"It feels good" to be white

Why White People Freak Out When They're Called Out About Race

'White fragility' is a defensive response to real conversations about race.

By Sam Adler-BellSam Adler-Bell: How did you come to write about "white fragility"?

Robin DiAngelo: To be honest, I wanted to take it on because it’s a frustrating dynamic that I encounter a lot. I don’t have a lot of patience for it. And I wanted to put a mirror to it.

I do atypical work for a white person, which is that I lead primarily white audiences in discussions on race every day, in workshops all over the country. That has allowed me to observe very predictable patterns. And one of those patterns is this inability to tolerate any kind of challenge to our racial reality. We shut down or lash out or in whatever way possible block any reflection from taking place.

Of course, it functions as means of resistance, but I think it’s also useful to think about it as fragility, as inability to handle the stress of conversations about race and racism.

Sometimes it’s strategic, a very intentional push back and rebuttal. But a lot of the time, the person simply cannot function. They regress into an emotional state that prevents anybody from moving forward.And:RD: [W]hite fragility also comes from a deep sense of entitlement. Think about it like this: from the time I opened my eyes, I have been told that as a white person, I am superior to people of color. There’s never been a space in which I have not been receiving that message. From what hospital I was allowed to be born in, to how my mother was treated by the staff, to who owned the hospital, to who cleaned the rooms and took out the garbage. We are born into a racial hierarchy, and every interaction with media and culture confirms it—our sense that, at a fundamental level, we are superior.

And, the thing is, it feels good. Even though it contradicts our most basic principles and values. So we know it, but we can never admit it. It creates this kind of dangerous internal stew that gets enacted externally in our interactions with people of color, and is crazy-making for people of color. We have set the world up to preserve that internal sense of superiority and also resist challenges to it. All while denying that anything is going on and insisting that race is meaningless to us.

SAB: Something that amazes me is the sophistication of some white people’s defensive maneuvers. I have a black friend who was accused of "online harassment" by a white friend after he called her out in a harsh way. What do you see going on there?

RD: First of all, whites often confuse comfort with safety. We say we don’t feel safe, when what we mean is that we don’t feel comfortable. Secondly, no white person looks at a person of color through objective eyes. There’s been a lot of research in this area. Cross-racially, we do not see with objective eyes. Now you add that he’s a black man. It’s not a fluke that she picked the word "harassed." In doing that, she’s reinforcing a really classic, racist paradigm: White women and black men. White women’s frailty and black men’s aggressiveness and danger.

But even if she is feeling that, which she very well may be, we should be suspicious of our feelings in these interactions. There’s no such thing as pure feeling. You have a feeling because you’ve filtered the experience through a particular lens. The feeling is the outcome. It probably feels natural, but of course it’s shaped by what you believe.Thanks for Explaining Racism to me, White People!

By Andray DomiseOne of the difficulties in having honest conversations with the sworn enemies of political correctness is that they aren’t clear which master they serve. They believe they’re swimming against the social current, but are, in fact, choosing to tread it. The term “politically correct” itself, borne from of the Stalinist era, was coined to describe ways of thinking and interacting with others that demonstrate greater loyalty to the party than to human compassion. That lack of compassion is a common thread that stitches together the professed anti-PC crowd, who often declare this lack of compassion proudly and forcefully. Think of the last person you know who’s Had It Up To Here With This PC Bullshit, and you’re thinking of find someone who’s capped out the amount of compassion they’re willing to exercise.

Rather than the irritating pressure to understand or empathize, what they want is to stop having to try. To quit the endless cycle of self-examination, and the inculpatory guilt. What they want is for the world to once again contort itself to accommodate their comfort. To accept and once again become loyal to the myth that what we understand as “racism” is hardly more than a series of minor misunderstandings, blown out of proportion by shrill opportunists. They want this, along with our agreement to redraw the lines.

It’s no accident that conversations on diversity and racism are so often dominated by white men. At their heart, they’re not conversations at all--they’re recruiting tools. The political correctness of aggrieved white men exists, and they’re asking you to be a party member.Comment:  For more on white privilege, see How Microaggressions Sneak In and White Too Fragile to Discuss Race.

Don't scapegoat individuals for racism

A column about the racist frat song at the University of Oklahoma and the Dept. of Justice report on Ferguson:

Race, outrage and white male excuses: It’s much worse than just one frat boy

Let's celebrate bad-ass responses to outrages in Ferguson and Oklahoma. But don't confuse them with real victories

By Arthur ChuParker Rice is a 19-year-old freshman. The fact that he chose to lead the chant speaks volumes to his personal character, yes, but the fact that others joined in speaks to the culture surrounding him. There’s no way he wrote that chant himself and then, spontaneously, a formerly non-racist and accepting frat suddenly decided to take it up en masse just for fun.

Moreover, it seems incredibly unlikely to me that the Greek scene as a whole is totally non-racist and accepting and one single bad apple frat decides, all by itself, to suddenly take up a horrifically racist stance against everything the school stands for, no matter how eloquently President Boren claims it goes against everything the school stands for. Which is why it’s to his credit that Boren isn’t just expelling Rice and his friend Levi Pettit but has formally cut ties with the entire fraternity, and says he’s looking into taking further action to reform the Greek system.

John Shaw is a municipal bureaucrat. He says he’s not some kind of mustache-twirling Grand Wizard of the Klan, and I believe it. I even believe him when he says he and his colleague Judge Bhad no conscious racist intentions–and I certainly don’t believe that the problems in Ferguson suddenly started when he took his position eight years ago.

The overwhelming theme of the DoJ report is that Ferguson’s bureaucracy was hungry for revenue and Shaw and his colleagues were simply trying to meet that need. The logic of capitalism and racism, as always, intertwine–money must be accumulated one way or another, and in a racist society it turns out the easiest people to put the squeeze on is black citizens, nothing personal. And if having to do a job that–for simple economic reasons–is a racist job starts to attract cops and clerks who are overtly, consciously, virulently racist, well, that too is just supply and demand at work.A bunch of fratboys don’t develop an oral tradition of singing racist chants laughing about lynchings without racism being deeply woven into the culture of our fraternities, our schools, our whole society. A single small town doesn’t systematically put its black citizens under apartheid to generate revenue–a town’s officials don’t feel safe joking about its black citizens as subhuman–without racism being deeply woven into our politics, our legal system, our methods of policing.

The urge to find a single scapegoat after a tragedy is overwhelming. And unlike the common use of the term “scapegoat” I’m not saying these people don’t deserve what they get–just as Michael Brown (the other one) deserved to be raked over the coals for the aftermath of Katrina, just as the buck stopped with George W. Bush for the war in Iraq, just as in most complex human tragedies there nonetheless is a specific person who, through negligence or malice, pulled the fatal trigger.

But it’s ridiculous to say that our history would’ve been completely changed if Bush had died or been incapacitated after choking on that pretzel in 2002–a Cheney presidency would’ve been no different. It wasn’t him, it was the apparatus around him, it was the cultural and political and legal mechanisms that got him elected in the first place, and if you replaced him with another guy from the list of Republican candidates he got drawn from it’s hard to see how history would change.

Just as if Parker Rice hadn’t pledged SAE we’d see that same video only with some other fratboy douche leading the chant. Just as if Darren Wilson hadn’t been on patrol that day some other cop would, eventually, have shot some other unarmed teenager (as we can tell by the number of other atrocities that have happened in the past few years across the country). Just as if Capt. Henke and Sgt. Mudd had never been hired there’d be two other civil servants comparing the President to a chimpanzee on government e-mail servers somewhere–and there probably are now, even as I write this.Comment:  For more on the subject, see The Science of Racism and Our Broken Justice System.

Ingraham: Natives want "Selma moment"

Laura Ingraham mocks ‘Redskins’ protests: Native Americans think it’s ‘their Selma moment’

By David EdwardsConservative radio host Laura Ingraham suggested on Tuesday that Native Americans and students in New York opposed “Redskins” as a mascot only because they wanted “their Selma moment.”

Last week, two high schools in New York had cancelled games with Lancaster High in Buffalo because the school district had not made a decision on whether or not to change the “Redskins” mascot, a term that many Native Americans find offensive.

“The people who want to keep the name don’t understand the hurt,” Tonawanda Senecas tribe member Al Parker told the school board at a Monday meeting. “It is not an honor. We are not honored by your continuing this mascot.”

On Tuesday, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade asked Ingraham for a reaction to what he called “crazy behavior” by those opposing the mascot.

“Everything is politically correct so I think the students in upstate New York, maybe they think they’re having their Selma moment by acting against this other team,” Ingraham replied. “They can do what they want, they can cancel the game. Everyone is bringing in witnesses to say I’m more offended than the other guy. And then some guy who is part Indian says, ‘I’m not offended.’”A response:

We are not your mascots: Why Laura Ingraham’s Redskins remarks are so clueless

The radio host didn't just belittle a high school protest--she undermined a centuries-long fight for civil rights

By Jacqueline KeelerAccording to Ingraham’s flippant quip, our “Selma” is taking place only now, 50 years after the more serious battles over Civil Rights were fought and won. Apparently, due to genocide and our much ballyhooed “disappearance” it just took us Native Americans a bit longer to get to that bridge.

However, we have already had our “Selmas.” Many of them. They had names like Wounded Knee, Alcatraz, and they are ongoing even today. Native American people are still holding protests on the land against the Keystone XL Pipeline and fighting for the Apache sacred sites in Oak Flat, Arizona. It’s in the news. The Keystone XL pipeline fighters even put up their tipis on the Washington Mall last year and rode their horses through Washington, DC past the White House. Ingraham might want to read the news.

This is not a new issue. The National Congress of American Indians, the nations largest and most representative organization for tribes, began their campaign against mascots in 1968. The radical American Indian Movement who were leaders in many of Native America’s Civil Rights era “Selmas” also joined the fight against mascots in 1968.

The reason for Ingraham’s stunning ignorance of this issue and why Native Americans are still being caricaturized is directly tied to the history of genocide in this country against our people. We are the “disappearing Indians” riding out into the sunset, but really we had to disappear didn’t we? For progress, for Manifest Destiny, for America to even exist. In very real ways, mascotting “disappeared” peoples can be seen as a form of trophy-ism: like the head of a noble beast on the wall.

What is extraordinary is that 50 years after the Civil Rights movement, Native Americans are still being caricaturized in our public schools to a degree unknown by any other ethnic group.Comment:  Ingraham is right in a sense. Natives want a "Selma" moment on mascots just as they have for half a century. They want a moment when people stand up and march against mascots. They want all Americans to unite and say, "We must stop stereotyping, belittling, and ignoring real Natives. These false and insulting mascots must go."

I guess Ingraham meant "Selma" as a term for a one-time photo op. But the actual meaning is the opposite. The black Selma was a culmination of a century of activism and protest, and a Native Selma would be too.

True, as Keeler notes, Native have already had Selma moments at Alcatraz and Wounded Knee. More recently, they've raised awareness with their Idle No More and Keystone XL protests. But another Selma wouldn't hurt. Every disenfranchised group should have as many Selma moments as necessary until they achieve all their rights.

Note: This entry gets a Stereotype of the Month nomination because Ingraham implied Native activists are insincere and hypocritical, seeking only fame and glory. From what I've seen, nothing could be further from the truth.

For more on the subject, see Obama's Speech at Selma.

Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt just a comedy?

I haven't watched The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt yet. But a posting about it in Facebook's Eradicating Offensive Native Mascotry group led to this debate:I think y'all have too much time on your hands to worry about racism in comedy. Seriously? You're taking comedy seriously? LOL!

...just curious how you felt when 1491s did full on Black face to illustrate the point about Red face...Why would we take representations in comedy less seriously than elsewhere? It's media and it's pervasive. This is how most people learn about Indians: from what they see in movies and on TV.

This whole mascotry cause is devoted primarily to representations in sports. Is that a serious field? More serious than comedic TV?

I'd argue that they're both unimportant in the grand scheme of things. But they're both important to the issue of Native representations because of their influence.

Is a product package important? How about a fashion show? A college frat party? A Halloween costume? Give us some important examples of racism--as opposed to these "unimportant" examples.

P.S. I appreciate what the 1491s did because they were trying to make a point. Unlike comedies such as this one.

Trying to make a point?...how do you know this comedy is not trying to make a point?

Idk. What is appropriate comedy about Indians?

What is your solution?I'm sure they were trying to make a point. Just as hipsters are trying to make a point about how "tribal" they are by wearing Plains headdresses. And how mascot lovers are trying to show how much they "honor and respect" Indians with their clown costumes.

As always, the issue isn't what they intended in their little minds. It's what results on the screen or at an event.What if there are Indian comedy writers for this show? Would it be ok?

How is the comedy hurtful? I have known people who have been in this country for decades, since the 1970's and who still do not speak a bit of English. I have known fair skinned Indians who have passed themselves off as White...actually I know a lot of people like that, especially the richer ones! I have seen Black, Asian, Latin, Native American men go coo coo for White ladies, and it certainly makes me smirk when I see that.What's my solution? Better comedy.

Native writers would do better in general. But this show may have had a Native writer or two.

They don't get a pass just because they're Native. Same as the Natives who declare they love the "Redskins." It's the results that matter, not the intent.

My blog has 79 postings on "humor" going back 10 years. I'm not going to repeat them all in a tiny Facebook box. Read what I and others have written on the subject for years. Assume we've thought about the issues in depth.

Meanwhile, what's your solution for Jane Krakowski getting another acting role that should've gone to a Native? Are you okay with being invisible? People like me are offering critiques and solutions while you're accepting the status quo.

Comedy is tricky?Comedy is a tricky thing...different people find different things funny.

Which Native actor who looks White should have gotten the role? Suggestions please...

...and if you want to change the story line, what makes you think that your story line would be funny?

Better comedy, btw, is not a solution.

Rob...I am afraid you are stuck in the good ol George Bush mentality of us vs them...geez, lighten up, fella! Been hanging around Russell Means too much perhaps? LOL!So far I've seen five criticisms of Jane Krakowski playing a Native. No one has said this storyline was funny.

Have you seen light-skinned Natives with dark-skinned parents? In particular, light-skinned Natives with eastern European features? Because that's the issue here--not merely light-skinned Natives.

What's the harm? You mean besides Krakowski taking a role from a Native actor? The harm is depicting, for perhaps the 10,000th time, that being Native is something a white person can do by putting on a costume and some jewelry. Krakowski is engaging in redface by pretending to be Native.

I'm a writer and I've proved I can write funny characters without engaging in redface. Which is a point you haven't addressed. Having white actor play a Native is the same thing we've complained about for decades. Did you miss these complaints? Because there are thousands if not millions of them in existence.

Another thing you're missing is that it takes no effort for a white actress to pass as white, so there's no comedy or drama there. If the actress were Irene Bedard or Kimberly Guerrero, as one critic suggested, she'd have to struggle to look white. The contrast between what she was trying to achieve and what she actually achieved might be funny.

I'm still waiting for your answer on which instances of racism we should criticize if not TV shows? Mascots? Product packages? Fashion shows? College frat parties? Halloween costumes? Go ahead and address each of these so we'll know what we should and shouldn't protest.

The only "us vs. them" here is Natives who want better representations vs. Hollywood which refuses to represent them better. I'll gladly take the Native side in that battle. You can stick with the "it's just comedy" Hollywood status quo that keeps Natives invisible in the media.

Conclusion

After the debate, a few final thoughts.

Obviously, as critics have said, Kimmy Schmidt was trying to explore the issue of Natives who want to and can pass for white. It's a legitimate topic--for some show, at least. But it raises questions.

One, what is it doing in this show? Critics have noted how Krakowski's character could be any ethnicity. She could be Greek, like creator Tina Fey, trying to fit into the non-Greek world. She could be Ukrainian, Brazilian, or Australian.

Remember how Crocodile Dundee had trouble fitting in in New York City? One doesn't need to engage in redface, brownface, or blackface to play a fish out of water. Even if someone has the same skin color as the majority, her language, culture, or religion can set her apart.

It seems the writers added this subplot because one or two of them are Native. That's not a great reason. The subplot doesn't flow naturally from the premise. As critics noted, it feels tacked on.

Two, it's true an actress such as Irene Bedard might look "too Native" to pass comfortably as white. Using someone like her might make the subplot difficult to pull off. Kimberly Guerrero doesn't look traditionally Native, I'd say, but some actresses do.

Okay, but there are thousands of Latina and multiracial actresses who have Native blood. As we've seen on countless shows, they can pass for many ethnicities. Many of them have experienced exactly the plight of Krakowski's character. In one context, they seem Hispanic, or whatever their predominant ethnicity is. In another, they seem white.

That's the kind of actress who should've gotten this role. Not the lily-white Krakowski. Krakowski was cast because she's white and she's Tina Fey's colleague. Not because she has any affinity for a "white Indian" role.

For more on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, see Jane Krakowski in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.

Jane Krakowski in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt

What’s Up With the Native American Subplot on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt?

By Libby HillUnbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Netflix’s new series with a 30 Rock sensibility, is the show of the moment. It premiered to glowing reviews last Friday, with critics largely agreeing: It was “winning,” "very funny,” and “daftly effervescent.” But because the show is a delight to watch on so many levels, most reviews also swept one persistent plot point under the rug: Jacqueline Voorhees’s odd, irrelevant, and ultimately offensive Native American past.

Here’s the problem: In the third episode, the audience learns that Kimmy’s boss, Voorhees, is secretly a Native American. This revelation would be one thing on its own, but Jacqueline is played by the very white, very blonde Jane Krakowski. The episode includes flashbacks to her adolescence, where Jacqueline (then called Jackie Lynn) is still played by Krakowski, with lip service played to her dyeing her hair blonde and getting blue contacts—but these are subtle details.

When addressed, the subplot is passingly called “bizarre” and “inexplicable,” but most critics decide to leave all mention of it out—good or bad. At the panel for the show at this year’s Television Critics Association press tour, Kimmy Schmidt co-creator Robert Carlock explained the story line, but his argument reads like the rough equivalent of, Well, I have Native American friends: “We have a couple of writers on staff with Native American heritage […] So we felt like we had a little room to go in that direction.” He further explains: “Wouldn’t that be a crazy A-to-Z for her to deal with that, and maybe reconcile with it, and re-embrace who she really is, ultimately.” Basically, he's explaining, they wanted to give her a sympathetic background.

Carlock positions the decision as a narrative choice. But this specific backstory is most frustrating because it doesn’t serve a purpose, either narratively or comedically. There must be more compelling (and funnier!) ways to give Jacqueline a backstory that don’t require sloppily marginalizing a group of people who are already as marginalized as you can get. It’s especially disappointing because Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt so deftly integrates race in other instances, mainly in the latter half of its first season. The most prominent example comes when Kimmy’s African-American roommate, Titus, gets a job that requires him to dress as a werewolf. The punch line: He discovers he gets better treatment from strangers while in a monster costume than he does as a black man. The point is sharp, and it works largely because Titus is the one pointing out the discrepancies. This is precisely what isn’t happening when it comes to the dynamic between Jackie Lynn and her parents.In Which I Explore the Native Cameo in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt or Troll The Respawn Jeremy If You're Gonna Do This Story Lets Do It Right

By Cutcha Risling BaldySo yes, Jenna (sorry, she’s called Jacqueline in this show although she will always be Jenna Maroney to me…) is a secret Native American. Not like “Top Secret” where she sometimes puts on her Pendleton jacket and heads out to fight colonization or to try and push secret government agencies for more money for language revitalization… but a secret Native American because she thinks the path to prosperity is to become an upper east side wife and upper east side wives are white… and blonde so she decides not to be Native American anymore, at least not in the “I have brown hair and brown eyes and respect my parents” kind of way.The biggest problem with this:CON: Jacqueline is played by a white actress pretending to be a Native person who is pretending to be white.

WHAT THE WRITERS NEED TO KNOW: Lots of white people have played Indian people in movies… on TV… on the radio… at sporting events… and even if you don’t want it to, it adds a layer of disingenuousness to your story. When white actresses are given the leeway to play Native it hearkens back to these days where any actor could play native by slapping a headband on or crying for the spoiling of the earth on TV commercials (stop littering. You are making the Natives sad). It might not be “fair” or “what you intended” but this is the way that it is when white people play Natives… and it will be this way until we get more positive representations of Native people, by Native people, with Native people. That’s what you’re signing up for with this story writers, deal with it.Her conclusion:I know people are (understandably) somewhat upset about this tongue in cheek portrayal of Nativeness on this very white show in a very white universe. I sometimes think that it’s just reflective of how exhausting modern, privileged, white centered comedy is. It’s always outside looking in. It’s always “look at my privilege, be awash in my privilege, watch my privilege allow me to make whatever jokes I want or to write whatever I want because I want to oh and by the way here's where i say sorry if you were offended.” It’s so tongue in cheek that it can be exhausting–especially when that’s all there is. (It's the reason why those pointed lines that make fun of this privilege are so exciting for people. It's also why people think they can get away with the other problematic portrayals of race on the show "but we made a joke about privilege, so we can now make this problematic character speak in a funny accent...).”

The Unbearable Whiteness Of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt—Tina Fey's Racist New Show

By Ijeoma OluoI've never seen a show with such a diverse cast that was written so obviously and exclusively for privileged white people.

I was (and still am) a huge fan of 30 Rock. The show about a fictional late night TV show with a hilarious crew of neurotic misfits skyrocketed Tina Fey to stardom as one of the best comedic writers of our day. So when I heard that Tina Fey had a new show, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, and it was available for binge-watching on Netflix, I was beyond excited. I settled in with my laptop, snacks on hand, prepared to laugh.

I was not prepared for how incredibly tired, hack, and downright offensive this show would be when it comes to race. I've never seen a show with such a diverse cast that was written so obviously and exclusively for privileged white people. Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is the story of a young woman who was abducted as a teenager into a religious cult and forced to live underground with three other women for 15 years. After she is freed, she moves to New York to start a new life. Hilarity ensues. Or, racism ensues. I guess it depends on what you find funny.Is Jane Krakowski Native American? As A Mixed Race Woman, I Question Her 'Kimmy Schmidt' Character's Past

By Mallory CarraAll that being said, I appreciate more diversity on TV in any form and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is certainly doing its part—Kimmy’s roommate Titus is African American and her love interest Dong is Vietnamese. But I’m not sure the Krakowski-as-a-Native-American storyline should be included in that. It’s a joke that gets old quickly and is unnecessary—Jacqueline could’ve been Russian or have any other ethnic background. She didn’t have to be Native American. Co-creator Robert Carlock tried to justify Jacqueline’s Native American backstory at the Television Critics Association press tour, saying, “We have a couple of writers on staff with Native American heritage. So we felt like we had a little room to go in that direction.” But that doesn’t quite work for me.

It’s also not the best timing for a joke like this, coming after #OscarsSoWhite and the big push for Hollywood to embrace diversity on-screen and off. I mean, already we’ve seen white British actor Adam Rayner being cast as an Arab in Tyrant and David Schwimmer land the role of famous Armenian Robert Kardashian in the upcoming American Crime Story. For all of Kimmy Schmidt’s contributions to inclusiveness, casting white actors in ethnic roles is not the path to diversity.'Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt' Has Two Native American Actors. It Needed ThreeUpadhyaya sees the Native storyline as a troubling way to make a simple point: "'Why does it matter where I’m from? It’s where I’m going that counts,' Jacqueline asks. Sure, yes. That seems to be the character’s central philosophy. But we probably could have gotten there in a different, less whitewashy way."

Here's another way we could have gotten there: Keep the Native American character, and hire a Native American actress, one who looks like she might share a single gene with pappy Gil Birmingham, to play her. Irene Bedard and Kimberly Norris Guerrero are contemporaries of Krakowski, either of them with dyed-blonde hair would be funny—funnier than a white woman playing a Native who is passing as white. When a character is passing as another race, the comedic question is Who does she think she's fooling? But instead of a joke within the narrative, any moderately intelligent viewer is more likely to feel like the show's creators are trying to pull a fast one: Do they really expect us to believe she's Native American?

Krakowski, though, is a selling-point of the show; she comes with the fairy dust of 30 Rock and Ally McBeal on her. Tina Fey and company would sooner rewrite the character than replace her with a Native actress. So perhaps they should have rewritten the character. As much as we like—correction: we love—seeing Gil Birmingham and Sheri Foster in a sitcom, watching them pretend to be Jacqueline's biological family is unsettling, on more than one level.

As Libby Hill says in the conclusion of her Vulture article, "What's most disheartening about this isn't that it exists, it's that apparently, nobody thought it would raise alarms at all."Comment:  For more on the subject, see White Males Still Dominate Hollywood and Race at the 2015 Oscars.

Fremont Indians on SciGirls

I recently watched an episode of SciGirls about Indians on PBS:

About SciGirlsSciGirls is a new show for kids ages 8-12 that showcases bright, curious real tween girls putting science and engineering to work in their everyday lives. Each half-hour episode follows a different group of middle school girls, whose eagerness to find answers to their questions will inspire your children to explore the world around them and discover that science and technology are everywhere!

In the first season of SciGirls, the girls, with the help of scientist mentors, design their own inquiry-based investigations on a huge variety of topics, from the environment to technology and from engineering to nutrition. Shot reality style, SciGirls around the country study dolphins, engineer a giant mechanical puppet, unearth the archaeological secrets of extinct Native American cultures and create high-tech fashions. Videos of these investigations are archived in a project section of the show’s companion Web site.

While we meet new girls in each episode, the series is unified by a pair of recurring animated characters Izzie and her best friend Jake. Together, they embark on their own adventures and call on the SciGirls for help.The episode in question:

Behind the Scenes | Archaeology AdventureMeet Jazzy and Gates, two adventure-loving SciGirls who just returned from four days of hardcore camping far away from running water, little siblings, computers and cell phones--all in the name of science!

The girls teamed up with Dr. Renee Barlow, the Curator of Archaeology of the College of Eastern Utah’s Prehistoric Museum, to try and unearth some clues about the mysterious Fremont Indian culture that lived in Range Creek Canyon about 1,000 years ago.Digging Archaeology 05: ShareThe SciGirls collected specimens and made detailed observations in their studies of the ancient Fremont culture. They took these observations into account and made some hypotheses about what the ancient people ate and how they lived.Comment:  Perhaps because Jazzy is Native, the episode didn't waste any time on ignorant or stereotypical beliefs about Indians. These girls already seem more knowledgeable about Indians than typical Americans.

The animated introduction had Izzie having to learn archaeology to dig through Jake's locker trash for his lucky socks. Maybe tween girls appreciate that, but I'd drop it.

All in all, the show did a good job of simplifying archaeology to the level of someone 8-12 years old. It might be enough to inspire some girls to pursue science.

Below: Jazzy and Gates.

Obama's speech at Selma

Read the full transcript of Obama's rousing, emotional speech in Selma

Obama’s speech in Selma was an answer to those who question his love for America

By Ezra KleinObama's critics question his love for the country he governs. "I do not believe—and I know this is a horrible thing to say—but I do not believe that the president loves America," former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in February. They look at Obama's steady belief that America is not yet good enough, not yet pure enough, not yet perfect enough, and they see a skeptic, not a patriot.

In this speech, Obama's answer to this criticism was direct:Fellow marchers, so much has changed in fifty years. We've endured war, and fashioned peace. We've seen technological wonders that touch every aspect of our lives, and take for granted convenience our parents might scarcely imagine. But what has not changed is the imperative of citizenship, that willingness of a 26 year-old deacon, or a Unitarian minister, or a young mother of five, to decide they loved this country so much that they'd risk everything to realize its promise.

That's what it means to love America. That's what it means to believe in America. That's what it means when we say America is exceptional.There is an implicit radicalism in what Obama is saying here. To believe America is good enough is to abandon the tradition of criticism and activism that has made America great.

Obama's answer to Giuliani is that Giuliani has mistaken uncritical adoration for the hard work required of true love. Patriotism is active, not passive. Those who love America prove it by working to perfect America. They continue marching.People tweeted their thoughts on the historic event:Retweeted Bill Maher (@billmaher):
Watching the commemoration in Selma on the news -- so much has changed in 50 years! Like, the cops didn't have tanks back then.

Retweeted Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith):
"What could be more American than what happened in this place?" President Obama asks. True of both the courage and the violence.

Retweeted Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren):
It's up to us to make sure our government serves ALL of our people. We must restore the ‪#‎VotingRightsAct‬. ‪#‎Selma50‬ http://t.co/NZpYsrBsMaWhile Democrats were celebrating the march of liberty and justice, Republicans were, uh, doing something else:

The GOP’s Conspicuous Absence from Selma

By Charles C. W. CookeIf we are to regard the founding generation as being worthy of contemporary political lionization—and we most assuredly should—then we must consider those who marched at Selma to be so, too. If we are to put George Washington upon our plinths, and to eulogize him on our currency, we must agree to elevate Martin Luther King Jr. to the same dizzy heights. They are less famous, perhaps, but by virtue of their brave march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, John Lewis and Hosea Williams immortalized themselves into quintessential American heroes in the mold of Sam Adams and George Mason. To miss an opportunity to solemnize their daring is to blunder, disgracefully.

If all men really are created equal, the anniversary of Selma must be treated as a date every bit as important to American history as is the end of the Siege of Yorktown. As it would be unthinkable for the leadership of the Republican party to ignore July Fourth, it should be unthinkable for its luminaries not to celebrate the anniversary of the March to Montgomery either. Where have you gone, Speaker Boehner, a movement turns its lonely eyes to you.The Native aspects

My thoughts on Obama's oration:

Good speech, though I might've cut it half.

We should elect this guy president. He has strong opinions on the things we need to change!

But why is he quoting from Scripture if he's a Muslim?!

Obama mentioned Natives twice:We are Lewis and Clark and Sacajawea—pioneers who braved the unfamiliar, followed by a stampede of farmers and miners, entrepreneurs and hucksters. That's our spirit.

We're the fresh-faced GIs who fought to liberate a continent, and we're the Tuskeegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.Okay, but the failure to say more was a missed opportunity considering the enormity of our crimes against Natives.

Canceling out these two mentions were these lines, which came just before the code-talker paragraph:We're the slaves who built the White House and the economy of the South. We're the ranch hands and cowboys who opened the West, and countless laborers who laid rail, and raised skyscrapers, and organized for workers' rights.That sounds something like, "We're the brave entrepreneurs who crossed the Atlantic to find workers for the South's burgeoning cotton industry."

The phrase "opened the West" covers up a lot and obscures the truth. The only way the West was "closed" was "closed off to the white man's colonization by signed treaties." So we're celebrating how ranchers, miners, and railroads opened the West to disease, poverty, and land theft? Great.

Or as I tweeted:

Obama at ‪#‎Selma50‬: "We're the ranch hands and cowboys who opened the West"...by breaking treaties and killing Indians, he forgot to say.

For more on the subject, see What the Crusades Controversy Is About and Ryan: Obama Threatens Western Valuess .

White males still dominate Hollywood

After the whitest Oscar nominations in years, several articles on Hollywood's lack of diversity appeared:

Dear White Male People: You Still Dominate HollywoodA little over a week ago, Best First Screenplay Spirit Award winner Justin Simien told the revelers at the ceremony that he started writing Dear White People “as an impulse because I didn’t really see my story out there in the culture.” Simien went on to encourage other young filmmakers, “If you don’t see yourself in the culture, please put yourself there, because we need you. We need to see the world from your eyes.”

A few days later, when the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies at UCLA released its Diversity Report, it proved just how desperate and urgent Simien’s plea really is.

In the exhaustive report—which examined the top theatrical film releases in 2012 and 2013 and all broadcast, cable and digital platform TV programs from the 2012-13 season—the news for artists and executives of color went from bad to worse then horrific.

When you read the highlights­—and by that we mean low points—below, keep in mind that minorities constitute nearly 40% of the US population. Women make up half the population in the country.

Minorities are getting shut out of lead film roles
Of 174 films examined for 2013, minorities got less than 17% of lead roles.Women and minorities' share of TV writing jobs lower, guild says

By Ryan FaughnderThe 2013-14 TV season showed no progress in the hiring of female and minority writers, according to the Writers Guild of America, West.

In fact, women and minority groups have recently lost ground compared with their white counterparts, the trade group said.

In a new report, the guild said women writers' share of TV staff jobs was 29% in the most recent season, down from 30.5% in the previous season. Meanwhile, minorities accounted for 13.7% of employment, compared with 15.6% during the 2011-12 season.

The WGA report, released Tuesday, covered about 3,000 writers working on about 300 shows on 36 networks. The declines in the most recent season follow slow gains over the last decade.WGA Study: Most Jobs Go To White Guys in Their 40s

By David RobbThis lack of diversity at the beginning of the hiring process almost assures a lack of diversity at the end of it, the report’s author told Deadline. “The funnel is pretty narrow at the beginning of the phase in terms of project pitching, so it’s pretty much guaranteed that it’s going to be even narrower at the end of the pipeline,” said Dr. Darnell Hunt, director of the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies at UCLA. “The pitching process needs to be more diverse. The higher payoff is diversifying the process at the very early stages.”And:“Blame is rightfully shared,” Hunt told Deadline, noting that showrunners, networks, studios, production companies and talent agencies that package the deals all need to do a better job of diversifying their writing staffs if audiences are going to continue to tune in to their shows. “Studies show that audiences do prefer more diverse programming,” he said. “I just don’t see how the industry is going to be viable if they don’t give increasingly diverse audiences what they want.”

But he said the chances of that happening on its own are not good. “The market by itself is not going to fix it; there are too many obstacles,” Hunt said. “It’s not going to correct itself. Something else is going to have to happen.”Hollywood's Diversity Problem Starts At The Top, UCLA Report Finds

By Carolina MorenoHollywood’s diversity problem is far from shocking. Over the past few years, studies have highlighted the profitability of diverse casting and the lack of minority representation both in film and television. But a new study, released by UCLA’s Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies, goes one step further to pinpoint the root of the problem.

Overwhelming white and male executives coupled with predominantly white rosters in the industry’s top three talent agencies are mainly to blame for the lack of diversity Hollywood, according to the university’s “2015 Hollywood Diversity Report.”And:“Because of the high risk associated with the typical project—most new television shows fail, most films underperform—individual stakeholders in the industry (typically white and male) look to surround themselves with other individuals with whom they feel comfortable, with whom they feel they have the best prospects for producing a successful project,” the authors wrote. “These latter individuals, of course, tend to think and look like the former, thereby reproducing an industry culture that routinely devalues the talent of minorities and women.”

When the study looked into film studios’ executive ranks in 2013, 94 percent of CEOs and/or chairs and 92 percent of senior management were white. Television executives didn’t prove significantly more diverse either. The report found that 96 percent of chairs and/or CEOs and 93 percent of senior management were white.HBO Is Determined To Tackle Its Diversity Problem

By Sasha BronnerOn Wednesday, the network that currently has hit shows "Game of Thrones," "Girls," "True Detective" and "Last Week Tonight with Jon Oliver," declared that they will seek "emerging writers from diverse backgrounds" and that those selected will participate in a week of master classes, focusing on things like story development and how to pitch their work, before embarking upon an eight-month writing journey paired with an HBO development executive.

In the past, HBO has come under fire for the general whiteness of its programming--particularly "Girls"--and while many may feel that its unfair to pin all diversity requirements on one half-hour program, critics like The New York Times' Jon Caramanica proclaimed: "Television is nowhere near diverse enough--not in its actors, its writers or its show runners. The problems identified by critics of 'Girls' are systemic, traceable to network executives who greenlight shows and shoot down plenty of others. It’s at that level that diversity stands or falls."

Bustle wrote an article titled "Why HBO and Other Networks Need to Pay Attention to Diversity," and used HuffPost infographics to make their point.

For example, between 1975 and 2014, 38 individuals created hour-long dramas at HBO. Of the 38, 33 of these people were white men. Three were women and only one was a non-white man.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Race at the 2015 Oscars and Hollywood Still White in 2015.

Below:  The white stars of HBO's Girls.

The conservative campaign of fear

This post complements yesterday's post on The Conservative War on Reason. It notes how conservatives are trying to replace rationality with fear and hatred.

Fear Dominates Politics, Media and Human Existence in America—And It’s Getting Worse

Today, AlterNet launches a series of articles and investigations on fear, and how to combat it.

By Don HazenIn America, with Fox News and conservative rhetoric, there is no end to the people and messages defining things as frightening. Smith adds that, “every social problem needs to have deviant groups or individuals—people who aren’t 'like us'—but who are the problem and should be feared.”

Arguably, fear as a factor has been growing in America since 9/11, which was obviously traumatic for many Americans. Instead of being treated as a criminal act by a small group of suicide killers, it produced a massively forceful reaction, including two wars. Response to 9/11 provoked a wave of fear, repression and doomsday preparation that continues to escalate to this day. The new evil on the horizon is ISIS, the media-savvy beheaders who have garnered unbelievable amounts of news coverage. The result, no doubt, will be the spawning of untold new ways of intruding on American life and individual rights.

The security state’s sole raison de d'être is to instill fear in the populace to control behavior and collect information. The security state mind is by nature suggestible, paranoid and capable of creating fearful situations out of propaganda and mis- and disinformation.

The reality is that Americans are endlessly bombarded with media messages that are fearful and deceitful. Almost daily, we are urged to fear exaggerated or fake threats. This unstinting hysteria affects our politics and policies. And going deeper, this media onslaught literally shapes how our brains work and what people believe.For more on the subject, see Conservatives Want to Brainwash Kids and What the Crusades Controversy Is About.

The conservative war on reason

A good posting that touches upon why liberals love Spock and Obama. Namely, because they're calm and rational--unlike such cowboy characters as John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.

It’s worse than Scott Walker and Ted Cruz: Secrets of conservatives’ decades-long war on truth

The right knows that facts and reason have a liberal bent. That's why their decades-long strategy is to lie

By Heather Cox RichardsonEnlightenment ideals prompted America’s founding and reigned for generations as Americans searched for the best ways to manage the economy, changing demographics and international conflict. But in the 1950s, the idea of progress through reason presented a problem for wealthy businessmen. They hated New Deal legislation because it regulated business and protected workers. The boom years of the 1920s had been good ones for them, and they believed that the continued success of their enterprises depended on their complete control over their businesses and the workers they employed. They believed that government meddling in their affairs would disrupt natural economic laws. And with their downfall would come the downfall of the entire American economy, and with it, the nation.

But the problem was that the New Deal was extraordinarily popular. After an economic free-for-all of the 1920s that had pitched the nation into the Great Depression, Americans embraced the government regulation that reined in shady business dealings and protected workers. How could businessmen make inroads against such a popular program?

In 1951, a young William F. Buckley, Jr. articulated a strategy for opposing the consensus that supported New Deal policies. Buckley’s “God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of ‘Academic Freedom’” was a sophomoric diatribe by the Catholic son of a wealthy oil magnate, published by the small right-wing Henry Regnery Press. In it, Buckley rejected the principles that had enabled social progress for centuries and laid out a mind-boggling premise: The Enlightenment, the intellectual basis of Western Civilization, was wrong.

Rational argument supported by facts did not lead to sound societal decisions, Buckley claimed; it led people astray. Christianity and an economy based on untrammeled individualism were truths that should not be questioned. Impartial debate based in empirical facts was dangerous because it led people toward secularism and collectivism—both bad by definition, according to Buckley. Instead of engaging in rational argument, Buckley insisted, thinkers must stand firm on what he called a new “value orthodoxy” that indoctrinated people to understand that Christianity and economic individualism were absolute truths. Maintaining that faith in reasoned debate was a worse “superstition” than the Enlightenment had set out to replace, Buckley launched an intellectual war to replace the principle of academic inquiry with a Christian and individualist ideology.Comment:  Christianity as an absolute truth...that's why we killed Indians and enslaved Africans. That's why we continue to oppress women and minorities. It's all about maintaining white male Christian supremacy. That's been the case since the fall of Rome and the beginning of the "Dark Ages," if not before.

For more on the subject, see Conservatives Want to Brainwash Kids and What the Crusades Controversy Is About.

Below:  Liberal heroes:





Conservative heroes:

Police shoot at black targets

If you're black in America, stereotypes kill

By Olivia A. ColeBlack faces as shooting range targets—some with bullet holes through their foreheads and eyes—stings particularly painfully when, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a white police officer used deadly force against a black person almost two times a week between 2005-2012. Police officers like Darren Wilson and wannabes like George Zimmerman often use the "I feared for my life" defense when attempting to justify the shooting and killing of unarmed black kids. We all remember Zimmerman—a trained MMA fighter—claiming that 17-year old Trayvon Martin overpowered him, forcing Zimmerman to use his weapon, and more recently, Darren Wilson—6'4" and 210 pounds—testified that he "felt like a five-year-old holding Hulk Hogan" in regards to his encounter with Michael Brown, calling Brown a "demon" and an "it." Wilson's testimony especially exposes something particularly disturbing about the way white people (even police) perceive black bodies—as dangerous, evil, inhuman—and what that means for the safety of black lives.

Research backs this up. In a study carried out by the University of California, research showed that dehumanization of black people led to increased violence (trigger warning for racist imagery):[Police officers] who compared blacks to apes were seen as having a higher level of dehumanization. Researchers compared ... officers' personal records against their levels of dehumanization towards blacks. They found that officers who had higher levels of dehumanization towards blacks were more likely of having a history of using force against black children in custody, than those who did not dehumanize blacks. Use of force was defined for the purposes of the study as instances of an officer using a takedown or wristlock; kicking or punching; striking with a blunt instrument using a police dog, restraints or hobbling; or using tear gas, electric shock or killing. Surprisingly, only dehumanization was found to increase a police officer's use of force against blacks. Both conscious and unconscious prejudice did not have any link to the likelihood of police officers using violent force against black children in custody.And:We should remember this demonization of black people—whether young or old, male or female—when police take the lives of unarmed civilians: The police, like all of us, have been born and bred on a media culture that feeds us the myth of White Heroes and Black Thugs. With testimonies like that of George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, Americans are persuaded to believe that it's scary being a cop (or a neighborhood watchman) and scary being face-to-face with black men. But what are we supposed to believe when police officers are caught using pictures of black men as target practice in the shooting range? That doesn't sound like fear: It sounds like hate. It sounds like the ideological construction of an enemy. The North Miami Beach officers have also claimed to have photos of Osama bin Laden in the range as a target. Is this how officers are molding their vision of the civilians they are sworn to protect? By equating them with terrorists?

A recent study found that police officers come out of the police academy already having a bias toward use of force, and that there is alarming correlation between race and perceived threat. But what of police who thrill themselves with this perception of threat? Literally training their eye in the shooting range to see a black face and shoot? Is it really fear triggering the gun, or is it the result of a well-practiced drill?

Like in the Implicit Association Test, in which the test taker must quickly choose whether to apply "bad" and "good" words to black or white people (pain, joy, horrible, pleasure) in the blink of an eye, in which all our prejudices are tested, perhaps police like those in North Miami Beach are underestimating what they teach their own brains when they tape up pictures of black boys to gun down. What it comes down to is that we are supposed to believe police officers' fear because we are supposed to believe that people with black skin are to be feared. We are sold the officers' fear and convinced to ignore the fear of being black in America, born with a target painted on one's face.Comment:  Substitute "Savage Indian" for "Black Thug" and the same analysis applies. Indeed, the police are more likely to shoot Natives than any other minority.

Mascots and other stereotypical images contribute to the violence against Natives--just like the targets on the shooting range. If you see Natives as cartoon characters fit only for product labels or Halloween costumes, you're less likely to treat them as human beings. You're more likely to react negatively when they don't match your expectations.

Many Natives have heard comments along the lines of "You're not a real Indian" or "Where are the real Indians?" Anyone who says such things is doubtful and suspicious by definition. How are you supposed to receive fair treatment when the person opposite you questions your existence?

For more on the subject, see Blacks Killed Because of Racist Stereotypes.

How microaggressions sneak in

No, You’re Not Imagining It: 3 Ways Racial Microaggressions Sneak into Our Lives

By Anni LiuOver time, being on the receiving end of these everyday (yet often unrecognizable) attacks can lead to depression, social isolation, and lowered confidence. Because we’ve been conditioned to question ourselves and not the perpetrators or the situations, we begin to wonder if our own feelings and experiences are legitimate.

Sometimes, without understanding what we’re doing, we even internalize those aggressions and use them to police both our loved ones and ourselves.

As a kid, I often corrected my mother’s pronunciation of English words. Though she did have a Chinese accent, she didn’t need me to tell her how to speak English–she’d taught English as a second language for more than a decade.

I didn’t realize that by doing that, I was communicating that her foreign accent not only made her English different, it made it wrong. And like so many others, I had no idea I was regurgitating racist ideology (practicing internalized racism).And:Dismissing the racialized experiences of POC is oppressive and continues to give credence only to the White experience. Along with that, colorblind thinking dismisses the reality of white privilege and white supremacy, and allows them to keep doing what they do.

An example of this is asking a person of color, “Where are you from?” or “How do you say ____ in your language?”

This question is often directed at Asian and Latinx Americans–whether immigrants skilled in other languages or not–out of simple curiosity. But the message is that even if they consider America their home, they will never truly belong.

Another example is “I’m not racist–I have a ____ friend!”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Microaggressions Go Mainstream and Pocahotties Show Depth of Microaggressions.

The Native Spock

Many Natives were fans of Star Trek and Mr. Spock. For instance:

My Vulcan Savior: NDN Geek Says Goodbye to Leonard Nimoy

By Jeffrey VereggeI don’t know where to begin really. Star Trek has been such a big part of who I am since I was a teenager. Countless movies, hours upon hours of watching the reruns on TV and yes, dressing up as a Vulcan from time to time just because I wanted to feel like I was in there.

Yesterday I lost what I consider an Uncle. Leonard Nimoy was more than just an actor to me. He was equal parts family and savior. His portrayal of Spock gave me a hero who could look at the impossible and find an answer, a character void of emotions but full of humanity. He was every bit as real to me as the family that surrounded me on my rez.

Star Trek saved me, and Leonard Nimoy was one its angels.

In my darkest hours growing up, I knew I could turn to Trek. It gave me the escape that I needed. It was a wagon train to the stars—I was swept away as soon as I turned on my TV, put in a video or opened a comic or novel. Some may ask, what about God? I would simply tell them in my most Vulcan-like tone that I believe that God knew who I was at the time and knew what would best reach and preserve my fragile state of mind. I would not be here today if it was not for Trek and more importantly Leonard Nimoy, William Shatner and Deforest Kelly.Why were Spock and Nimoy important to Natives? It probably wasn't because of this:



Leonard Nimoy in Gunsmoke
(Season 11, Episode 29) Treasure of John Walking Fox (1966)

Some comments on the video:Even in Gunsmoke, Vulcan logic prevails.

I thought Indians said things like "paleface" or "white man" with broken English when they were portrayed in these gunsmoke shows? Nimoy talked like a college professor in this part of the episode...dressed like an Indian?

Damn, his acting is exactly the same here as in Trek. I was expecting to hear something about logic during the video.Someone said Nimoy didn't relish playing a Native and did it only for the money. At least he didn't look or sound stereotypical.

In fact, he sounded like an East Coast Jew. I would've suggested doing something to make him sound less polished. Less like, well, Leonard Nimoy.

The point of Spock

No, a Facebook posting by Garrett Cook explains why Spock and Nimoy were important to Natives:Imagine being in the America depicted in Madmen and you're cast to play the voice of reason on a show that looks like it's going down in flames. Every scientist in movies is mad or an avuncular pipe puffing grandpa and reason is the province of wet blankets that the hero always proves wrong. Imagine, in a country like this one, being told "you're going to be a foreigner who looks funny and tells John Wayne to stop and think what he's doing." To be gentle and reasonable and to be the rational side of a man of action is a thankless job and it was a lot moreso in the America of the 60s. But Leonard Nimoy was serious, passionate and invested in making reason look like it's not just for squares and pipe puffing avuncular grandpas, Leonard Nimoy was invested in showing America that sometimes the cowboy can be wrong and that reason could be the most compassionate course of action. Spock is a ray of hope, Spock represents saying "no" to jingoism, violence and superstition and yes to the belief that there is some modicum of sense in existence and we must stand up for it. Bringing talent, charisma and humanity to the thankless task of reason will give generations to come something to thank Leonard Nimoy for.Another posting mentioned the biracial aspect:

Mr. Spock: The 'Mystery of Masculinity' Embodied

By Neda UlabyStar Trek made its debut during a turbulent moment in history—in the midst of the Vietnam War and the feminist movement—and Spock somehow spoke to the times, Jenkins says. It was rare then, he says, to see a TV character embody two very different cultures.

"In that sense Star Trek looks ahead to the society we live in today, where so many people are mixed race, mixed cultural background," Jenkins says. "And I've been thinking about that a lot lately, looking at Barack Obama. There's something in the [Obama] mythology that seems to echo our assumption about Spock—that he's someone able to bridge worlds. And he's indebted to Vulcan philosophy of IDIC, the Vulcan philosophy of infinite diversity and infinite combination. Someone who is of mixed race is seen as being capable of understanding both races."Nimoy himself was aware of how Spock represented the outsider, walking in two worlds, as most Natives do:

Leonard Nimoy's Advice To A Biracial Girl In 1968

By Gene DembyIt wasn't supposed to be "Leonard Nimoy + Biracial Kids Day" here at Code Switch, but the news takes you where it takes you.

BuzzFeed's Leonora Epstein uncovered this blog post from the blog My Star Trek Scrapbook, which features a letter from a 1968 issue of the defunct teen magazine FaVE! In a letter addressed to Mr. Spock, a young biracial girl laments that she doesn't fit in with either her black or her white peers.

"I know that you are half Vulcan and half human and you have suffered because of this," the girl named F.C. wrote. "My mother is Negro and my father is white and I am told this makes me a half-breed. ... I guess I'll never have any friends."

Nimoy was so moved by the letter that he responded at length in the next issue. "[Spock] said to himself: 'Not everyone will like me,'" Nimoy wrote. "But there will be those who will accept me just for who I am."

For more on the subject, see The Political Spock and Leonard Nimoy Dies.

The political Spock

Posted on February 27, the day Leonard Nimoy died:

Today we're all Vulcan. Except Republicans. They're Romulan.

I was going to say Ferengi, but I think Romulan is more apt.

Ferengi is like the libertarian sub-class of the galaxy. Making money off people's backs without noticing that the imperial stormtroopers are threatening to take over and put everyone who disobeys in death camps.

Talkin' about Spock

This led to the following discussion:Suliban.I suspect no conservatives are mourning Leonard Nimoy's death. Because that would mean acknowledging science.

Can you imagine what Mr. Spock would say about those who deny evolution and believe in angels? "Even for your species, Captain, these people are infantile."Science has its flaws as well.Yes, but liberals embrace the scientific process, flaws and all. Conservatives don't.I embrace life. Even evolution starts at a creation point. Which nobody will ever know.I don't think Spock ever took a position on God or creation. He understood that science and religion were two different fields. Unlike today's conservatives, that is.

In fact, his credo of IDIC is the liberal credo. Which is why liberals are mourning Nimoy and conservatives aren't.Dominion.I'm not clear on the differences between the Romulans and the lesser of the "evil" races. So I'm going with the classic choice.

An illogical Republican

Then I tweeted the following:

Conservatives denounce IDIC as socialist Kenyan Muslim propaganda--fail to realize it comes from a 1960s TV show. #RIP #LiveLongandProsper

‪#‎RepublicanSpock‬ says: Scientists like me are evil. We falsify our results for personal gain. Don't trust us; trust the Ferengi instead.

I wouldn't have thought anyone was dumb enough to contradict this. But one Republican dared to claim Spock:

No, GOP Rep. Bill Post, Mr. Spock Was Not A Republican (VIDEO)

By Wendy GittlesonOregon Rep. Bill Post (R) says he is Oregon’s biggest Star Trek fan. On the floor of the Oregon Legislature, Post delivered a tribute to Nimoy, but unlike President Obama’s tribute, Post’s was self-serving and political.

“Today,” Post said, “is a sad day in history. Today, the greatest Republican in the history of the galaxy, passed away. He was a legal alien who believed in prosperity.”

Wow, someone seriously thought Nimoy was or Spock would be a Republican? How stupid and illogical can you get?

While you're at it, tell us how George Takei, gay activist, and Nichelle Nichols, friend of Martin Luther King Jr., are also Republicans.

Spock "believed in prosperity"...why, because he dedicated his life to working as a scientist and ambassador in the Federation government? Because he had zero interest in anything but pursuing truth and justice? Because he led a monkish lifestyle and literally dressed like a monk later in life?

The Federation doesn't even use money. It freely gives food and medicine to planets in need. If anything, it's pure socialism in action. Presumably its citizens, including Spock, believe in its socialist-democratic model.

This is right up there with claiming King was a Republican. There's no better proof that Republicans are self-deluded idiots.

As for Nimoy, he's a Jew who did a play about a homosexual relationship in prison. Who photographed a series on women's body issues. He's like the least Republican person ever.

Commenters rip Rep. Post

The commenters on YouTube ripped Post to pieces:I don't get how Spock could be a Republican. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" doesn't sound very conservative to me. Spock was anti-war, pro-science and pro-evolution. Spock seemed fine in the socialist Star Trek universe, where there is no money, no poverty, and universal health care. And if you think the Federal Government is too big now, wait till you see the United Federation of Planets!

Uh no. Leonard Nimoy was a lifelong Democrat and Spock was a socialist but thanks for reminding people how clueless the GOP is and how quickly Republicans and conservatives with capitalize on someone's misfortune in order to make their own.

Appropriate, since you live in a fantasy. I attended a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer that Leonard Nimoy spoke at. He invoked his most famous character many times in regards to debunking GOP policies on the environment and other topics. FYI, there was universal healthcare in Starfleet.

Nimoy was a Democrat. Star Trek is what perfect socialism would look like.Duh. You'd have to be a complete ignoramus, the opposite of a Star Trek fan, to think Nimoy was a Republican. Such idiocy does not compute.

For more on the subject, see Leonard Nimoy Dies.

Leonard Nimoy dies

For a longtime Star Trek fan like me, this was an unfortunate day.

It would be illogical to mourn Leonard Nimoy's death, so we shall celebrate his life instead.



For Leonard Nimoy, Spock’s Hold Made Reaching Escape Velocity Futile

By Alessandra StanleyIt’s hard to think of another star who was so closely and affectionately identified with a single role. Even George Reeves, the first television Superman, was also one of the Tarleton twins in “Gone With the Wind.”

It’s even harder to think of a television character that so fully embodied and defined a personality type. Just as Scrooge became synonymous with miser, and Peter Pan became a syndrome, Spock was dispassion personified.He lived long and prospered. And taught us that being cool and logical could be a way of life. Or as I tweeted:

Everybody who learned to be more calm, rational, and logical from Leonard Nimoy's portrayal of Spock, raise your hand. ‪#‎LiveLongandProsper‬

Leonard Nimoy Showed Us What It Truly Means To Be Human

By Charlie Jane AndersBefore Spock came along, alien beings in mass media (and most written SF as well) were one-dimensional. They represented the "other," the strange and unknowable beings who could only throw our human characters in relief. In the hands of most actors, Spock would have been a one-note joke character: the guy who spouts off formulas and equations in a monotone. Spock could easily have become the butt of Star Trek's jokes, or just a weird side character.

But Nimoy imbued Spock with a life and complexity that were impossible to deny. Far from being a one-note character, Spock became one of the most complex and nuanced people on television. From his inner torment to his quiet amusement at the humans around him to his occasional flashes of anger, Spock was a constantly surprising mystery, with a lot of layers.

A 1999 column about Trek notes how the original series worked because of Shatner and Nimoy.

The trouble with “Trek”

Plagued by falling ratings, rampant merchandising and a boss who hates the franchise legacy, the noble "Star Trek" faces the indignities of age.

By Robert WilonskyIt’s likely those of us weaned on Roddenberry’s first series view its successors through the blinding haze of a nostalgia that grows brighter the longer the original characters remain off the screen. It’s damned difficult to watch Captain Janeway try to get her “Voyager” crew home week after inexorable week when all we want to see is Shatner dust off his toupee for one last hurrah as Captain James Tiberius Kirk. Nostalgia has a way of skewing perceptions, of making us all a little giddy and unreasonable.

“But this isn’t nostalgia,” says Mark Altman, who penned the indie comedy “Free Enterprise,” which stars Shatner and comes out on DVD Tuesday, after writing nearly a dozen “Trek”-related books. “They got all the ingredients right with the original. It was impeccably cast. Look at how brilliant Shatner and Nimoy were; look at the caliber of the scripts. This was a show written by people who fought in World War II, who had been cops, who were among the top science-fiction writers—these were people who lived life. The new shows are written by people whose only experience is writing television.”Remembrances

President Obama Releases Statement On Leonard Nimoy's PassingLong before being nerdy was cool, there was Leonard Nimoy. Leonard was a lifelong lover of the arts and humanities, a supporter of the sciences, generous with his talent and his time. And of course, Leonard was Spock. Cool, logical, big-eared and level-headed, the center of Star Trek’s optimistic, inclusive vision of humanity’s future.

I loved Spock.

In 2007, I had the chance to meet Leonard in person. It was only logical to greet him with the Vulcan salute, the universal sign for “Live long and prosper.” And after 83 years on this planet–and on his visits to many others–it’s clear Leonard Nimoy did just that. Michelle and I join his family, friends, and countless fans who miss him so dearly today.Side note: Obama exemplifies why Spock would make a good ambassador but a bad politician. You want Kirk making the decisions with advice from Spock, not the other way around. When Spock makes the decisions, they often fail because they're too "logical."

“Spock made being different cool”: Hollywood remembers Leonard Nimoy

These Leonard Nimoy farewells from friends and fellow travelers will hit your heart-spot

Rest in Peace Leonard Nimoy, My Honorary Space Grandpa

Leonard Nimoy's Final Tweet Reminds Us How Much He Will Be Missed

As Mr. Spock said to Dr. McCoy, "Remember."



Good-bye, Leonard Nimoy and Mr. Spock. We'll always remember you.

Civil War Indian in Bewitched

An old episode of Bewitched featured an Indian character. Here's the story:

Bewitched: Season 2, Episode 9
...And Then I Wrote (11 Nov. 1965)Because she feels it's a worthwhile community event, Samantha agrees for Darrin to do the advertising for a Civil War pageant without telling him beforehand. The problem is is that Darrin has no time to do the work, but he feels he can't back out on Samantha's word. In a tit-for-tat move, Darrin in turn gives his word to the event organizer that Samantha will do something for the pageant, namely write it. Despite having intimate knowledge of the event itself, Samantha is having writer's block. Endora suggests that she materialize the characters in front of her so that she can get a better idea of the story once those characters are in front of her. Once she materializes her three main characters--a Confederate soldier (complete with his steed), his Yankee love interest, and a native American--two problems arise. First, a nosy Mrs. Kravitz sees these characters materialize and disappear in and out of thin air. Second, the characters materialize whenever Samantha thinks about them. Samantha has to figure out a way to make her vivid imagination not so vivid so as to control when the three characters appear. She may get the answer how to do so directly from her vivid cast of characters.

Comment:  As usual for "Native" appearances in the late 1950s and the 1960s, this episode is a mixed bag.

On the negative side, the Indian is dressed as a stereotypical "brave." Unlike the soldier and his lady, he doesn't have a name. And he's played by an actor named Tom Nardini--probably a non-Native of Italian descent.

On the positive side, the Indian--unlike the soldier and his lady--talks like a modern man. In fact, he talks like a youth from a "beach blanket" movie, with phrases like "cool cat" and "daddy-o."

I think he's the one who suggests an ending for Samantha's story. Alas, it involves the soldier dying tragically and the lady mourning his loss.

And it's odd for an Indian to be associated with the Civil War. Very odd.

Civil War Indian

Indians were involved in the war--especially in the West, after their removal from the South. Some info on the subject:

Native Americans in the American Civil WarNative Americans in the American Civil War composed various Native American bands, tribes, and nations. Native Americans served in both the Union and Confederate military during the American Civil War. At the outbreak of the war, for example, the minority party of the Cherokees gave its allegiance to the Confederacy, while originally the majority party went for the North. Native Americans fought knowing they might jeopardize their freedom, unique cultures, and ancestral lands if they ended up on the losing side of the Civil War. 28,693 Native Americans served in the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War, participating in battles such as Pea Ridge, Second Manassas, Antietam, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and in Federal assaults on Petersburg. A few Native American tribes, such as the Creek and the Choctaw, were slaveholders and found a political and economic commonality with the Confederacy. The Choctaw owned over 2,000 slaves.This Indian doesn't look or act anything like a Civil War participant. In fact, the episode doesn't explain why he's there or what his connection is.

But simply saying the Civil War has a Native connection is unusual. That's more history than you'll get from most TV appearances of "Indians."

Below: Jackson McCurtain, Lieutenant Colonel of the First Choctaw Battalion in Oklahoma, CSA.



A Civil War Indian dressed like a stereotypical "brave" from another time and place.



For more on the subject, see TV Shows Featuring Indians.

Wamapoke Casino in Parks and Recreation

The TV show Parks and Recreation has ended, but not before one last appearance by "Wamapoke Indian" Ken Hotate (Jonathan Joss):

See all of 'Parks and Recreation's' fake 'Johnny Karate' commercials

By Casey RackhamWhat's better than an entire episode of "Parks and Recreation" dedicated to Andy Dwyer's "Johnny Karate Super Awesome Musical Explosion Show"? A "Johnny Karate" show plus four incredibly ridiculous commercials for things that thankfully/sadly only exist in the "Parks and Rec" world.

Throughout Tuesday's (Feb. 17) episode, which follows Andy and Co. during his last ever "Johnny Karate" show before he moves to Washington, D.C., a handful of commercials that might possibly be considered the most awkward ads ever aired.

There's one for Ron Swanson's building company that has approximately 20 seconds of silence, one for Paunch Burger that features a Dinner for Breakfast Burger Combo, one for Wamapoke Casino with Chief Ken Hotate using wolf folklore to get people to visit and one for a really scary-sounding company called Verizon Chipotle Exxon. It's pretty much all of the Pawnee-themed commercials fans could ever hope for.

Comment:  This commercial straddles the line between good and bad. Obviously, it uses the wolf stereotype only to subvert it with a casino pitch. But the Indian who uses a casino to take back the white man's money is also a stereotype.

You could say the joke is on the white casino customers who fall for this hucksterism and lose their money. Or you could say the joke is on the Indian who acts like a crass commercial money-grubber--i.e., a huckster.

Some Indian casino ads do have this rah-rah tone, but they're usually more sophisticated. Indian casinos are generally big businesses, akin to classy hotels or resorts. You don't see classy hotels or resorts advertising themselves like used-car lots, so why should a tribe take this approach. It implies Indians are less sophisticated--like amateurs or rubes--than they really are.

If it isn't a race-based claim--Indians are primitive and savage--it's a class-based claim. The implication is that Indians act low-class because they're one step up from poverty. Which is only slightly better than implying they don't understand the white man's ways.

In reality, you wouldn't even an Indian shilling for his own casino. Today's tribal executives have MBAs and run multimillion-dollar operations. They'd hire a management team that would hire an ad agency that would hire professional actors to do a commercial. Casino customers want fun and excitement, not Native culture, so that's what the pros give them.

Mound Builders band stereotypes Indians

I just heard of this band calling themselves The Mound Builders. Let's take a look:

Local band looks to ease community into the metal scene

By Kate LewisThe Mound Builders, a self-proclaimed “gumbo” band, combines metal, punk, stoner rock and even a little bit of blues into their one-of-a-kind sound. It’s unconventional, yes, but their diversity is where they feel their appeal lies.

Moreover, The Mound Builders, whose name refers to the ancient civilization that once inhabited the Lafayette area, is all about the local community. Lafayette is where they started almost six years ago, and it’s where they’ll always call home thanks to the area’s supportive music scene.Here's who the Mound Builders really were:

Mound BuildersThe varying cultures collectively called Mound Builders were inhabitants of North America who, during a 5,000-year period, constructed various styles of earthen mounds for religious and ceremonial, burial, and elite residential purposes. These included the Pre-Columbian cultures of the Archaic period; Woodland period (Adena and Hopewell cultures); and Mississippian period; dating from roughly 3500 BCE to the 16th century CE, and living in regions of the Great Lakes, the Ohio River Valley, and the Mississippi River valley and its tributary waters. Beginning with the construction of Watson Brake about 3500 BCE in present-day Louisiana, nomadic indigenous peoples started building earthwork mounds in North America nearly 1,000 years before the pyramids were constructed in Egypt.The band's name might not be worthy of comment, but their choice of iconography is.

First, a straight ripoff of a Native thunderbird:



A post-apocalyptic Native, I guess. Along with his military gear, his extreme tattooing emphasizes his savage and warlike nature.



Another savage and warlike Native. Note that the mohawk from an Eastern Woodland tribe is inappropriate for a Southern Mound Builder.



And finally, savage Plains Indians on the warpath. Again, the headdresses and war ponies are inappropriate for Mound Builders. In fact, this pre-Columbian civilization didn't have horses.



I assume the last image comes from an old comic book. The painted style looks like something from Gold Key.

If there was any doubt that the band's "thinking" is stereotypical if not racist, this image confirms it. To them, "Mound Builders" are wild and savage--just like their metal band.

Immigration at the 2015 Oscars

This year's Oscars unmasked Hollywood's most dubious views

Despite stirring support for the spirit of Selma, and big prizes for Hispanic film-makers, it was the unfortunate throwaway remarks which will linger longest after the 87th Academy Awards

By Steven W Thrasher“Who gave this sonofabitch his green card?” Sean Penn demanded before presenting Mexican film-maker Alejandro González Iñárritu the best picture Oscar for Birdman, giving a whole new political dimension to the racism of the 87th Annual Academy Awards.

Penn, who starred in Iñárritu’s 21 Grams all the way back in 2003, probably thought it was a funny joke with an old friend. But racism from friends assumed to be benign can be the worst kind, especially at an awards show: just ask black author Jackie Woodson, whose “friend” used presenting her with a National Book Award to make a watermelon joke.

The incident highlighted Oscar’s uneasy relationship with race, which was on full display throughout last night’s ceremony. Along with Tinseltown’s fraught relationship with American militarism, Penn bookended a politically awkward and often uncomfortable evening, which started with host Neil Patrick Harris making a joke about Hollywood celebrating its “best and whitest”.

Four hours later, Penn reminded the world that white supremacy is never far away in America, and it’s at its most insidious and powerful when wielded by self-proclaimed Hollywood liberals–like Penn.And:Hollywood likes to think it is cutting-edge on social issues, but it’s usually very conservative. So it was good to see Glory’s musicians provide at least reference to what the hell has been happening in America between Happy and Everything is Awesome.

And Penn’s penultimate moment of the broadcast was its lowest point, when he brought to the fore not just the simmering, weird way race was near at hand with several African Americans who weren’t nominated. He showed that white supremacy in Hollywood needs to assert itself even in the face of minority exceptionalists who are nominated and actually win–that it needs to remind a brown film-maker receiving the Academy’s highest honor that he is still a sonofabitch with a green card, ostensibly stealing work from good white folk.

In a way, Penn did us a favor: he exposed Hollywood’s faux liberalism for what it truly is. Hollywood has an uneasy relationship with racism, feminism and militarism because it will exploit all of them to keep making money. It is not concerned with diversity or economic justice, except to the extent it can feign interest in any of them to perpetuate its own power.“Who gave this son of a b*tch his green card?”: On the Oscars stage, there’s no such thing as a joke between friends

It doesn't matter if Alejandro Inarritu thought Sean Penn's joke was funny—the Oscars belong to the people at home

By Erin KeaneAccording to the Associated Press, Iñárritu brushed off concerns others voiced about Penn’s joke after the ceremony. “I found it hilarious,” Iñárritu said. “Sean and I have that kind of brutal (relationship) where only true friendship can survive.”

There’s no reason to believe that’s not true—as comedian Sara Benincasa tweeted last night, “Innaritu and Penn are both rich successful dudes who probably bro down in piles of money and make fun of each other.” As is their right! Friends know where the line is that they allow each other to cross and none of us know the particulars of their “brutal” friendship. My own family includes several different nationalities, and cultural differences do come up, and when they do, sometimes we joke about them, as is our privilege as private citizens with functioning senses of humor.

But Sean Penn wasn’t pulling his buddy’s leg at an afterparty or backstage. He planted himself front and center on stage and made a groaner of a green card joke at the climax of a long and weird ceremony that capped off a long and often intense Oscar campaign season that left many viewers furious over an #OscarsSoWhite and acting and directing snubs for “Selma.” None of that necessarily is Penn’s responsibility to ameliorate, but would it have killed the guy to keep the ethnic jokes to himself until he and his friend were safely off-screen?

I’m sure Penn just felt excited to see his good friend’s name in the envelope and responded the best way he knew how, with a comment that he perceived as fond. But even if the Oscars are Hollywood’s biggest night of the year, once the stars are on stage during the broadcast, the awards cease to belong only to them. Iñárritu might have been the man of the night, but this wasn’t a private party, or even a Comedy Central roast where the form explicitly calls for brutal personal jokes that cross the line of good taste. The Academy Awards are really for the viewing audiences at home. Isn’t that the contract behind this spectacle? They put on designer finery and learn to pronounce each others’ names and walk up on stage without making an ass of themselves, and we watch and clap and tweet and fawn and criticize and generally remind them that they’re still relevant in a world where television in all of its mutating glory is fast overtaking their industry in relevance, quality and diversity. And when an A-list star makes a tasteless joke in the middle of all of that, it can’t just be a personal gag at a close friend. Penn’s immigration joke went out to the whole viewing public—many of whom struggle with immigration status challenges that Iñárritu will not likely face again, if he ever did.

Of course, conservatives responded to this as well as Selma in a racist way:

Trump Weighs In On The Oscars: 'It Was A Great Night For Mexico, As Usual'

"There was a lot of conservative-hatred there. There was no question about that," Trump said. Yes, there's no question that Hollywood hates the conservatives' bigotry against blacks, women, gays, immigrants, et al. Trump nailed it for once.

For more on the subject, see Hollywood Still White in 2015 and Another White Year at the Oscars.