Native filmmakers criticize Netflix boycott

More on Netflix's deal with Adam Sandler the racist:

Netflix giving Adam Sandler creative control is totally backfiring

By Yohana DestaWhen Netflix originally signed the Sandler deal, many film fans were left scratching their heads. But from a purely financial standpoint, it makes sense: In its original announcement, Netflix stated that Sandler films have grossed more than $3 billion globally. And in a rare moment of candor about its viewers' habits, Netflix disclosed that Sandler films are among its top streaming performers.

Sandler is arguably the most financially successful talent the streaming company has pulled into its originals fold, and will reap his piece whether the films perform or not—not that we'll ever know, since Netflix doesn't share viewership numbers—as the company will continue to foot the $40-$80 million budgets to which he's accustomed. And the fact that he co-wrote the Ridiculous Six script makes it clear that he doesn't mind being labeled a bigot.

This is where a traditional Hollywood studio—like Sony, where Sandler still has made most of his pictures and still has a deal—would normally step in. But Netflix isn't a traditional Hollywood studio; they've navigated original TV content, but don't have experience wrangling a movie player of Sandler's power and lightning-rod nature.

The minute Sandler got complete control of a project, it became clear that he needs someone to save him from himself. Without a suite of seasoned, strong-willed executives to have a hand on the reins, Netflix has allowed him to cross the line in a way he never did—or possibly even could—before.

Sandler is using his highly visible platform to degrade and objectify an entire subset of people who have historically been degraded and objectified—a blow to Netflix's creative, high-quality content streak. Maybe Sandler doesn't care about being labeled, but that's a label Netflix doesn't want.Fueled by Adam Sandler Fiasco, Navajo Woman Protests Script’s Stereotypes

Allie Young says movies like ‘The Ridiculous Six’ can have damaging effects on a community struggling with identity issues.

By Jennifer SwannIt remains to be seen whether the walk-off, a slew of bad press, and a petition backed by nearly 100,000 will have any impact on the release of The Ridiculous Six, which is being produced not by a traditional studio system but by Netflix, a streaming service that relies more on subscribers than on ratings.

The number of actors who stormed off the set was tiny compared with the number of Native Americans who continued working, opting for a paycheck rather than a protest. But Young says the attention to the issue is unprecedented, even if the industry is slow to change. The New York Times weighed in last week with a story about the Hollywood biases faced by Native American actors, including Tantoo Cardinal, a Canadian indigenous actor who appeared in Dances With Wolves.

“Never in history have you heard of a group of Native Americans taking a stand like this,” Young says. “So I’m proud of that. I’m happy to see that there are more actors who do have a voice, like [Native Canadian actor] Adam Beach, who are coming forward in support of the whole controversy.”Boycott a bad idea?

I haven't heard anything more about a boycott of Netflix beyond the initial proposal. As far as I can tell, no one's participating in it. But some people are still talking about it as if it's a thing.

Anti-Netflix Campaign Is 'Drowning Native Voices' Says Native Director

By Wilhelm MurgFilmmakers Brian Young and Sterlin Harjo have come out against the #WalkOffNetflix campaign because of the Native American films available on the service. Is that your main complaint?

Here’s the thing: nobody has seen Rhymes for Young Ghouls, right? You would have to have had your ear on the ground to have heard about it, and that’s true of a lot of Native directors' films. You have the ability to make films fairly cheaply, and you’re getting a market that is flooded with bullshit, frankly. Professional filmmakers have to battle for that position with amateurs and nobody’s interested in Native-told stories per se. Smoke Signals was 17 years ago, and everybody’s been waiting for that next watershed film that was going to break it all open for Native cinema and it just hasn’t happened yet. It’s because the avenues aren’t there in terms of distribution. At the end of the day Hollywood is about making money, so if you want to be a filmmaker you need to make money. They don’t qualify you by ethnicity, they just want to know if you are making good films, and that was our goal; we wanted to make a good film, but try to sneak in the content; providing a message wrapped up in an entertainment vehicle.

So if you’re rolling back about 100 years of representation in cinema, it’s not going to happen with 1 or 2 films. You’re going to have to get 40 or 50 films before you can start talking about Native Cinema as a genre. The problem with #WalkOffNetflix is that it is inadvertently suppressing those voices with good intentions, but the last I heard, the road to hell was paved with them.

So that was my main beef with it: you’re drowning our ethnic voices because of this idiot.Barnaby somehow thinks a small protest, rather than Netflix's bottom line, is going to dampen the market for Native films. Sterlin Harjo also criticizes the protest, but rightly places most of the blame on Netflix.

Ridiculous Netflix: Sterlin Harjo Discusses Netflix and Adam Sandler’s Ridiculous Six

By Lauren WissotFilmmaker: As someone not of Native American descent I was pretty appalled by Netflix’s lackluster, “broad satire” defense. I mean, if this was Adam Sandler “satirizing” blacks I’m sure Spike Lee, along with many other African-American filmmakers, would be calling for a boycott of the streaming site. But you’ve personally come out against the recent #WalkOffNetflix campaign that the controversy inspired. Can you explain your reasoning? And if canceling Netflix subscriptions isn’t the best response, what is?

Harjo: We were all appalled by the treatment of Native characters, as well as by Netflix’s response. The problem is deeper than Netflix. I’m sure that the executives in charge of Netflix’s original programming didn’t have Native people in their best interest when they green-lit this project. I knew months before that the film was coming down the pipe because the lead actor of my film Barking Water, Richard Ray Whitman, told me he turned it down. He said it was racist and sexist. He even brought it up to the casting director–but one actor in protest isn’t going to stop the millions of dollars behind a film like this. A few people canceling their Netflix subscription isn’t going to stop it. What is going to stop it is when all of our actors turn down roles like this, as Whitman did. It’s going to stop when more Native filmmakers are supported to create their own visions. Supporting Native filmmakers will help peel back the decades of misrepresentation of Native people. Netflix can’t stop it. Only we can. We have that power, but we need support.

Right now, in America, Native filmmakers are on the outskirts of the outskirts–it’s true independent cinema. Studios won’t touch us. Indians in buckskin and feathers is the only way studios want to see us because it fits their narrative. They don’t want to see the truth. We have to roll up our sleeves and keep creating truth. We have to keep creating films, and seeing our visions to the screen. One of the few screens where we can show our work is on Netflix. There are great Native and indigenous films on Netflix. Filmmakers like Taika Waititi, Sydney Freeland, Jeff Barnaby, Neil Diamond, and Heather Rae have blocked out a small section on Netflix. Our films have reached a lot of people, including non-Indians, because of Netflix. If Native people walk away from the site then we are losing some of our audience. It could have the opposite effect, of making Netflix decide not to acquire films like mine. We have to create our own content–and we need every place that is willing to show that content.Comment:  For more on Adam Sandler, see Natives to Hollywood: Stop Stereotyping and Ricky Lee Defends Ridiculous 6.

Debating Professor Grundy's tweets

Yesterday I posted this link about a black professor's tweets to Facebook:

Boston University Professor Tweets ‘Your White Ancestors Were Land Thieves, And Slave Owners–Nothing More’

I tagged the posting with this line:

I'd tweet that my ancestors were land thieves and slave-owners too if I knew it for sure.

Then added more comments:

My Mayflower ancestors

I don't understand the Ben Affleck "sanitize one's history" approach. I've posted before about my ancestor who may have massacred Indians.

Why wouldn't I? The only way it reflects on me is by showing how forthright I am.

If you go back enough generations, everyone's related to someone "bad." It probably doesn't require that many generations, either. Maybe half a dozen.

For every king or president in your family tree, you probably have several rapists, slave-owners, murderers, and so forth. Everyone does.

It's ridiculous to highlight one "good" ancestor as if that proves anything about you. Or proves anything, period.

I wouldn't give people a pass because their ancestors lived in Europe. Those people financed and managed the conquest of America and the slave trade. As well as oppressing their own people.

I wouldn't give people a pass if their ancestors came over "only" a few decades ago, either. Once you're here, you become complicit in the system. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

If people came over in 2015, I might give them a pass. They missed the last national election, so they haven't had much chance to change the system.

The Native aspects

A couple of Professor Grundy's tweets focused on Native history:



One Facebook friend criticized Grundy for these tweets:And this just shows that extremism and nuttiness are not just relegated to the conservative side of the spectrum. While there is definitely some truth to what she says, she paints with the same broad brush and selective history as those who criticized, say, the Baltimore protests and their ilk. In fact, the ancestors of the overwhelming majority of white people in the United States did not own slaves nor kill Natives. In fact, more died to secure their freedom in the Civil War. Yes, whites have benefited from those who did steal land and enslave humans, and certainly need to face up to that history and have a reckoning with it, but to reduce a diverse population of people to a simplistic caricature is as overly simplified and bigoted as anything coming out of the Tea Party. I mean, seriously, what exactly are Poles and Slovaks who worked the Chicago stock yards guilty of? What about Italian longshoremen in New York? Or Irish day laborers in Boston? Even on the so-called frontier, what about the Scots-Irish who would both fight and intermix with Southeastern Indian tribes? One of their descendants, btw, was Sequoyah. This isn't even to mention the rich, and yes, sometimes tragic, culture and history that came from the Europeans and Natives mixing in Mexico and the Southwest. My problem is that left-wing radicals can be as susceptible to divisive pseudo-intellectual bullshit that attempts to masquerade as legitimate grievance and historical redress. This is not the real McCoy and shouldn't be mistaken as such.My responses:

I don't have a problem with Grundy's five tweets. I'd try to avoid saying "all," as in all white people are Ben Affleck. But the percentage who call their ancestors benign terms like "pioneers" and "farmers" must be incredibly high. Perhaps 90-95% or more. So "all" isn't much of an exaggeration.

A phrase like "kill Natives" is obviously open to interpretation. Did most Americans point a gun at Natives and shoot them? No. Did most Americans vote for politicians who implemented policies that had the predictable effect of killing Natives? Yes. Therefore, most Americans did kill Natives indirectly if not directly.

Most Americans accepted a system in which some of them owned slaves or killed Natives. For the sake of argument, it doesn't matter much if most Americans benefited from theses crimes directly or indirectly. The point is they were complicit: guilty of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. They were not innocent "farmers" and "pioneers."

And again, no free passes for recent immigrants. Americans of every vintage are fighting against treaty rights, land-into-trust deals, and casino expansions. They're building on sacred sites such as Mauna Kea or Mt. Graham, or allowing it.

Unless recent immigrants are willing to stand up against these practices, and call their fellow Americans "land thieves," they might as well be land thieves themselves. Again, they're part of the solution or part of the problem. They don't get to be neutral if they're US citizens with the right to vote.

"She paints with the same broad brush and selective history"...you realize these are 140-character tweets, right? It's nutty to expect a nuanced argument in that limited space.

I'm guessing her academic papers and teachings are as nuanced as anyone else's. It's ridiculous to chastise her for being slightly inflammatory when she makes a completely valid point. Namely, that the word "pioneer" is a euphemism for people who routinely broke treaties, invaded "foreign" territory, and introduced diseases. And sometimes killed Natives outright.

For more on America's colonization and genocide, see Whites Destroy Other People's Homes and America Constructed to Erase Indians.

Black professor criticizes white men

Another racial controversy broke out this week. This time it was a black professor tweeting mean things about white people.

Here's the first thing I read about the controversy--a right-winger's take on it:

Boston University Professor Tweets ‘Your White Ancestors Were Land Thieves, And Slave Owners–Nothing More’

By Lauren RichardsonBoston University Professor Saida Grundy, a feminist sociologist of race and ethnicity listed as an incoming assistant professor of sociology and African-American studies at B.U., has come under fire for her Tweets that essentially argued that white people were the worst people, and biggest slave owners in history.

I could not have said this any better than Turtleboy:So let me get this straight. Saida Grundy is going to be teaching a whole bunch of white boys at BU in the near future. And she’s going into her job while publicly stating that “white college males” are a “problem population.” Not just SOME white college males, like the Oklahoma frat boys from the racist video. ALL white college males. They are all a “problem population.” I’m sure white dudes will definitely get a fair shake in her class next year. Definitely.
Note that Grundy didn't say all white college males. At most she said white college males in general, which is different.

In fact, the term "problem population" strongly implies it's a generalization about a group. Some people in this population are a problem.

So conservative critics are wrong from the get-go. As they usually are.

Critics defend poor white folks

Some people couldn't let the persecution of the underprivileged white majority go unchallenged:

Fox Host: ‘Last Acceptable Form Of Discrimination’ Is of White Men

By Ahiza GarciaFaulkner said the university was standing by Grundy, saying she was exercising her right to free speech. Faulkner then posed a question to Tantaros.

“If this were in the reverse and she were an incoming white professor saying this about black men, she would be eviscerated. No?” asked Faulkner, who is black.

“So this is the debate,” Tantaros said. “This is, I think, an applicable debate to ‘Is this free speech or is this hate speech?’”

“The last acceptable form of discrimination in this country now is two groups—one, Christians and, two, white men,” Tantaros said. “And that’s why she can get away with this. Why? Where are the organization in defense of white men? Where are the marches? Where are the editorials penned?”Even some liberal writers joined in:

“Deal with your sh*t, white people”: Professor ignites a right-wing firestorm over “white college males as a problem”

Two recent university controversies have sparked discussion on just who can be racist and sexist

By Mary Elizabeth WilliamsOver the weekend, BU spokesman Colin Riley issued a statement that “While we recognize that Dr. Grundy has the right to hold and express personal opinions, BU does not condone racism or bigotry in any form, and we are offended by such statements.” The university has not said whether Grundy faces any disciplinary action. And she has also found plenty of supporters, like student Noor Toraif, who told the Boston Herald, “You need to have institutional and systemic power in order to be racist. People of color like Professor Grundy don’t have that. … I’m 100 percent supportive of her and excited for her to come to campus.” That idea—that you can’t be racist if you’re a certain race—was echoed at Goldsmiths University this week when diversity officer Bahar Mustafa hosted “a BME Woman and non-binary event only” and then responded to criticism of the limited guest list by explaining, “I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender. Therefore, women of color and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system.” Wow, really? They can’t? Ever? How conveniently self-exonerating!

You want to acknowledge that the way you look at the dynamics of race or religion or gender or orientation are profoundly influenced by whether or not you are a member of the group that traditionally wields the most power? I am entirely with you. You want to create safe spaces for typically marginalized groups? Got my support. You want to say that we live in a culture that overwhelmingly favors white people, males and heterosexuals? No argument there. But you want to say they’re the only groups that can be biased? Uh, no. You don’t have to go all hand-wringing about “reverse racism” or the supposed plague of misandry to still be really concerned about a university educator going on record as expressing serious and sweeping hostility toward any population, and passing off personal judgments as facts. And call me a crazy dreamer, but I believe there’s opportunity in this world for ANYBODY to be prejudiced. Anybody can be close-minded. Anybody can be wrong.Rage at the machine

Others defended Grundy by noting the obvious: that she was tweeting provocatively to, well, provoke people. Not to deliver a nuanced lecture in 140 characters, but to vent at America's ongoing racism and sexism.

What Happens to Black Women Who Boldly Speak Truth About Racial Inequality

The controversies surrounding Michelle Obama’s commencement speech at Tuskegee and incoming Boston University professor Saida Grundy’s tweets remind us of the ways in which intellectually provocative black women are forced to navigate the public sphere.

By Peniel E. JosephMichelle Obama’s painful discussion of America’s racial inequality and deep misogyny exists, for many, on the same spectrum as Grundy’s blunt remarks about race, power and privilege. Where the first lady used her commencement speech at one of the nation’s premier HBCUs to deliver a seminar on institutional racism and our nation’s anti-black culture, Grundy’s social media commentary dispensed with complexity to deliver screams, sometimes angry, other times humorous, that reflect equally important truths about contemporary race relations, black women’s activism and the limits of freedom of expression in the 21st century.

The piercing anger behind Grundy’s tweets is rooted in recent events in Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo., a mixture of protests, demonstrations and violence that have, as she reminds us, made race an unavoidable topic. On social media, Grundy removed the academic hat for the identity that black women, including Michelle Obama, are always accused of donning—that of an angry black woman.

Neither Michelle Obama’s eloquence nor Saida Grundy’s passion can ultimately insulate them from the onslaught of criticism that, at its core, is based more on antipathy toward the messenger than on the meaning of her words. Allegations of reverse racism, hatred for America and a lack of patriotism are routinely wielded against America’s first lady, so it should come as no surprise that conservatives have now targeted Grundy for punishment.

The irony here is that some in America remain violently frightened of intelligent black women who achieve greatly, act boldly and move forward courageously in a world that continues, no matter how great their achievements, to find them unworthy of being allowed to succeed or fail on their own terms.Comment:  For more on white privilege, see Whites Can't Handle Racial Stress and "It Feels Good" to Be White.

Let's Honor the Real Warriors

Here's a piece I co-wrote to reiterate a point I've made before about Indian mascots.

Hey, Redskins Fans, Let's Honor the Real Warriors

By Ramone Romero and Rob SchmidtRecently Native American mascots have generated a lot of controversy. Apparently some Indians (67% according to a recent poll) don’t care for the honor this country has bestowed on them. This has sparked anger and conflict across the land.

We have a modest proposal to restore harmony to the sacred institution of sports mascotry. Rather than honor Indians, we should give the distinction to some heroes who unquestionably deserve it. A group of people we’ve never honored before as mascots.

We should give it to our troops.

Think about it: What other group so powerfully exemplifies courage, loyalty and fearlessness? What other group is more sports-like?Below:  "The Louisville Snipers mow down their enemies in a hail of bodies."

Whites can't handle racial stress

Why It's So Hard to Talk to White People About Racism

By Dr. Robin DiAngeloMainstream dictionary definitions reduce racism to individual racial prejudice and the intentional actions that result. The people that commit these intentional acts are deemed bad, and those that don't are good. If we are against racism and unaware of committing racist acts, we can't be racist; racism and being a good person have become mutually exclusive. But this definition does little to explain how racial hierarchies are consistently reproduced.

Social scientists understand racism as a multidimensional and highly adaptive system--a system that ensures an unequal distribution of resources between racial groups. Because whites built and dominate all significant institutions, (often at the expense of and on the uncompensated labor of other groups), their interests are embedded in the foundation of U.S. society. While individual whites may be against racism, they still benefit from the distribution of resources controlled by their group.

Yes, an individual person of color can sit at the tables of power, but the overwhelming majority of decision-makers will be white. Yes, white people can have problems and face barriers, but systematic racism won't be one of them. This distinction--between individual prejudice and a system of unequal institutionalized racial power--is fundamental. One cannot understand how racism functions in the U.S. today if one ignores group power relations.

This systemic and institutional control allows those of us who are white in North America to live in a social environment that protects and insulates us from race-based stress. We have organized society to reproduce and reinforce our racial interests and perspectives. Further, we are centered in all matters deemed normal, universal, benign, neutral and good. Thus, we move through a wholly racialized world with an unracialized identity (e.g. white people can represent all of humanity, people of color can only represent their racial selves). Challenges to this identity become highly stressful and even intolerable. The following are examples of the kinds of challenges that trigger racial stress for white people:

Suggesting that a white person's viewpoint comes from a racialized frame of reference (challenge to objectivity);

People of color talking directly about their own racial perspectives (challenge to white taboos on talking openly about race);

People of color choosing not to protect the racial feelings of white people in regards to race (challenge to white racial expectations and need/entitlement to racial comfort);

[Etc.]

Not often encountering these challenges, we withdraw, defend, cry, argue, minimize, ignore, and in other ways push back to regain our racial position and equilibrium. I term that push back white fragility.

This concept came out of my on-going experience leading discussions on race, racism, white privilege and white supremacy with primarily white audiences. It became clear over time that white people have extremely low thresholds for enduring any discomfort associated with challenges to our racial worldviews. We can manage the first round of challenge by ending the discussion through platitudes--usually something that starts with "People just need to," or "Race doesn't really have any meaning to me," or "Everybody's racist." Scratch any further on that surface, however, and we fall apart.

Socialized into a deeply internalized sense of superiority and entitlement that we are either not consciously aware of or can never admit to ourselves, we become highly fragile in conversations about race. We experience a challenge to our racial worldview as a challenge to our very identities as good, moral people. It also challenges our sense of rightful place in the hierarchy. Thus, we perceive any attempt to connect us to the system of racism as a very unsettling and unfair moral offense.Comment:  For more on the subject, see "It Feels Good" to Be White and Whites Too Fragile to Discuss Race.

Whites destroy other people's homes

White America’s greatest delusion: “They do not know it, and they do not want to know it”

Pundits and politicians are all too eager to condemn violent protest. How quickly they forget our nation's history

By Tim WiseIt is bad enough that much of white America sees fit to lecture black people about the proper response to police brutality, economic devastation and perpetual marginality, having ourselves rarely been the targets of any of these. It is bad enough that we deign to instruct black people whose lives we have not lived, whose terrors we have not faced, and whose gauntlets we have not run, about violence; this, even as we enjoy the national bounty over which we currently claim possession solely as a result of violence. I beg to remind you, George Washington was not a practitioner of passive resistance. Neither the early colonists nor the nation’s founders fit within the Gandhian tradition. There were no sit-ins at King George’s palace, no horseback freedom rides to affect change. There were just guns, lots and lots of guns.

We are here because of blood, and mostly that of others; here because of our insatiable and rapacious desire to take by force the land and labor of those others. We are the last people on Earth with a right to ruminate upon the superior morality of peaceful protest. We have never believed in it and rarely practiced it. Rather, we have always taken what we desire, and when denied it we have turned to means utterly genocidal to make it so.

Which is why it always strikes me as precious the way so many white Americans insist (as if preening for a morality contest of some sorts) that “we don’t burn down our own neighborhoods when we get angry.” This, in supposed contrast to black and brown folks who engage in such presumptively self-destructive irrationality as this. On the one hand, it simply isn’t true. We do burn our own communities, we do riot, and for far less valid reasons than any for which persons of color have ever hoisted a brick, a rock, or a bottle. We do so when our teams lose the big game or win the big game; or because of something called Pumpkin Festival; or because veggie burritos cost $10 at Woodstock ’99 and there weren’t enough Porta-Potties by the time of the Limp Bizkit set; or because folks couldn’t get enough beer at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake; or because surfers (natch); or St. Patty’s Day in Albany; or because Penn State fired Joe Paterno; or because it’s a Sunday afternoon in Ames, Iowa; and we do it over and over and over again. Far from mere amateur hooliganism, our riots are indeed violent affairs that have been known to endanger the safety and lives of police, as with the infamous 1998 riot at Washington State University. To wit:

The crowd then attacked the officers from all sides for two hours with rocks, beer bottles, signposts, chairs, and pieces of concrete, allegedly cheering whenever an officer was struck and injured. Twenty-three officers were injured, some suffering concussions and broken bones.

Seventeen years later, one still waits for the avalanche of conservative ruminations regarding the pathologies of whites in Pullman, whose disrespect for authority suggests a larger culture of dysfunction, no doubt taught to them by their rural, corn-fed families and symbolized by the easily recognizable gang attire of Carhartt work coats and backwards baseball caps.

On the other hand, it is undeniably true that when it comes to our political anger and frustration (as contrasted with that brought on by alcohol and athletics) we white folks are pretty good at not torching our own communities. This is mostly because we are too busy eviscerating the communities of others—those against whom our anger is aimed. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Manila, and on down the line.Below:  White folks not torching their own neighborhood.

Huckabee compares jihadists to Indians

VIDEO: Candidate Mike Huckabee Connects Native Americans With Jihadists During Speech; DNC Responds

By Simon Moya-SmithIn an attempt to criticize President Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, instead offended Native Americans by connecting them with jihadists during a speech Tuesday when he announced his candidacy for president.

During his speech in Hope, Arkansas, Huckabee, who is formerly a Southern Baptist pastor, excoriated Obama for comments he made during the annual National Prayer Breakfast in February when, in reference to Islamic terrorism, he reminded his fellow Christians that they, too, have committed horrendous acts in the name of Christianity throughout the annals of human history.

“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ,” Obama said.

On Tuesday, Huckabee told a raucous crowd of supporters that he wonders who Obama cheers for when watching 1950s western cinema.

“When I hear our current president say he wants Christians to get off their high horse so we can make nice with radical jihadists, I wonder if he can watch a western from the ’50s and be able to figure out who the good guys and the bad guys really are,” Huckabee said.

In a statement sent to ICTMN, Eric Walker, spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, called Huckabee’s comment a “cheap joke” and said Native Americans deserve not to be compared to jihadists.

“Mike Huckabee has spent his entire career offending Americans of all stripes–African Americans, Jews, Mormons, LGBT Americans to name a few–and now with these recent comments, he can add Native Americans to this growing list,” he said. “Native Americans have a proud heritage, and deserve better than to be compared to jihadists as part of a GOP candidate’s cheap joke. Sadly, this is what people have come to expect from GOP candidates who constantly push policies and views that are harmful to Americans. Mike Huckabee’s offensive, outdated, and divisive social views have no place in the 21st century.”NCAI Responds to Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee’s Comment Re: Native Americans as “Bad Guys”

By Levi Rickert“This week I learned about Governor Huckabee’s speech announcing his candidacy for U.S. President and was dismayed to hear him compare Native Americans to jihadists,” responded Brian Cladoosby, president of the National Congress of American Indians. There are many things we have left behind from the 1950’s, including overt racism and sexism. We hope that the old trope of the Indians as the bad guys in Western movies is also left behind. It is hurtful when public officials use stereotypes of Indians as the “bad guys.” Even if it is a metaphorical expression, racial stereotypes should be avoided. It is particularly hurtful to suggest that Americans should reflexively identify images of Native people defending our homelands as the “bad guys.”

Cladoosby went on the say this presents an opportunity to educate.

“Native Americans are the most committed to our shared homeland. Nearly 24,000 American Indians are currently serving in the U.S. Military, and there are an estimated 383,000 American Indian and Alaska Native military veterans. According to the Oxford Companion to American Military History, American Indians have the highest record of military service per capita compared to any other group in the United States.

“Governor Huckabee is at the beginning of his campaign, and one of the great things about political campaigns is that they are an opportunity for all of us to learn. It is the exchange of ideas that makes our democracy great. I hope to add to that effort in a small way by encouraging the candidates to respect Native Americans and our contributions to the history and culture of the United States, both past and present,” Cladoosby continued.Debating Huckabee's comments

Huckabee's comments led to the following debate on Facebook:

Huckabee's stereotypical thinking makes the problem clear. To him, Indians = savages in old Westerns = "bad guys" = people not worth our time and energy.

Mascots and other stereotypes => stupid Huckabee thinking => lack of treaty rights, legislation, jobs, healthcare, etc.

Here's how every unacceptable movie portrayal, frat-party costume, hipster headdress, etc. leads to real-world consequences. They're part of a continuum of thinking. Stereotypes lead to stereotypical thinking, which means thinking of Indians as primitive people of the past.

So changing how people think is of vital importance. It's arguably the most important step in the process. Until Americans see Indians as real people, not mascots or stereotypes, Indian will never receive more treaty rights, legislation, jobs, healthcare, and so forth.Many westerns don't depict Indians as the bad guys. To assume that he is directing this towards native Americans is a stretch, and certainly not something to throw a fuss about.And many do. In fact, that's what Westerns are known for: cowboys vs. Indians. If you're using a Western as a metaphor, that's exactly what most people think.

If you meant something else, you communicated poorly and the fault is yours. Not our responsibility for misunderstanding you, your responsibility for choosing a historical metaphor drenched in racism.

FYI, there's a long history of associating Indians with evildoers, Commies, and terrorists. Vietnam was called "Indian country" 50 years ago. Bin Laden was labeled "Geronimo" a few years ago. So this is nothing new.No doubt, it was a poor choice of comparison. But to base as much criticism as I've seen over this statement on a mere assumption is crazy.I'm addressing thinking like Huckabee's that's evident in every mascot and stereotype issue on this page and elsewhere. I thought I made that clear in my second comment.Top 25 1950's Westerns

Here is a list from IMDB of some of the top 25 50's Westerns. As I understand about 23/25 depict train robbers, cattle thieves, bank robbers, outlaws, etc. as the bad guys. Of course that doesn't excuse the few that did depict us as the bad guys, but by assuming that his quote was inherently directed at us means that we are falling for a stereotype as easily as those that we stand up against.A "top 25" list doesn't cover the depth and breadth of the Western genre. Most Westerns were disposable potboilers and many of those featured Indians.

Huckabee just an example

And again, I'm using Huckabee as an example of the thinking rampant in our culture. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

How about if you stop wasting time defending Huckabee and start addressing my point? Which is that mascots and other stereotypes => stupid [Huckabee-style] thinking => lack of treaty rights, legislation, jobs, healthcare, etc.

In case you missed my argument, read it again:

Here's how every unacceptable movie portrayal, frat-party costume, hipster headdress, etc. leads to real-world consequences. They're part of a continuum of thinking. Stereotypes lead to stereotypical thinking, which means thinking of Indians as primitive people of the past.

So changing how people think is of vital importance. It's arguably the most important step in the process. Until Americans see Indians as real people, not mascots or stereotypes, Indian will never receive more treaty rights, legislation, jobs, healthcare, and so forth.I believe that a list of the 25 most popular 50's westerns (as referenced) does cover the breadth of his quote. I agree with your "argument" I just don't understand how it pertains to this statement.

He didn't say anything about westerns that feature Indians. He just said westerns in the 50's.Hollywood made something like a thousand Westerns in the 1950s. Twenty-five movies doesn't come close to representing the breadth or depth of a thousand.

Yes, Huckabee didn't include or exclude Indians in his comments. That's why I said:

That's what Westerns are known for: cowboys vs. Indians. If you're using a Western as a metaphor, that's exactly what most people think.

In any case, I used Huckabee's comments as a jumping-off point to make my point. I could've used any of a hundred politicians and pundits going back to George Washington to make this point. Huckabee's comments were merely a pretext.

It doesn't matter if his comments "pertain" to mine because mine stand on their own merits. I'd make the same point if Huckabee had never spoken, and have done it many times. If you agree with my comments, therefore, quit trying to derail the conversation with a defense of Huckabee.

"Drunker than 10,000 Indians"

Racist remark ended general's career

By Stephen LoseyA racially charged comment forced Maj. Gen. Michael Keltz to resign last week, according to Air Education and Training Command.

While serving as the convening authority at a company-grade officer's Article 15 hearing April 9, Keltz said the accused and another officer looked "drunker than 10,000 Indians" while referring to a photograph of the two officers. Blogger and former airman Tony Carr first reported Keltz's comment on his John Q. Public blog, and AETC spokeswoman Maj. Toni Whaley confirmed the statement was made in regard to a photograph of the two officers.And:In a statement provided by Whaley last week, Keltz took responsibility for his statement.

"I inadvertently made an unfortunate comment, I own it, and I hold myself accountable to the same high standards my subordinate commanders are held to," Keltz said. "As a result, I have tendered my resignation from command and requested to retire from service. [AETC Commander] Gen. [Robin] Rand has graciously accepted that request."

Natives to Hollywood: Stop stereotyping

People are still criticizing Adam Sandler for his racist Ridiculous 6 movie:

Adam Sandler, You Don’t Represent Me

By Amalia RubinOne would hope that you, Mr. Sandler, would realize how important it is as a Jew, especially as a Jew in public, to recognize that the struggles and horrors our people have suffered should inspire solidarity with others who faced and continue to face the same. From the unspeakable nightmares of genocide to the daily attacks of racism, what we have suffered has been suffered by innumerable others.

That is why your disgusting treatment of Native Americans in your upcoming Netflix film release The Ridiculous Six is so abhorrent. Like your fellow Jews, the indigenous people of America have suffered a massive genocide. Like your fellow Jews, they were demonized by the media and press. Even American children’s cartoons only a few years ago, like the ones published by Nazi Germany about Jews, showed Native Americans as barbarians who deserved to be killed. Like the Jewish boys kidnapped into the Czar’s armies, Native American children were forced away from their families into boarding schools where they were forcibly stripped of their cultures, faiths, and languages. And much the same as my father was beaten up as a kid for being a k***, native kids are attacked by fans at sports games, wearing fake head dresses, hooping and hollering “war chants,” dumping drinks on them, and calling them r*******. Like our Jewish grandmothers who were raped in the pogroms and shtetls of Europe with no legal recourse, Native American women are two and a half times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than your average American woman.

So for you to make a film where you hire native actors then mock them by promoting racist depictions: showing them as dirty and uncivilized, demeaning the women by giving them names like “no-bra” and “beaver breath,” mocking and profaning their ceremonies and cultures, is unforgivable. For you to still defend a project so offensive that a dozen Native American actors and cultural consultants walked off the set is a sign of either willful ignorance or overt racism. When we have fought to be depicted as something other than the hooked nose ganef and the miserly, conniving Shylock, you make a movie showing stereotyping Native Americans as “savages.” You, as an actor and a Jew, of all people, should understand. I stand with each and every actor that walked off the set that day. And as a Jew, Mr. Sandler, you should have too.Racism hurts

They're pointing why the movie is harmful:

The Reason Adam Sandler’s Racist Depiction of Native American Women Matters

By Jacqueline KeelerThe promotion of these outdated stereotypes is particularly harmful considering a 2010 Department of Justice report that found Native American women have two and a half times the rate of rape and murder of any ethnic group of women in the country. And the report found that in nearly 70 percent of the assaults on Native women the assailants were white men. This is unusual as most women in the United States are assaulted by men of their own race/ethnicity. If it were not for the additional assaults by white men, Native women’s rates of murder and rape would be closer to average of other American women.

On many Native American reservations, gaps in jurisdiction mean no one is prosecuted for these assaults. A recent revision in the Violence Against Women’s Act (2013) expanded tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians for Domestic Violence offenses but the law is still only being implemented.

For many Native American women the question is not if, but when women in their family will be raped. Lisa Brunner, an advocate for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault in her community, the White Earth Nation in Minnesota, told The Guardian, “I call it hunting—non-natives come here hunting. They know they can come onto our lands and rape us with impunity because they know that we can’t touch them.” Tragically, her teenaged daughter was also gang raped by four men from off the reservation before the new VAWA law was passed.

On her Facebook page, a former Miss Navajo Nation (and the first African-American/Navajo winner) wrote, “We have to control how we are satirized and make fun of ourselves. We need to stop allowing Hollywood to perpetuate unoriginal, antiquated, racist stereotypes that have long been used by media in general, or since the settlers first made contact with us … As for Netflix defending Adam Sandler and his movie, this shows that they themselves care little about being original or creative when it concerns Indigenous people.”

Native American Actors Work to Overcome a Long-Documented Bias

By Cara BuckleyThe walkout prompted a rhetorical “What do you expect from an Adam Sandler film?,” and a Netflix spokesman said that in the movie, blacks, Mexicans and whites were lampooned as well. But Native American actors and critics said a broader issue was at stake. While mainstream portrayals of native peoples have, Mr. Wente said, become “incrementally better” over the decades, he and others say, they remain far from accurate and reflect a lack of opportunities for Native American performers. What’s more, as Native Americans hunger for representation on screen, critics say the absence of three-dimensional portrayals has very real off-screen consequences.

“Our people are still healing from historical trauma,” said Loren Anthony, one of the actors who walked out. “Our youth are still trying to figure out who they are, where they fit in this society. Kids are killing themselves. They’re not proud of who they are.” They also don’t, he added, see themselves on prime time television or the big screen. Netflix noted while about five people walked off the “The Ridiculous Six” set, 100 or so Native American actors and extras stayed.

But in interviews, nearly a dozen Native American actors and film industry experts said that Mr. Sandler’s humor perpetuated decades-old negative stereotypes. Mr. Anthony said such depictions helped feed the despondency many Native Americans feel, with deadly results: Native Americans have the highest suicide rate out of all the country’s ethnicities.

The on-screen problem is twofold, Mr. Anthony and others said: There’s a paucity of roles for Native Americans—according to the Screen Actors Guild in 2008 they accounted for 0.3 percent of all on-screen parts (those figures have yet to be updated), compared to about 2 percent of the general population—and Native American actors are often perceived in a narrow way.Stop the stereotyping

And they're demanding that Hollywood change:

How do we stop misrepresenting First Nations culture? Just ask

Television shows and movies are the biggest culprits

By Don MarksPerhaps these people believe in the old adage, "There's no such thing as bad publicity"—if the controversy draws attention to your product or event, you get free "advertising."

Then there could be those who are simply arrogant enough to think they are above the fray; they believe they can brush off the critics by saying they are "too sensitive."

And then there are those who are naive enough to think they can convince First Nations they meant no harm and/or the image is actually good for them.

So what can we do to prevent this calamity from creeping up time and again? Ask First Nations people what they think about the appropriateness of the action you are planning beforehand.

And take the time to listen to and understand the concerns First Nations are raising. Perhaps there is a way to compromise and work together for the common good.

A turning point for Native Americans in Tinseltown?

By Esther CepedaSo far, Rolling Stone reports, a producer promised the cast that a disclaimer at the end of the movie would reiterate that Sandler's movie is not an accurate portrayal of Native American culture.

Understatement of the year.

The truth is that the 500-nation Native American culture is richly diverse--with different regional customs and beliefs--and will never be accurately portrayed in the media until Native Americans are integral parts of the production and creative teams that tell stories about individuals, not a monolithic Indian people.

There will probably always be ridiculous portrayals of Native American culture in entertainment, but for some, this felt like a precedent.

Maybe this headline-grabbing Native American uprising will end up making filmmakers think twice next time--even for a fleeting moment. Or maybe inspire more Native American actors to bypass Hollywood and start creating and promoting their own authentic content.

This would be, at least, a start.Listen Up Hollywood: It’s Time To Let Native Americans Tell ‘Our Own Stories In Our Own Words’

"I would love as a Native actress to be able to go out and audition for the lead in a superhero film."

Comment:  For more on Adam Sandler, see Ricky Lee Defends Ridiculous 6 and Adam Sandler's History of Racism.

Ricky Lee defends Ridiculous 6

EXCLUSIVE: Native American actor defends Adam Sandler amid 'The Ridiculous 6' controversy

By Ethan SacksRicky Lee, who plays a medicine man in the Netflix Western comedy, reached out the Daily News to "set the record straight" over reports that several Native actors walked off the production, outraged over offensive stereotypes in the movie.

"There were four actors who left, but there were 150 extras, including grandmas and grandpas and children, who kept working," the 60-year-old Sante Fe-based actor told the News.You expect old Native women and men to stand up and protest? When they were beaten at boarding schools for talking back to whites? They're about the last people I'd expect to make a move against a famous movie star and his followers.

Extras don't get to read the script. In a crowd of 150, most people will be too far away to hear the action. And old people can't hear well in general.

Also, Natives may speak a language other than English. Most people don't want to embarrass themselves in front of their peers. The children, the cameras, the heat, etc. may have distracted them.

Given all these factors, it's asinine to expect some sort of spontaneous protest. These people weren't young, savvy millennials used to demanding their rights. They were the exact opposite of someone likely to challenge an authority figure.The controversy was boosted by leaked cellphone video that caught a producer telling the disgruntled actors, that they "shouldn't be in the movie" if they're "overly sensitive" about the film's depiction of American Indians.

But Lee, who is visible in the footage, said the camera person, who took the video secretly, conveniently left out the rest of the producer's comments. He says associate producer Barry Bernardi promised that a disclaimer would be added to stress that the movie isn't historically accurate.Only one in a thousand viewers will read the fine print in the credits. So that's like one-thousandth of a remedy. It's basically worthless.

That seems to be what Lee thinks the media has missed. The only person who's missed something is him.

He's missed how a disclaimer does nothing to address the problem. And how he's shilling for a racist against his own people.

For more on Adam Sandler, see Adam Sandler's History of Racism and Ridiculous 6 Adviser Speaks Out.

Adam Sandler's history of racism

Adam Sandler’s ugly track record with race: The dumb, offensive, unfunny movie moments that came before “The Ridiculous Six”

You know it's bad when you see how "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" is his most empathetic recent comedy

By Matthew RozsaAdam Sandler is probably not a racist, but his movies definitely have a long history of racial insensitivity. If anything, it’s surprising that he hasn’t been called out about this (at least on a larger scale) until now.

As the moviegoing world learned last week, roughly a dozen Native American actors walked off the set of Sandler’s upcoming comedy “The Ridiculous Six” to protest his depiction of Apaches. Among other things, they were offended by the various vulgar puns used as character names (e.g., Beaver’s Breath, No Bra, Sits-on-Face), a scene in which a Native American woman is shown squatting down to urinate while smoking a peace pipe, and the fact that the costumes resorted to visual stereotypes instead of accurately representing how Apaches looked. The inevitable hashtag movement protesting the film sums up the fundamental complaint rather succinctly: #NotYourHollywoodIndian

This isn’t the first time that Sandler’s movies have contained insulting racial characterizations. A short list of comparable controversies would include frequent Sandler collaborator Rob Schneider donning yellow face to play native Hawaiian and Japanese characters in “50 First Dates” and “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” (although Schneider is of Filipino ancestry himself, that doesn’t excuse him using garish make-up and mugging to ridicule other Asian ethnic groups), the caricatures passed off as Mexican-American characters in “Jack and Jill” (such as a grotesque elderly Mexican woman being knocked out and revived with jalapenos and a gardener who makes racially self-disparaging comments before adding, “Just kidding”), or the various insulting tropes about Africans from “Blended” (described by one South African reviewer as depicting native Africans as “oversexed and leering, bumbling and inarticulate, or just bone lazy”). While all of these problems were noticed at the time those films were released, none received a great deal of attention because the business and creative personnel involved in producing those movies apparently, for the most part, toed the line—which, incidentally, is one more reason to applaud the Native Americans who walked off the set to publicly demonstrate their unwillingness to play along.

Although it is tempting to defend “The Ridiculous Six” along the lines used by cast member Vanilla Ice (“It’s a comedy. I don’t think anybody really had any ill feeling or any intent or anything. This movie isn’t ‘Dances With Wolves.’ It’s a comedy.”), it’s important to remember that comedy can promote discriminatory attitudes. The minstrel shows of Jim Crow America or anti-Semitic burlesques in Third Reich Germany did more than make audiences laugh. By perpetuating popular stereotypes, they reinforced the idea that certain groups of people were inherently different, with each individual being easily reducible to a handful of traits commonly associated with others who shared their background.’Ridiculous 6’ dispute again exposes Sandler’s mean side

By Michael PhillipsThe movie is months away from completion. We don’t know if any of the Native American characters are in on any of the jokes, which rely (judging from versions of the script leaked online) on guys talking about putting their “pee-pee” into someone’s “teepee.”

As the title of Bob Hope’s final starring vehicle put it: Cancel my reservation.

This much is clear. People of color, to say nothing of women, who have been marginalized, patronized or humiliated by a stupid joke in an Adam Sandler movie over the last few years constitute the biggest club in modern Hollywood. And until last week, that club was one of the least heralded, if only because its members have been putting up with the demeaning treatment for a century.

We routinely give comedy, and comedians, a pass because (according to the traditional argument) you can’t get a laugh without offending somebody. One person’s edgy winner (“Borat,” for example) is another’s cause for outrage.

But something has been bubbling beneath the surface of too many Sandler comedies in recent years, a cold, mean-spirited smugness reeking of unexamined white-male privilege.Adam Sandler is awful, and it’s our fault

By Michael E. MillerThe last film [Blended] drew particular ire. New Yorker critic Richard Brody called it “grotesquely offensive”:No sooner do the families arrive at the resort than the obliviously trivializing depictions of black people, based on long-superseded stereotypes, begin. The Friedmans get out of their limo and are greeted by the hotel’s staff, all black, starting with a singing group, called Thathoo (pronounced “Tattoo”). The group leader’s eye-rolling and glad-handing, his lubriciously insinuating and exaggeratedly jiving, all seem to be taken straight from a minstrel show. And, throughout the movie, the group pops up like a Greek chorus to underline the action. There’s also an obsequious greeter whose exaggerated ingratiations would shame the hospitality business. Though his malapropisms are ultimately seen to be a canny joke, his manner is never anything but grinningly servile. And there’s an elderly slacker, sleeping on the job and avoiding responsibility, whose lazy ways are a monstrous and venerable cliché.Despite reviews like that, “Blended” still made almost $50 million. So is it any surprise that Sandler is now giving us more lazy stereotypes and crass clichés?Miller's conclusion:When actors are walking off of his set in disgust, maybe it’s time Sandler started paying attention to what people are saying about him. Otherwise he might end up becoming what he once joked of being: not particularly talented and not particularly good-looking. Just a multimillionaire.One explanation for Sandler's racism may be that he belongs to the political party of white supremacy:

Republican 'Actor' Adam Sandler Offends Native Americans

By LeftOfCenterA Republican mindset probably wouldn't understand that names assigned to Native American women like "Beaver's Breath" or "NoBra," might be offensive. A group of Native extras on the set of Adam Sandler's latest flick, The Ridiculous 6, simply walked out after pleading to producers to address their concerns.

Many don't realize Sandler is a registered Republican. He even performed at the 2004 RNC Convention in New York City. You remember that, the celebration of four more years of George W. Bush, what a guy! The fact that he's more comfortable with his political leanings seem to be inversely proportional to his attempts at humor. I'll admit, I liked movies like Billy Madison, but his attempt at making humor out of a teacher/student sex scandal in That's My Boy, was disastrous at best.Comment:  A registered Republican...yes, that explains a lot. Most Republicans are either racist themselves or insensitive to racism. They're exactly the people who make racist jokes and then blame others for being "too sensitive."

For more on Adam Sandler, see Ridiculous 6 Adviser Speaks Out and Should Natives Boycott Netflix?

Ridiculous 6 adviser speaks out

Why I Quit Adam Sandler's Movie: Ridiculous Six's Apache Consultant Speaks

By Vincent SchillingLast week, a group of Native actors walked off the set of the Adam Sandler comedy The Ridiculous Six to protest the film's content. One of the key dissenters was Bruce Klinekole, Apache, who had been hired as the film's Native American cultural consultant. Klinekole, whose last name translates as "Catch the Horse," objected to the Netflix production's repeated gross misrepresentations of Apache culture, dangerous bow-and-arrow scenes involving inexperienced actors, and being denied the chance to even speak to Adam Sandler.

After his requests for changes were ignored, 65 year old Klinekole spoke with other Native Elder friends, including David Hill (an actor who ended up joining the walk-off), about what to do. When Klinekole saw four eagles circling above the set, he knew it was a sign to walk off the set.

"I wasn't allowed to talk to a producer and they wouldn't allow me to talk to anybody," Klinekole told ICTMN. "They wouldn't let me do anything. Nothing."

“I said, 'Okay, that's all, I'm going," he continued. "I felt bad for my fellow people who were there but there was nothing I could do. I couldn't say anything on behalf of my Native people or on behalf of my Apache people who were depicted so badly.”Comment:  A brief discussion of the adviser's role:

Klinekole was arguably too naive. I wouldn't walk onto a set with a completed script, props, costumes, etc. and expect them to change everything. If you're not advising from the pre-production stage on, you might as well not bother.I couldn't believe he had to go through a PA--basically a college intern. The lowest rung and she arrogantly denied him access--of course, she had no power to grant him access. I've been a PA and I would have TRIED.The whole adviser role was obviously a joke. Or maybe it was another of Sandler's attempts at "satire."

They never intended to do anything the adviser said. They should've changed his title to "Fig Leaf for Covering Our Asses" or "Excuse for Giving Our Racism a Pass."The role was designed to have someone to blame. They knew it was horrible, they knew Natives would be upset, so they had him set up as the fall guy, expecting it wouldn't hit the fan until AFTER the film came out, and they could blame him and say, "Hey, we had a cultural advisor!"For more on Adam Sandler, see Should Natives Boycott Netflix? #NotYourHollywoodIndian.

Should Natives boycott Netflix?

Natives debate whether to boycott Netflix because of The Ridiculous 6, its racist Adam Sandler movie.

Yes, Unsubscribe From Netflix: These Small Steps Matter for Native Self-Esteem

By Gyasi RossWord to the wise: Adam Sandler is not going to magically start making intelligent movies. Promise. He is too rich and arrogant and unspiritual to realize that an organization created by individuals within his culture—the Anti-Defamation League, started by Jewish Americans—was started precisely to combat the kinds of portrayals of Jewish people as his movie made of Natives in The Ridiculous Six. He doesn’t care that he’s a hypocrite and that’s why he hasn’t responded—he’s rich!

Apparently spirituality and conscience goes out the window when one acquires wealth. If that’s the case, I honestly hope I never get rich.

Anyway, that’s not a surprise. What IS surprising is the lame, condescending and tired excuse provided by Netflix—that, essentially, Native people are “in on the joke.” This is more troubling than Sandler’s idiocy—at least he’s staying true to form. Netflix, however, is breaking new ground and flaunting the sad truth that they don’t mind swimming in the water of SO many other patriarchal, arrogant white folks in relation to Native people—they’re talking for us, telling us how we feel. This is an extension of the Justice John Marshall “domestic, dependent nations” logic, that somehow Native people are unqualified to feel for ourselves and tell others how we feel.

We Natives need someone to interpret the way we feel for us. Like a ward needs his guardian.

Let me be honest—I LOVE Netflix. I hope Netflix does the right thing! I have had Netflix for years and dig their distribution model and up until last week’s condescension to Native people, I’ve watched Jack Reacher on Netflix at least once a week for the past year. But life is full of uncomfortable decisions and those brave actresses and actors literally put their careers on the line for the sake of integrity—the least I can do it put Jack Reacher up for a little while. You folks inspired me. And those brave actresses and actors, whether that was their intent or not, said that it is NOT OK for non-Natives to speak for Native people (or even for Native people to speak for other Natives as has happened during other social justice movements). Condoning white people speaking for us is arrogant, it’s ugly and it’s a throwback to a time when Native people simply did not have the access to media that we do today.

Therefore, until Netflix chooses to acknowledge Native voices and meet and confer with members of our community in a public forum, I’m getting off of Netflix. I encourage you folks to do the same—they do not value your opinions and don’t even acknowledge when a group of Native people asks them to consider a reasonable position.”Young: 'No, I Will Not Deactivate My Netflix Account'

By Brian YoungNetflix is a company. It’s not a person with which can be reasoned. It will not understand a conversation on how degrading and damaging ‘injun’ stereotypes can be (I’ll recommend a movie that addresses that. It’s also on Netflix!). As a company, Netflix understands numbers. Yes, the more people that deactivate their accounts, the louder the message they’ll hear. That’s forcing them to our will, not educating them to our cause. The latter will have a much longer lasting effect. We as a unified movement have that power to either force them or education them. We have to education them. While forcing them to our will might reap short term effects, such as canceling “The Ridiculous Six,” we must think of the long run and what long term effects we can achieve.

Hollywood, and by extension Netflix and Adam Sandler, do not care about the representation of Native Americans. Since its birth, Hollywood and its byproducts have never been about telling our stories. Hollywood is a business that understands ratings, viewing numbers and consumer demand. Adam Sandler, and other big name Hollywood actors, are attached to projects to reduce risk so that investors will have more confidence that their initial investment will reap financial returns once the movie is released. What does that mean for Native films? Hollywood, unfortunately, thinks that Native films do not have a market and thusly are a high-risk, low return financial investment. In other words, Native films are a waste of money.

This is why I am imploring you to not deactivate your account. Instead, watch a film made by a Native person. There are many, many great films that you can watch. As of right now, in the United States Netflix streaming catalog, you can watch Neil Diamond’s “Reel Injun,” a documentary about ‘injun’ stereotypes, Jeff Barnaby’s “Rhymes for Young Ghouls,” (every single millisecond oozes style and captivates); Sterlin Harjo’s latest film, “This May Be The Last Time;” the classic, “Smoke Signals,” and “Jimmy P”–not necessarily a Native film, but a film about a Native, starring Benicio Del Toro.

Several movies in Netflix’s DVD catalog include, “The Lesser Blessed” (watch this!), and the above mentioned “Boy” and “Bran Nue Dae,” and “Incident at Oglala: The Leonard Peltier Story.” There’s even “Longmire,” which have Native actors (yours truly included, again shameless self-promotion). Heck, even “Breaking Bad” has Jeremiah Bitsui, a Navajo actor.Young even started a petition:

Expand your native films and produce more native content

By Brian YoungDepictions such as those found in “The Ridiculous Six” support the fallacy that Native Americans and Native American women are less than human. Racial stereotyping leads to racial discrimination. Racial discrimination leads to racially charged violence. The overly sexualized depiction of Native American woman, as seen with “Beaver Breath”, “Sits-On-Face” and the phrase “We go someplace and I put my peepee in your teepee” supports the notion that Native American woman are animalistic, inhuman, and promiscuous. The combination of racial stereotyping and the hyper sexualized depiction of Native American women can only create an ideology that leads to the increased violence against this population. These impacts cannot be hidden behind the guise of levity. The jokes in “The Ridiculous Six” are harmful, dangerous, and nowhere near satirical.

To combat the negative stereotyping of Native Americans, we are demanding that you support Native American filmmakers, actors, producers, directors, and films in general. To do so, we ask that you expand your native film selections. As a distribution company, you are constantly seeking to expand your catalog so as to better your customer experience. Native Americans are also a part of your customer base, as evident in the social media campaigns #WalkOffNetflix and #VivaNativeCinema. By expanding your catalog with Native films, you will present an accurate representation of Native Americans and Native American women, thus reducing racial stereotyping to your 30 million subscription base. We would like to suggest some titles that would be an asset to your DVD and streaming catalog: Lee Tamahori’s Once We Were Warriors, Bruce McDonald’s Dance Me Outside, Anne Makepeace’s We Still Live Here, Courtney Hunt’s Frozen River (on stream, already available on DVD), Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee (on stream, already available on DVD), Peter Stebbing’s Empire of Dirt, Georgina Lightning’s Older Than America, the Aboriginal t.v. series Mohawk Girls, Andrew Okpeaha MacLean’s On The Ice, Rick Derby’s Rocks With Wings, Steve Barron’s DreamKeeper, Shonie and Andee De La Rosa’s Mile Post 398, Niki Caro’s Whale Rider (on stream, already available on DVD), and Sara McIntyre’s Two Indians Talking. These suggestions serve as only a beginning, as this list is in no way inclusive or final. Native American filmmakers are continuing to create and produce films as we write this petition, and this demographic will only continue to grow.Comment:  A boycott won't work because Netflix isn't a person? But a petition will? Alas, Young's position is inconsistent.

Boycotts and petitions aren't attempts to reason with a company. Rather, they're attempts to influence a company by bringing market pressures to bear.

In particular, they're attempts to influence the bean-counters in charge of the bottom line. Whether the company has a "conscience" and acts for moral reasons is almost irrelevant.

As long as the company stops its racism, we don't much care about its motivation. Changing the harmful behavior is the first and most necessary step. Educating the company about its mistakes is secondary.

Besides, being forced to publicly admit one's mistakes and change one's policies is inherently educational. When you punish a child or a pet, you don't necessarily have to explain your reasoning. The punishment alone educates the child or pet not to do wrong again.

That said, a boycott or a petition probably won't have much effect. Netflix's streaming service has some 30 million subscribers. I doubt they'd even notice the actions of a few hundred protesters.

For more on Adam Sandler, see #NotYourHollywoodIndian and Native Actors Denounce Sandler.

#NotYourHollywoodIndian

Native activists took to Twitter to criticize Adam Sandler and his Ridiculous 6 movie:

Native activists tell Adam Sandler, Netflix they're #NotYourHollywoodIndian

Activists use hashtag #NotYourHollywoodIndian to pressure Netflix to cancel production of The Ridiculous Six

By John BowmanAs news of the walkout spread, Red Shirt-Shaw began posting about it on Twitter under the hashtag #NotYourHollywoodIndian, which was inspired by some of the actors' comments.

"I logged into social media and saw that a ton of people were talking about it, but that the ideas weren't consolidated, so I decided to try to push it out there," she said.

"I'm just moved by how it has grown and seeing the people come out and support it, and seeing news articles reference it," said Red Shirt-Shaw. "I think that we have to stand as a united front."

She also co-founded a petition on Change.org urging Netflix to cancel the production of The Ridiculous Six.

"We're really hoping that we can build up the signatures that are on there and present this to Netflix in a way that will say 'We're not going to support you. People have already cancelled their subscriptions. You guys really need to evaluate whether or not this is a project you want to move forward with in the future,'" she said.

So far, Netflix remains committed to the movie.Can the recycled bigotry of Adam Sandler's Ridiculous Six do some good?

By Jaynie ParrishThe image of a 21st century American Indian is a twisted reality, especially in Hollywood and sports. Of course that’s been true since the first films were made about American Indians—or the first team names were chosen. That’s the legacy of the old world.

But, like many other marginalized groups, social media gives us a different way to amplify our message.

On Friday California writer Megan Red Shirt-Shaw created a hashtag, #notyourhollywoodIndian: “I applaud the actors who walked off that set,” she wrote. “A comedy directed & acted by Native American comedians would revolutionize comedy.”

Hashtags like these allow people to say what they believe without the filter of the mainstream press–and even to the mainstream press. Being heard gives us the ability to hold people accountable, even big name movie stars.

Hashtags aren’t enough, of course–they’re not our votes. And our outrage should also be directed at critical matters like better health care, safe water and improving the social and economic conditions Native Americans continue to face. A terrible Adam Sandler isn’t the worst of our problems–but if it brings us together and gives us a public platform, perhaps, inadvertently, the bigotry on display in his film will be a starting point for how we do change the world.'Hey Adam ... Let's Talk': The #NotYourHollywoodIndian Q&A

By Arturo R. GarcíaWhat, if anything, could Sandler and Netflix do to help remedy the situation?

Red-Shirt Shaw: I would be lying if I didn’t say I hope they cancel this film—but I’m also still waiting to hear from the comedian himself. Until then, let’s keep telling him “Hey Adam, we’re #NotYourHollywoodIndian—let’s talk.”What do you think?

What happens next, both for this campaign and Native In America?

Red-Shirt Shaw: I hope that #NotYourHollywoodIndian changes the conversation in the film industry about Indigenous identity and that the movement is productive, that ultimately people are using their positivity and power to educate. I hope that Natives In America takes over the world. Period. On a smaller scale … I hope the entire amazing NIA team knows how much they are surprising and inspiring people with their stories about being Native in the 21st century. Until we break through that glass ceiling of who America thinks we are, we have to keep telling our tales. And we will.Adam Sandler movie sparks debate over American Indian images

By Russell ContrerasIn recent years, Native Americans have been more outspoken.

For example, in 2013, some Native Americans were critical of Johnny Depp's portrayal on Tonto in the Disney version adaptation of "The Lone Ranger." Depp spoke in broken English, chanted prayers and wore a stuffed crow on his head. However, after a campaign by the movie to improve its image with Native Americans, Depp was eventually embraced on the Navajo Nation and was later adopted into the Comanche Nation.

A year before, the band No Doubt was forced to apologize and pull the music video "Looking Hot" after lead singer Gwen Stefani was criticize for dancing around teepees and wearing a series of American Indian-styled outfits.Comment:  I believe activists tried to create a Twitterstorm using the #NotYourHollywoodIndian tag. But I saw only a few postings on the subject, and didn't hear anything about it afterward. I don't think it was a big success.

For more on Adam Sandler, see Native Actors Denounce Sandler and Vanilla Ice Defends Ridiculous 6.

Native actors denounce Sandler

'Our Dignity Is a Right' Say Native Actors Who Quit Adam Sandler Film

By Vincent SchillingWhat are your thoughts about bringing up Native rights in the context of the entertainment industry?

David Hill: I hope more people get on board for championing Native rights not just in movies or TV but wherever our rights are challenged. We have a non-Indian culture that complains about the rights that we do have. We have a non-Indian culture that pretty well complains about the rights we have that are different from theirs but the right to respect is something that exists through all cultures.

Our dignity is a right that we have to fight for. When you consider the suicide rates of our children, that is a direct result of destruction of culture, dignity, self image, and those things that make a person complete. We have to stand up somewhere, and what we did that day may not be much but it may have a butterfly effect to get people motivated to start and think that they can make a difference.

What do you say to the people who have expressed that this is a comedy and Native Americans are being too sensitive? Or to Netflix's statement that the movie is supposed to be ridiculous?

David Hill: When we were talking to them they said if you don’t like it, leave. We told them we will leave but this is not going to be the end of this. Them saying that this is a comedy and that this is a joke, that is nothing more than an excuse to perpetuate racism. It is a cover word to allow racism. The director said, "Adam Sandler makes fun of himself." But there is a difference between making fun of yourself and making fun of the people that are oppressed.Dear Adam Sandler: I've Picked Your Indian Name

By Marc YaffeeI was very excited to hear you would be working in New Mexico to produce the first movie in your four-picture Netflix deal. The fact that you were casting a large group of Native actors and extras for The Ridiculous Six was a good sign. Diversity in films is always good and we have plenty of good Native actors willing and ready to work. Hell, your production company even hired a cultural advisor. I believe his name was Bruce. I’ve never heard of an Indian named Bruce. Was he actually an Indian or your cousin who had taken a Native American studies class? I don’t know but on the surface it appeared you were trying to do the right things.

Unfortunately, there was just one problem with the whole movie: you wrote it. I only read a small portion of the script but it was like taking one bite of tainted meat or one sip of rotten milk (hey, wait, I’m not eating meat and I’m lactose intolerant). It stinks. It’s not only offensive to Native Americans, it’s offensive to ALL Americans. Okay, especially Native Americans. Not every Native actor or extra walked off the set but I have a feeling that when it comes out on Netflix, the rest of them will wish they had.

If you want to lampoon and stereotype a people for laughs, at least be satirical and brilliant, instead of ignorant and unfunny. And next time you really want to Insult Indians, go old school and hire Italians and Mexicans to play them. At least no Indians would have to feel embarrassed about being in your movie. After all, our people have already suffered enough.A letter to Adam Sandler

By Jon Santaanta ProudstarI am ashamed at your action or lack thereof. I am Hasidic Jew on my father’s side and take great pride in that as well as my Native and Hispanic heritage. You bring shame to the Jewish people. You, who belong to a race who faced a genocide, and relocation, theft, rape, indignation. These things our people share in common. What you have done is shown your ability to act as your oppressors once did.

I promise you we will have words someday Mr. Sandler.As a Native Actor, I Applaud Those Who Walked off the Set of Adam Sandler’s Racist Movie

By Tyson HousemanWhen I was younger, I acted in some of the Twilight movies. I played a shape-shifting werewolf who was a member of a fictionalized version of the Quileute Tribe, a real Native American tribe in Washington. In light of the media coverage that Adam Sandler's newest racist pile of shit is receiving due to some Native American actors walking off the set because it's a racist pile of shit, I felt compelled to offer some insight up for public consumption from my own experiences as an Indigenous actor who has dealt with racism in the film industry. First of all I should note that I am fully aware of The Twilight Saga's problematic portrayal of Native Americans and the appropriation of real Quileute myths and traditions into fantasy. I say 'problematic' because these films offer the image of Native Americans basically as mythical creatures, but they are also some of the few Hollywood blockbusters depicting contemporary Native characters as opposed to fake historic relics of a romanticized early American frontier.

I knew that the character I was playing was problematic and I still did it because it was a huge opportunity. This problematic portrayal was never discussed on-set between actors or writers—it was kind of an elephant in the room. It's easy to take a moral stance on something but as we all know it's a lot fucking harder to stand by your morals when they are put to the test, which is why I have nothing but praise for the group of actors who were able to stick to their guns and walk off the set of Sandler's ridiculous shitpile. Indigenous actors face struggles of misrepresentation all the time, from racist typecasting to insensitive and false historical research, and I know from experience that it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to this. Unfortunately, the majority of the roles in film and TV for Indigenous actors are for characters like "the brave" or "the savage," one-liner characters that do nothing but add some colour to background shots or get killed when they foolishly attack the (white) protagonist (all of this comes from personal audition experience). So the attention this story has received over the past week goes to show that a good deal of people are ready to break free from the perpetuation of these ancient stereotypes. Regardless of that, this film will still be made.

So why have these stereotypes been allowed to persist in the Hollywood machine for so long? Why, in 2015, does Adam Sandler think it's okay to write female characters named "No Bra" and "Beaver's Breath" and to reduce an entire group of human beings into caricature? The "Hollywood Indian" stereotype has been allowed to endure because the image of an oppressed, colonized culture looks better from the perspective of the colonizers before that culture started being oppressed. Hollywood prefers its silent, stoic noble savage to any real modern day depiction of indigeneity in film. Colonial North American society is still more comfortable with their romanticized image of a proud race of people who once graced an untouched landscape and have since subserviently and willingly disappeared into the shadows to make way for the "rightful" owners of that landscape to manifest their destiny. This idea of the "vanishing Indian" has been vital to the relieving of colonial guilt because if we don't have to see them then we can just pretend their culture must be gone. Hence shoving us on tiny plots of land called reservations.Comment:  For more on Adam Sandler, see Vanilla Ice Defends Ridiculous 6 and Natives Brave to Protest Sandler.

Below:  "Actors David Hill and Loren Anthony walked off the set of Adam Sandler's latest project."

Indians aren't "Indian enough" for Biloxi

Some postings show what happens when you engage with mascot fanatics:

Not “Indian Enough”

Biloxi High School Alumni Perpetuate Ignorance, Cyberbully Natives, and Dictate Who is “Indian Enough” to Have an Opinion in Cultural Appropriation Debate.

By Kayla FaithAlthough the Biloxi High School has long been listed on the American Indian Sports Team Mascots website as racist, the recent display of its uniform blasphemy at D.C.’s Cherry Blossom Festival has opened the floodgates of opposition. Natives and their allies have stood up against racist mascots and symbolism for decades, but this new age of social media has helped to finally level the playing field. Voices that were once drowned out are finally being heard, especially in Washington where a racial slur is still being casually thrown around in the name of sports. Seeing this display of mockery–an entire marching band in sacred war bonnets–was something no person with any cultural sensitivity or a sense of respect could ignore.

Deloria Lane Many Grey Horses-Violich is one of these people. Peacefully, she generated a Change.org petition calling for Biloxi Superintendent Arthur McMillan to emancipate indigenous peoples from the cultural appropriation of our Tunica-Biloxi cousins. She eloquently defends the teenagers being subjected to the perpetuation of cultural appropriation, stating, “If you want to play the trumpet and represent your school, you have to wear an item that is sacred to many Native cultures.”Biloxi supporters and detractors argued back and forth until this:“If it turns out that they are in fact offended by the uniform,” McWilliams writes, “we will see if we can compromise as far as uniforms are concerned.” Not only does McWilliams confirm that there is no known consent by the Tunica-Biloxi people to use them as a mascot, but she states they will compromise–not resolve–on the issue of their offense.

But next the alumni begin arguing that the Biloxi people themselves are not “Indian enough.” “Their ancestry cannot be 100% confirmed,” McWilliams states, claiming that many think “the tribe, and factual descendants are extinct.” Ignoring the tribe’s status of federal recognition, the group focuses instead on how “watered down” the tribe members are, and question if they’re even Biloxi at all. Lateacha states, “The Biloxi blood line is dead and only traces reside in those at Tunica-Biloxi. In fact you can find old Biloxi French families with as much Biloxi in them. I’d still love to hear from Tunica-Biloxi, but let’s be honest there is no real ‘Voice of the Tribe’ left.”

You want “purebloods”? What are we, dogs?Below:  "Deloria Many Grey Horses-Violich whose Facebook account was repeatedly suspended due to her Indigenous surname."



Faith's conclusion:These Biloxi Alumni demonstrate they honor nothing but stereotypes, cultural appropriation, themselves, and the “Indian” ideal that genuine Natives are fighting to remove. They have no cultural sensitivity and refuse to obtain a proper education in the matter. Furthermore, while indigenous peoples are busy fighting for every aspect of their equality, they are being accused of having “more important things to do”. Apparently adults reminiscing over high school and working overtime to keep racism in the education system is a more important thing to do. These “BHS Indians” pass judgment on “real Indians,” calling them “racists” and “whiners” for standing up for their sovereignties and rights as human beings. As a result, more civilized residents of Biloxi have joined the anti-mascot side in sympathy of the Natives, saying they are disgusted with their ex-classmates’ words and their childish actions. In fact, many have signed our petition.

It is absolutely imperative for the citizens of this country to wake up and realize the unnecessary harm being done by the continued use of racist mascots. The documented psychological damage on both Native and non-Native children should be proof enough of the necessity to change. Humans are not predisposed to prejudice; instead, we are teaching our non-indigenous children cultural insensitivity and our indigenous children low self-worth. We are perpetuating the lies of what constitutes being “Indian enough” and what doesn’t. Stop this injustice, Biloxi, like you finally stopped racially segregating your students in 1970. It’s time we moved beyond delusions of racial inequality.Debating a Biloxi supporter

Kayla Faith also took on a Biloxi High supporter who offered the usual tired arguments for Indian mascots. A sample:

A response to a Biloxi resident3. When a school, sports team, company, etc. chooses a mascot they seek out a symbol that reflects their beliefs and conveys a message about their organization, product, people, etc.

Right, they do. Because there is symbolism behind what they choose. However, when a human being is chosen as a mascot–specifically an entire race of people who identify instead by their own nations–is used by non-Natives to sell their product or promote their image, this is not out of honor. Do you really think these mascots, chosen in times when Natives weren’t even allowed to be American citizens, were really honoring anything? No, they were chosen because Natives were considered non-human. Boarding schools, some of which closed within my lifetime, were set in place by the government to “Kill the Indian, Save the Man”–stripping them of all their clothes, language, religion, anything that made them “Indian”. Children taken from home and assimilated. The government did this. In its very motto, the program clearly parallels a dead Indian to a saved man. Just in case you still didn’t get it, Indian =/= Man. Indian=Animal. Indian=Savage. Indian=Your Mascot, based on these beliefs. These mascots were chosen because they were savage, uncontrollable animals, noted for their resilience to assimilation. WE are proud of our resilience to assimilation, but THEY were not. THEY tried to beat it out of our ancestors. To THEM, we were worthless farm animals to be tamed and broken. No different than the way they treated our black cousins. THAT is why this HAS TO STOP.

4. Biloxi High School chose the Biloxi Indian based on the history of the Biloxi Indian Tribe who resided here but also because it represents strength, honor, spirit, bravery and character.

There is no evidence of why they chose this. If you think that name represents those things, then you believe in the Indian stereotype. The Tanêks simply left. They wanted nothing to do with the British. I am not speaking ill of them when I say their leaving in no way earns them the right to be stereotyped as the resilient “savage.” They were resilient, absolutely, but not in a way you comprehend. You don’t recognize their struggle for federal recognition because, as you demonstrated in your dialogue with us, you know nothing about Indian Affairs, Tribal Law, or our histories. You just pretend like you do, but you’re reiterating the same stereotyping lies that we have had to shoot down time and time again. When will it end??Below:  Old school images show how Biloxi High students have always viewed Indians in false and stereotypical terms.



Someone listens to an Indian

One person did listen to the Indians who protested the Biloxi "Indians," including one from the Tunica-Biloxi tribe. His name is Jean-Luc Pierite and she began her response to him:

Just a Biloxi girl….Who has opened her eyesHe said mockery, people. MOCKERY. This is the truest, most heartfelt opinion about the Tribe’s feelings that he could give. The fact is: we are not honoring them. At all. Period. End of discussion. There are ifs, ands, or buts. It’s a done deal. All these years, it’s been viewed as nothing but a mockery. And an imaginary honorary tradition. It was quite clear to me what this article said, even if just in the undertones of it.

Some also felt that his article was an attack directed towards Deloria Many Grey Horses, who originated the petition to change the uniform of the marching band. By the end of his article, he suggest that people educate themselves on his tribe. Many people thought he was directing that to the opposition. Wrong. So. Very. Wrong. His target was none other than those in favor of supporting the headdress and mascot. Those who claimed it to be “heritage,” “tradition” and “in honor of.” Those who claimed “honor” then in the next sentence said something disparaging towards a Native American culture. Oh, okay. So it’s okay to make a “joke” about something, but it’s not okay when those you are joking about take offense? Right….

Deloria Many Grey Horses has a picture on several of these articles. It is of her, holding a sign that says “#notyourmascotbiloxi.” Many of the alumni, sadly including myself, took a stab at this. Many negative remarks were made. Things like “Of course she’s not. She’s not even American.” or “She is psycho. Of COURSE she’s not our mascot. Who is stupid enough to want her as one?”

Many people felt that Deloria has an agenda. A personal vendetta, for no good reason. I, too, felt that she was just attacking the school because she could. I did extensive research on Deloria prior to Jean-Luc’s article. I did even more after. What did I find? I found that Deloria, in fact, DOES have an agenda. GASP! Of course she does. Her agenda is this: to bring an end to the racism and discrimination towards Native People. Towards ALL people. She aims to educate the populace about the negative effects these types of incidents have on our youth. OUR YOUTH. Not just Native American youth.Comment:  For more on Biloxi High School, see Biloxi Headdresses Are "Dignified and Proper"? and Indians Protest Biloxi "Indians."