto or Cher wearing a headdress.
Some of Pharrell's fans used that excuse too. In an editorial, Indian Country Today swatted it down:
Oh, Pharrell Is Part Native American? Here's Why It Doesn't Matter
"The young man whose name is derivative of his father’s (Pharaoh) and who says he has Native American and Egyptian heritages..."
Bloggers, Facebook pundits and even journalists are speculating that this claim may dull the outrage over the image—but does it work that way? Does some American Indian DNA in Pharrell's double helix make the headdress fashion choice OK? In a word, no. Here are four reasons why:
1. Not All Indians Wear Feather Headdresses
While the feather, specifically an eagle feather, is a sacred symbol in many Native American cultures, the "war bonnet" style headdress Pharrell is wearing is very specific to Plains tribes. An article at native-languages.org cites the figure of 12 tribes; this is a very small number considering that there are 566 federally recognized tribes and innumerable others that either aren't federally recognized or simply gone due to assimilation or genocide. Some of the feather-headdress-wearing tribes are large and well-known—the Lakota, the Crow, the Cheyenne—but saying that all Indians wear feather headdresses is—to use a very superficial example—like saying all Europeans wear lederhosen.
For the sake of argument, say some of the above points didn't hold up. Say, perhaps, Pharrell's Native ancestor was from a Plains tribe that wore feather headdresses, and that he had studied the culture and it informed his daily life, and he had been given the feathers for accomplishments. The headdress remains a sacred ceremonial item, to be worn on special occasions. There's no tribute in wearing the headdress on the cover of Elle UK, flanked by "The Secret Life of Keira Knightley" and "All Natural Hair: 23 Products to Try Now." This is a spiritual item; on the cover of Elle UK it becomes secularized, trivialized, accessorized. Those who hold the headdress sacred might well say this is the opposite of a tribute.
Some people objected to the following cartoon, claiming it was racist and saying you can't fight racism with racism.
I liked it for the same reasons I like these:
They all make the same point. Used stereotypically, the Indian headdress is no different from a Mexican sombrero or a Chinese coolie hat. Or a Zulu warrior's outfit from the same 19th-century era. They all serve to stereotype minorities as primitive peasants or savages, not modern people.
Pharrell wouldn't dress as an African savage, so why is he dressing as an Indian savage? The wrongness of his actions should be self-evident.
For more on the subject, see Pharrell Apologizes for Headdress and Pharrell in a Headdress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)