No apologies for nuking "savages"

The 70th anniversary of Hiroshima is a good time to discuss the greatest single instance of mass murder ever.

The indefensible Hiroshima revisionism that haunts America to this day

Seventy years ago this week we vaporized 250,000 civilians, and yet still view the bombings as an act of mercy

By Christian AppyHere we are, 70 years after the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I’m wondering if we’ve come even one step closer to a moral reckoning with our status as the world’s only country to use atomic weapons to slaughter human beings. Will an American president ever offer a formal apology? Will our country ever regret the dropping of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man,” those two bombs that burned hotter than the sun? Will it absorb the way they instantly vaporized thousands of victims, incinerated tens of thousands more, and created unimaginably powerful shockwaves and firestorms that ravaged everything for miles beyond ground zero? Will it finally come to grips with the “black rain” that spread radiation and killed even more people—slowly and painfully—leading in the end to a death toll for the two cities conservatively estimated at more than 250,000?

Given the last seven decades of perpetual militarization and nuclear “modernization” in this country, the answer may seem like an obvious no. Still, as a historian, I’ve been trying to dig a little deeper into our lack of national contrition. As I have, an odd fragment of Americana kept coming to mind, a line from the popular 1970 tearjerker Love Story: “Love,” says the female lead when her boyfriend begins to apologize, “means never having to say you’re sorry.” It has to be one of the dumbest definitions ever to lodge in American memory, since real love often requires the strength to apologize and make amends.

It does, however, apply remarkably well to the way many Americans think about that broader form of love we call patriotism. With rare exceptions, like the 1988 congressional act that apologized to and compensated the Japanese-American victims of World War II internment, when it comes to the brute exercise of power, true patriotism has above all meant never having to say you’re sorry. The very politicians who criticize other countries for not owning up to their wrong-doing regularly insist that we should never apologize for anything. In 1988, for example, after the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf killing all 290 passengers (including 66 children), Vice President George H.W. Bush, then running for president, proclaimed, “I will never apologize for the United States. Ever. I don’t care what the facts are.”What was our justification for the greatest single instance of mass murder since the Great Flood? Basically, that the Japanese were subhuman savages like America's Indians. We tried to exterminate one species of "vermin" so why not try it again?The president soon dropped the “military base” justification. After all, despite Washington’s effort to censor the most graphic images of atomic annihilation coming out of Hiroshima, the world quickly grasped that the U.S. had destroyed an entire city in a single blow with massive loss of life. So the president focused instead on an apologia that would work for at least the next seven decades. Its core arguments appeared in that same August 9th speech. “We have used [the atomic bomb] against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor,” he said, “against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.”

By 1945, most Americans didn’t care that the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not committed Japan’s war crimes. American wartime culture had for years drawn on a long history of “yellow peril” racism to paint the Japanese not just as inhuman, but as subhuman. As Truman put it in his diary, it was a country full of “savages”—“ruthless, merciless, and fanatic” people so loyal to the emperor that every man, woman, and child would fight to the bitter end. In these years, magazines routinely depicted Japanese as monkeys, apes, insects, and vermin. Given such a foe, so went the prevailing view, there were no true “civilians” and nothing short of near extermination, or at least a powerful demonstration of America’s willingness to proceed down that path, could ever force their surrender. As Admiral William “Bull” Halsey said in a 1944 press conference, “The only good Jap is a Jap who’s been dead six months.”

In the years after World War II, the most virulent expressions of race hatred diminished, but not the widespread idea that the atomic bombs had been required to end the war, eliminating the need to invade the Japanese home islands where, it was confidently claimed, tooth-and-nail combat would cause enormous losses on both sides. The deadliest weapon in history, the one that opened the path to future Armageddon, had therefore saved lives. That was the stripped down mantra that provided the broadest and most enduring support for the introduction of nuclear warfare. By the time Truman, in retirement, published his memoir in 1955, he was ready to claim with some specificity that an invasion of Japan would have killed half-a-million Americans and at least as many Japanese.Comment:  The only good Indian is a dead Indian and the only good Jap is a dead Jap. Could Halsey have made the connection any clearer?

Neither the Indians nor the Japanese were good white Christian people like us. Therefore, it didn't matter to us if they lived or died.

That's been the core of the Euro-American mindset since 1492, if not earlier. We see it today as the police beat and kill brown people while Republicans slash their health and welfare services and Obama bombs and assassinates them. Many Americans simply don't care whether brown people live or die.

For more on the subject, see Whites Destroy Other People's Homes and Mass Murder in Gaza and Hiroshima.

Trump promises "normalcy" aka whiteness

The hideous truth about Donald Trump: Why the “Trump Surge” is here to stay—even if his campaign isn’t

The forces animating the Donald's soaring popularity are omnipresent: The deep-seated anxieties of white America

By Brittney CooperDonald Trump makes clear that he primarily cares about capitalism, about wealth, and about power. While I view his particular performance of right-wing politics and white masculinity as buffoonish, he seems to offer comfort to those on the right who are deeply invested in returning the country’s leadership to someone who looks and thinks like them. What’s interesting, then, is that Trump’s billionaire status likely indicates that he has little in common with the everyday citizen. But his brash and unapologetic political incorrectness bespeaks comfort, a seeming return to normalcy for those Americans who believe that progress and change are happening too fast.

While Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders have become more explicit about saying “Black lives matter,” Trump recently argued that we actually need to “give power back to the police.” Nothing about the rampant culture of overpolicing in this country or the surveillance state in which most urban people of color live would suggest that this is a reasonable position to take. The police have more power than they have ever had, and they continue to use that power to intimidate and abuse ordinary citizens of all backgrounds, including African-Americans, Native Americans and white people.And:The explanations that suggest that Trump’s “refreshing honesty” and “lack of political corruption” make him popular are surface-level truths that point to a deeper set of lies. Trump legitimizes the most irrational and base impulses of those on the right. He makes it seem OK to have views that are politically retrograde and fundamentally at odds with a democratic project. He makes white discomfort with progressive discourse and policy feel like a legitimate anxiety.

The presidency of Barack Obama has so deeply unsettled such a significant segment of the American populace, that nothing but right-wing political zealotry will make them feel settled again. This is what Trump represents–the kind of zealotry meant to balance the extreme feelings that many conservative (read: white) Americans have about what they’ve been “forced to endure” for the last eight years.Comment:  For more on conservatives, see "Restoring America's Greatness" = Disneyesque Dream and Obama's N-Word Controversy.

Breaking the Code in progress

I don't know if I've mentioned it before, but I'm working on my first screenplay. It's titled Breaking the Code.

My elevator pitch is NCIS meets Do the Right Thing and my logline goes:A Navajo code talker's long-buried secret threatens to destroy two families.For all the news on this project, including the latest developments, follow its Facebook page:

Breaking the Code

Tomahawk in Swamp Thing

A 1989 issue of Swamp Thing featured Tomahawk, the Revolutionary War hero who resembled Daniel Boone and Natty "Hawkeye" Bumppo. It also featured several Native characters. You can read a plot summary here:

Swamp Thing Vol 2 86

Whether I read the comic book or this summary, the story initially makes little sense. But I'll try to summarize it.

** spoiler alert **

Swamp Thing has been sent bouncing back through time. He's now trapped in a crystal in the Old West in the year 1800.

The former Tomahawk is now a middle-aged tax collector, weary and cynical. His old foe Gerald Shilling, a master of disguise, takes him to a slave ship to collect its tax. It's not clear what Shilling has planned for Tomahawk, or why he'd help Tomahawk do his job. The only hint is that Shilling is playing some sort of role he isn't aware of.

Meanwhile, Moon Fawn and Wise Owl paddle to the ship and hides a crystal in Tomahawk's rowboat. It's not clear what they're doing either, except perhaps fulfilling some prophecy. When Tomahawk returns to his boat, he discovers the crystal and realizes who Shilling is. After a battle involving magic and a giant bat, Tomahawk gives the crystal--now attached to Shilling's arm--back to the Indians.

About all the Indians have accomplished is to meet Tomahawk when he's in a proper frame of mind. Oh, and to convert the crystal without a hand into a crystal with a hand. Which I guess is part of the prophecy.

From a Native perspective, the last six pages are the most interesting part. Tomahawk says he's tired of city life and wants to return to the wilderness. He accompanies Moon Fawn and her people as they travel west, growing sharper and fitter as they go. Eventually, he and Moon Fawn fall in love and give birth to a boy Hawk. Tomahawk also uses the crystal hand to free Swamp Thing and send him through time.

Years later, Tomahawk's son Hawk stars in the Hawk, Son of Tomahawk series. Hawk writes an autobiography that ends up in the hands of Abby, the girlfriend and wife of Swamp Thing. And the circle is complete, or whatever.

Basically, this issue provides an origin for Tomahawk's later years and for his son Hawk. Since I'm not a big Tomahawk or Hawk fan, I don't know if Hawk's first appearance in Tomahawk #131 covered his history. It may have mentioned his father's journey west, but I doubt it explained how Swamp Thing brought Tomahawk and Moon Fawn together.

Generic Indians

Moon Fawn and Wise Owl, sister and brother, are generic Indians all the way. When we first see them, they're wearing buckskin outfits and paddling a canoe. Wise Owl has a headband with feathers in it.

The cover below shows Moon Fawn in a sleeveless dress, but she was more demurely dressed in the story. The hint of sexiness is only a cheap marketing ploy.

Tomahawk and the others go west to the Indians' home in Echo Valley. It's a village of tipis, of course. Chief Grey Elk is the father of Moon Fawn and Wise Owl, of course, and wears a feather bonnet, of course. So Moon Fawn is a typical Indian "princess," though the story doesn't call her that.

The names Moon Fawn and Wise Owl may be the most stereotypical thing about them. Could their names possibly be more of an on-the-nose clicheé? She's soft like a fawn; he's wise like an owl. Get it?

Fortunately, the Indians don't engage in war-whooping dances or other "savage" practices. They don't go off half-naked or in warpaint. In their brief appearances, they seem like real people.

This was a common approach to depicting Indians in the "relevance" era of the 1960s and 1970s. They weren't mindless savages anymore; they exhibited some measure of humanity. But they were mostly generic Plains Indians with no distinct culture or religion. Not terrible, but not great either.

For more on the subject, see Comic Books Featuring Indians.

Cigar Store Indian in Seinfeld

A famous episode of Seinfeld featured a Native subplot. The video below shows the Native scenes:

Seinfeld — Native American (Full Scene)Jerry has some trouble dating a Native American. From Seinfeld (Season 5, Episode 10).Seinfeld: "The Masseuse"/"The Cigar Store Indian"

By David SimsJerry's thing with the Native American girl he likes is the only thing that's just too silly for the episode, not for how he stumbles over every word possibly connected to Indians (like making a reservation at a restaurant) but just for the idea that she's even consider going anywhere with him considering what an inept fucking idiot he is in this episode. Kramer's enthusiasm for the cigar store Indian, though, makes it worthwhile. "It's KITSCHY!"

Grade: A-Was Seinfeld a Racist Show?

By Ravi ShankarNext, let’s move on to the episode entitled “The Cigar Store Indian” which primarily focused in one way or the other with racism. Jerry is very interested in one of Elaine’s friends, Winona, but offends her by purchasing a cigar store Indian as a gift for Elaine. Later in the episode, Jerry attempts to ask a mailman where the nearest Chinese restaurant is. The mailman turns out to be Asian, and responds, “Ohh! You ask Chinese man where nearest Chinese restaurant is! Oh, American man, where nearest hot dog, hamburger stand?” Obviously, this is hilarious, embarrassing for Jerry, yet stereotyped in general all across the board. Later on, the term “Indian giver” is used. In the end, nothing works out for Jerry, and he ends up being a victim of looking at races from a stereotypical standpoint. Though this seems pretty tame and you can give a little harty-har to, look at the shocking facts that continue.10 'Seinfeld' Episodes That Might Be Considered Racist and Sexist Today

The four main characters sometimes had a reactionary attitude toward woman and minorities.

By Sola AgustssonWhile the show features Jewish characters (and was even criticized by NBC’s Brandon Tartikoff for being “too Jewish”), critics lamented the show’s lack of diversity even in the 1990s. “The show has never been terribly concerned with political correctness. Its depictions of minorities, from Babu the Pakistani who was eventually deported because of Jerry’s carelessness to the Greek diner owner with an apparent yen for amply endowed waitresses, can be patronizing. And its attitudes toward women can become downright hostile, as the final episode illustrated with its portrait of a gleefully nasty female network executive,” said New York Times writer John J. O’Connor.And:This episode stresses white middle-class discomfort over dealing with race. After offending a Native American woman by dragging a cigar store Indian statue and making hooting noises, Jerry somehow finagles a date with her in order to make up for his racist gestures. He continues to make prejudiced remarks in front of her, and inadvertently calls her an “Indian giver.” This episode is a good commentary on white male cluelessness, though the Native American woman is portrayed as being overly sensitive.Comment:  I wasn't a regular Seinfeld watcher. This episode reminds me why. It's mostly obvious and unfunny to me--not worth watching. I'd give it more like a C- than an A-.

Superficially, this episode's Native portrayal is fine. Winona is a modern Native woman--no different from Elaine or her friends. When Jerry unveils the cigar-store Indian, she leaves rather than saying anything. She gives Jerry a couple of chances to prove himself. After the cigar-store Indian and three verbal blunders, she finally gets mad. So I wouldn't even call her "overly sensitive" as Agustsson did.

Jerry blunders and we laugh at him for it. But it's more like laughing at an adorable "bad" boy who made an "innocent" mistake. He almost crosses the "PC" line and says something "scandalous"--but not quite. It's like we're laughing at social conventions for forcing him to be careful. And not at him for his demonstrated insensitivity and ignorance.

And even in this nominally "good" episode, you can discern Jerry's patronizing attitude toward minorities and women. He doesn't attempt to learn anything about Winona or her background. His only interest seems to be in her appearance. You can bet he'd never leave his comfort zone for her. Never visit her home reservation or even read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee for her. Too much negative stuff for a shallow guy like Jerry.

Review of Blood and Thunder

Blood and Thunder: The Epic Story of Kit Carson and the Conquest of the American WestIn the summer of 1846, the Army of the West marched through Santa Fe, en route to invade and occupy the Western territories claimed by Mexico. Fueled by the new ideology of “Manifest Destiny,” this land grab would lead to a decades-long battle between the United States and the Navajos, the fiercely resistant rulers of a huge swath of mountainous desert wilderness. In Blood and Thunder, Hampton Sides gives us a magnificent history of the American conquest of the West. At the center of this sweeping tale is Kit Carson, the trapper, scout, and soldier whose adventures made him a legend. Sides shows us how this illiterate mountain man understood and respected the Western tribes better than any other American, yet willingly followed orders that would ultimately devastate the Navajo nation. Rich in detail and spanning more than three decades, this is an essential addition to our understanding of how the West was really won.

From Publishers Weekly

Although delivering little in the way of new information, Sides, an Outside magazine editor-at-large and bestselling author (Ghost Soldiers), eloquently paints the landscape and history of the 19th-century Southwest, combining Larry McMurtry's lyricism with the historian's attachment to facts. Inevitably, Sides's main focus is the virtual decimation of the Navajo nation from the 1820s to the late 1860s. Sides depicts the complex role of whites in the subjugation of the Navajos through his portrait of Kit Carson—an illiterate trapper, soldier and scout who knew the Native Americans intimately, married two of them and, without blinking, participated in the Indians' slaughter. Books about Carson have been numerous, but Sides is better than most Carson biographers in setting his exploits against a larger backdrop: the unstoppable idea of manifest destiny. Of course, as counterpoint to the progress of Carson and other whites, Sides details the fierce but doomed defense mounted by the Navajos over long decades. This culminated in their final, desperate "stand" during 1863 at Canyon de Chelly, more than a decade after a contingent of federal troops—operating under a commander whose last name of "Washington" seems ironic in this context—killed their great leader, Narbona.

From Bookmarks Magazine

Hampton Sides's Blood and Thunder is more ambitious in its sweep than his acclaimed Ghost Wars (2001), a World War II history. His recounting of harsh frontier life and the violent clashes among the Navajo, the Spanish (Mexican), and the U.S. Army offers a gripping epic while enlivening many of the era's remarkable figures, from soldiers to trappers, farmers, Indians, and pioneer women. Critics especially praised Sides's nuanced discussions of the Navajo and other Native American tribes, as well as his inclusion of maps that chart key routes and conquests. A few critics cited some factual errors, tangential discussions, and omissions of some key historical figures, but overall it's clear that "Sides knows how to tell a good story" (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).I don't know that much about the Southwest's history during the Mexican-American War and Civil War. But I didn't catch any factual errors or omissions, and the tangential discussions weren't tangential enough to bother me.

Reader reviewThoroughly Engaging and Brilliantly Written
By John Sollami on October 3, 2006

Blood and Thunder is a blockbuster! With this sweeping and comprehensive history, Hampton Sides vividly and engagingly retells the story of James K. Polk's and the nation's drive to absorb the West and expand America from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Along with this outsized and bold tale of conquest and manifest destiny, Sides generously presents us with a whole constellation of people and events, such as the deliberately provoked (by the U.S.) Mexican-American war, the jarring clash of Native-American and Anglo cultures, the life of the great leader of the Navajos, Narbona, and his awful death, the relentless and brutal efforts of the US Army at eradication of the Navajos and other tribespeople, the coming of the Civil War to New Mexico, and the creation of one of America's first pop heros, Kit Carson. Through newspapers and trashy pulp fiction westerns, known at the time as "blood and thunders," a larger than life western Indian killer and superhero was born, which had nothing whatever to do with the real person. But Americans needed such a hero as Kit Carson to entertain them and to make them feel safe in venturing far away to the west. Sides focuses in on Kit Carson's real life as if it were almost representative of an entire era.

The historian Sides is scrupulously even-handed in the telling of this tale and spares us no details, proving that history is often a messy business where sometimes the bad and good intermingle in the same person and event, and one can perhaps never know the whole truth. Nowhere in this work is this more clearly shown than in the person of Christopher Carson, the quiet, unassuming, and illiterate central figure in this drama who had an urge at a young age to take off to parts unknown. He first apprenticed as a trapper and learned from the best of the mountain men, then took the western landscape in as if it were a part of him. He became the most reliable guide and trailblazer known and began to serve the US Army as it sought to tame not only the wild natives but the nation of Mexico as the one-dimensional president, James K. Polk, pursued his obsession of obtaining the West for America. Carson himself, Sides tells us, had a deep abiding respect for the native peoples, married first an Arapaho woman, whom he deeply loved, and, after her sad death, he married a Cheyenne, which quickly proved to be a disaster. On his farmstead in Taos, he coexisted with and accommodated nearby tribes, who knew of and respected him. And he knew and understood the customs of many of the tribes. Yet he also exhibited unbridled violence and murdered countless warriors for what he thought were just causes. Another seeming irony in Carson's life was his being a willing instrument in opening up the West to the rest of the nation, but then sensing, toward the 1850s, that the very settlers he helped were shrinking the once inexhaustible land. They wantonly and stupidly slaughtered the buffalo, were wiping out the silvertip grizzlies, and had brought smallpox and other European diseases to the defenseless tribes, helping to wipe them out as well. Carson, as Sides says, "saw the tendrils of civilization creeping in; the America he had left behind [in the East] was finally catching up with him."

This is an extraordinary book, filled with heros and villains, and richly and expertly written. Although Kit Carson's life figures prominently in this work, many other pivotal figures are brought to life to tell this tale. One can never go out West again and feel quite the same about it after reading this work. I urge you not to miss it.I have to agree with all these comments. This is a fine history book.

I can't even find much to quibble with. Maybe Sides could've provided more of an aftermath rather than ending abruptly after Carson's death. And maybe he could've explored the antipathy toward Indians a bit more.

I don't find it odd that people such as Carson liked some Indians while deeming the race as a whole inferior and unworthy of respect. Isn't that often the attitude of whites toward minorities?

Namely, that we love Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, or Michael Jordan but think those other blacks are lazy, good-for-nothing bums. For Indians, that probably describes our attitudes going back to Sacagawea, Squanto, and Pocahontas. We love the "model" members while disliking or distrusting the group as a whole.

Anyway, Blood and Thunder is well worth reading. Rob's rating: 8.5 of 10.

For more on Kit Carson, see Bosque Redondo = Model for Auschwitz and Kit Carson: Hero or Villain?

Town cancels "Indian attack" race

This week's Internet outrage came courtesy of a race in a Kentucky town:

Enter the James Ray 5K to be chased by Native American reenactors

By Larry VaughtIt’s not hard to find a 5K race in this area. Most weekends, especially at this time of year, there is at least one local road race.

However, it’s not every day you can find a 5K—or any race—where American Indians reenactors will chase you to the finish line. Yet that’s exactly what you’ll get Aug. 15 at the James Ray 5K—Indian Attack in Harrodsburg.

“It’s all part of the Pioneer Days weekend,” said race director Terry Wasson.

Last year the event wanted to come up with something to make its 3.1-mile event unique from other races. That’s how the idea of having American Indians reenactors chase runners near the finish line originated, and Wasson said it went over so well that the same plan is in place for this year’s race.

“We’re getting set up for this again,” she said. “The (American Indians reenactors) will chase runners, and it seemed to be something that everybody really enjoyed last year. It was a big hit and came off as unique as we had hoped it would.”

If that’s not enough, Wasson said there will also be a “fort” at the finish line for runners to go into to help portray what it was like for James Ray.

Internet doesn't approve

Ky. festival scraps “Indian Attack” from 5K

By Chris KenningMounting criticism has led a Harrodsburg, Ky. pioneer-themed festival to scrap plans for a 5K run featuring Native American reenactors who chase runners.

An online registration form for the “James Ray 5K--‘Indian Attack’” race suggests runners come in costume and tells them they “can either run or walk, but don’t be surprised if you encounter some obstacles and come under attack when Indians chase you to the finish!”

The Aug. 15 race is to be part of the annual Mercer County Pioneer Days celebration. Race director Terry Wasson did not respond to requests by the Courier-Journal for an interview, but she told the Advocate Messenger newspaper this week that the idea was “a big hit” last year that organizers decided to do it again this year.

But outrage began building online this week. On Thursday, the Indian Country Today Media Network quoted University of Montana Assistant Professor of Native American Studies Theo Van Alst as saying that “in the end, it’s a celebration of the Indian removal of the area.”Goodbye, Redface Race: 'Indian Attack' Pulled From 5K Run Amid Mounting Pressure

By Simon Moya-SmithSeemingly in response to a tidal wave of opposition, county officials in Kentucky on Thursday pulled a controversial element from its annual 5K race that was widely accosted as racially offensive to Native Americans.

Until Thursday, the “James Ray 5K Indian Attack” race, slated to take place in Harrodsburg, Kentucky, was to include a group of Native American reenactors in redface and dressed in faux Native American garb. The 'Indians' were to chase runners into the safety of an imitation fort at the end of the race, according to reports. The race, which is named for celebrated Indian fighter General James Ray who relocated as a teenager to Kentucky from North Carolina, remains scheduled for August 15.

"All concerns expressed on the James Ray 5K have been heard and the race has been altered accordingly," county officials wrote on its Facebook page. "As stated, we have altered the race to address the concerns brought to our attention. That means there are no Native Americans chasing in the race."

On Thursday, social media was abuzz with responses to the race many considered racist.

Red-face race? “Indian Attack” 5K in Kentucky canceled after Internet clues city in to the sheer awfulness of the idea

Organizers of Harrodsburg's "Pioneer Days" apparently thought this was a good idea, despite it being 2015 and all

Indians on the warpath!

Adrienne Keene explains what's wrong with this event:

James Ray “Indian Attack” 5k: Family fun for everyone!

By Adrienne Keene“General James Ray came to Fort Harrod in Mercer County at age 14 or 15 in 1775 from North Carolina with a party led by Daniel Boone. He served as an Indian spy and hunter for Fort Harrod, served in the campaigns against the American Indians and served several years in the Kentucky Legislature. He also reportedly raced with Blackfish Indian warriors to sound a danger signal to the settlers.”

Question: is this a case of a grammar error or am I correct in reading that James Ray was an Indian hunter? Like, he hunted Indians? Wow. In any case he “served in campaigns against American Indians.” GREAT. LET’S CELEBRATE THAT DUDE.

I just want to break this down for you. A town in Kentucky, which I’m guessing is not a completely Native town, signally how they were physically killed and/or relocated (ie CHASED) out of that land, holds a “pioneer days” festival to “celebrate” that history, complete with a 5k named after a guy who’s job it was to kill Indians…and decided that the best way to “honor” that history was to have white people dress up as the worst Indian stereotypes and chase runners into a fort. And not one single person thought that was a bad idea. In fact, it was so great they did it again!

Speaking of doing it again, here are some choice quotes from the article last year (where the photo at the top comes from):

“Dressed as Native America warriors, Nick Laymon and Kayla Slone giggled as they waited to swoop down with a little extra “fuel” at the James Ray 5K’s finish line. Veins popped out of Laymon’s neck as he and Slone bellowed and shrieked, inspiring more laughter than fear as they chased runners all the way to the finish line.”

Always the “warriors”–what makes them warriors? Like, honestly. Always warriors and princesses. But the “veins popp[ing] out” of his neck? What’s the point of that detail? To make him seem more savage and war-like? Gross.Comment:  To be clear, the town canceled only the "Indian attack" portion of the 5K. The 5K is still on, as far as we know, but without the reenactors in redface.

Judging by the links below, there's a boomlet of white folks dressing up as Indians in historical pageants. Is this really happening?

For more on redface, see Wyoming Pageant Features Whites in Redface and Ontario Camps Feature Mock Ceremonies.

Typical "Wild West" confrontation

Here's a typical 19th-century confrontation in the "Wild West."

1) White settlers move into Native territory and set up permanent residence without permission.

2) Someone, perhaps a young Native warrior, steals a settler's horse.

3) Military commander demands other Natives return the horse. Natives understandably refuse.

4) Commander sends posse of men to arrest Natives for horse theft. Gunfight ensues. Several Natives and one white man are killed.

5) Settlers demand vengeance. Commander sends troops to arrest Natives for the white man's murder.

6) Soldiers massacre 10-20 Native men, women, and children while arresting "killers."

7) Native "killers" are condemned for murder without a trial and hanged.

8) Settlers are finally satisfied that they've received justice for the stolen horse.

Repeat until the Army sends in a massive force to hunt all the Indians in the territory and confine or remove them.

The above scenario comes courtesy of Blood and Thunder, a book I just finished. It offers a revealing look at life on the southern frontier of New Mexico.

P.S. Sometimes just a dispute over a horse race was enough. Unbelievably, a stolen horse was not the worst excuse for a massacre ever.

Sammy Sioux and Sally Squaw

Too much energy wasted on 'Fighting Sioux'

By Jane AhlinBack in the dark ages (1967-68), consciousness-raising was big on the UND campus. The Vietnam War–claiming the lives of young Americans at an alarming rate–had caused even conservative, respectful-of-authority North Dakota kids to doubt the wisdom and trustworthiness of American leaders. A new wave of feminism also took root on the prairie, challenging patriarchal laws and double standards for sexual behavior.

Echoes of the Civil Rights movement could be seen in the civil disobedience of demonstrators, in protests and sit-ins. Along with methods of protesting, students had learned to say “black” instead of “Negro” and the “N” word was a no-no. There were rumblings that Native Americans in our state suffered discrimination not unlike that of blacks in the South, but the war and the women’s movement kept that concern from coming to the fore. At the time, the UND newspaper, The Dakota Student, dissed the war, identified with draft resistance, and angered alums, but the moniker was not questioned.

Looking back, the limitations of student understanding for racism–especially concerning Indians–are painfully obvious. Among 1968 yearbook pictures of UND’s 1967 Homecoming is a picture of “Sammy Sioux”–a white kid in a fringed outfit and headdress wearing cool sunglasses. He is standing next to a few participants in the “Sally Squaw” contest. The contestants were fraternity guys in long wigs, headbands with feathers, and “squaw” outfits. Offensive? Yes, but it didn’t stem from intentional spite toward Indians; it was cultural ignorance.

Ignorance, however, could not explain 1972. As part of “King Kold Karnival” (a UND winter festival built around hockey the way homecoming is built around football), an ice sculpture put up by a fraternity was of a topless Native American woman with a sign pointing to her breasts saying, “Lick em Sioux.” A Native American student took after the ice figure with an ax, and there was quite a dust-up.

That’s when the moniker could have and should have been changed. No question it awakened the administration to a festering problem. However, the actual decision made was to end the festival and keep the moniker.Comment:  This is an excellent example of how Indian mascots = racist and stereotypical thinking. However people position their mascots today, these mascots were originally buffoonish caricatures meant to be laughed at. They were three-dimensional jokes--living cartoon characters akin to Wile E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, or Betty Boop.

Anything since this age of buffoonery is stupid spin. It's a feeble attempt to save the racist caricatures from the dustbin of history. It's much like the Confederate flag, which was an explicit symbol of white supremacy but now supposedly stands for Southern pride. Indian mascots used to stand for white supremacy too, and schools should abandon them for that reason alone.

Below:  Sammy Sioux.

Native artifacts aren't antiquities?

Rep. Ron Bishop and The Real 'Bull Crap'

By Dina Gilio-WhitakerOne of the opponents of the Basin and Range proclamation was Representative Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, who blatantly referred to it as “bull crap.” Specifically, when asked about the antiquity of the Native artifacts there such as the cave paintings, he said “Ah bull crap. That’s not antiquity.”

If a historical site with artifacts that date back at least 13,000 years can’t be considered “antiquity,” what can?

The statement was so asinine that even Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Az.), bless his heart, wrote a commentary in ICTMN to express his concern about congress’ growing hostility toward Indian country in general, reflected in part by Bishop’s absurd claim.

Rep. Grijalva wrote that congress doesn’t take tribal sovereignty seriously, and that it “is based not on legitimate political differences but on a prevailing attitude that Native American history is important only when it is convenient, Native American economic interests are secondary and Native American land is held by tribes only through the grace and favor of the federal government.”

True enough. If we break it down even more, the workings of the U.S. as a settler society is revealed. Since the goal of the settler society is the elimination of Native populations in order to gain access to Native lands, there is no reason to recognize indigenous sovereignty as a legitimate form of sovereignty, equal to that of state sovereignty. It does, however, pay lip service to Native sovereignty in order to uphold the charade of democracy and implicitly or explicitly deny the genocidal impulse of the state.

Let’s be real. However magnanimous the creation of a national monument at Basin and Range appears to be (in the interest, at least partly in this case, of preserving an ancient Native site), the land is not in Native hands. It is held by the state. By publicly owning a Native site, the state possesses Native history as its own. It says “this is OUR history, OUR heritage.” In this way the settler state erases the Native and stakes its own claim to indigeneity. But I digress.Comment:  Given his ignorance of the English language, poor Bishop must be a Republican. Let's help him out:antiquity
[an-tik-wi-tee]

noun, plural antiquities.

5. Usually, antiquities. something belonging to or remaining from ancient times, as monuments, relics, or customs.Bishop gets a Stereotype of the Month nomination for treating Indians as a vanished or never-present people. In reality, their artifacts are about the only antiquities native to the Americas.

Storefront window shows bound Mi'kmaq women

"We didn't think at the time the images would be painful and upsetting."

Images of bound and gagged Indigenous women make up part of Bathurst, New Brunswick, festival

By Miles Howe[I]t was with some consternation that two paintings, both centrally situated in town and both prepared by local artists working with the Bathurst Art Society for the Hospitality Days festival, depicted Indigenous peoples in a manner that many folks have since taken offence to.

The first image depicts two Indigenous women in full length buckskin dresses, with their hands bound behind their backs and their ankles tied. It seems as though they are captives on a boat. Their mouths are gagged with something resembling duct tape. They facial expressions appear to be resigned to whatever fate awaits them. One has simply closed her eyes.

The second image shows a priestly-looking individual standing in front of three Indigenous people. In front of the crowd are two treasure chests filled with nondescript items. To the casual observer, it might pass for a sermonizing scene, for all intents and purposes rather paternalistic to boot.

No explanation–rational or otherwise–accompanied the two images in the storefront window in which they appeared.

For the duration of the festival, the images appeared in the Main street-facing window of the former Sportsmen Pub building, which, perhaps to make matters worse, is the site of the unsolved murders of Diane Aubie and Gary DeGrace.The explanation:Initially, the 'Heritage Days' committee's response to the mounting criticism over the depictions in the paintings was to publicly provide a link to the legend of the 'Phantom Ship'. The legend outlines the story of how “sea marauders” would commonly pillage Indigenous villages on the New Brunswick coastline, ransacking them, stealing furs as well as kidnapping women to later “have their way” with them. The two bound and gagged Indigenous women in the painting, apparently, were two such victims, expecting to be raped and murdered–except that in the case of the 'Phantom Ship' they met up with a crew member of conscience who demanded that they be set free.And the "apology":“We got together and we decided to do the story of the Phantom Ship. On Friday, we learned that our paintings did offend some people, so we did revise it,” says Gates. “We took the two Native people out. And we're really sorry that there was any offence taken...It wasn't our intention to create a misunderstanding or even to negate the Indigenous people. We just didn't think at the time that the images would be painful and upsetting and of course we do respect their culture and stories very much.”A few comments from Facebook:This is terrible. Really, terrible. I can't even comprehend what they were thinking. I just, I can't.

We are not animals.

Even the "apology" has my head spinning. How could someone put these images in a very public place and not expect harm? Not expect rage? Effing incredible."We just didn't think" pretty much sums it up. No need for anything more.

Rod Stewart's daughter in a headdress

Another white girl, Kimberly Stewart, stigmatizes the Native American people and their traditions

By Dr. Lorena BrownleeKimberly Stewart, the daughter of Rod and Alana Stewart, after leaving the public limelight for four years to have and raise Benicio del Toro’s baby, comes shamefully back into the spotlight wearing nothing but a Native American headdress riding a rickety old rocking horse.

While her fans may be eager for her comeback, her behavior is nothing short of deplorable and exudes her inability to read and learn from those who have made this same culturally disparaging statement in the past.

A headdress is reserved for revered elders who have through their actions earned the right to wear one. The headdress is not merely a cultural piece but also a spiritual one. Feathers and even face paint carry a high spiritual significance in Native American societies bringing honor to both tribes and nations. These practices are earned through selfless and unwavering leadership. This reprehensible act could only be compared to a person stealing the medals of a war hero and publicly wearing them.

Under United States federal law it is a federal misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any US military decoration or medal. If convicted, defendants might have been imprisoned for up to six months. Wearing an unearned Native American headdress is no different to stealing a US military medal.

Is Captain Kirk a conservative?

Some comments on the following subject:

Ted Cruz: ‘Star Trek’s Captain Kirk was probably a Republican

Kirk is militaristic, makes up his own reality, and thinks of women in sexual terms. I wouldn't rule out his being a moderate 1960s-style Republican.

William Shatner shoots down Ted Cruz: Captain Kirk is no Republican

Shatner says Kirk is apolitical? Okay. I could see Kirk as a "rely on yourself" libertarian-leaning type. I.e., don't trust government or anyone giving orders or computers. He might not vote--but if he did vote, he might prefer a moderate Republican.

Spock, McCoy, Sulu, and Uhura would be Democrats, of course. Scotty and Chekov might lean to the conservative side just like Kirk.

Federation politics

It's funny that Star Trek is overtly apolitical--never discussing politics except on alien worlds. Yet the Federation is a utopian ideal and we know it has a president, at least. So it should be championing democracy and elections, not ignoring them.

I presume it's a democracy and people vote, although I suppose a Federation computer could pick officials using its awesome AI. Yet the characters literally never discuss this among themselves. No off-hour chats between Sulu and Chekov or O'Brien and Bashir about whom they're supporting in the next election.

You remember the TNG episode about the game that hypnotized the whole crew? The creators could've made it a political video instead of a game. Candidate X using subliminal messages to win an election and take control of Starfleet. That would've been a bold commentary on our society.Kirk has disobeyed Starfleet more times than MacArthur disobeyed Truman, but with better results. I guess that's not really political, but for some reason seemed an appropriate analogy.Old Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon could go to China." Kirk is Nixon.

Of course, Kirk would never take Cruz's side in anything. He'd scorn a blowhard like Cruz. He'd treat him like Harry Mudd or Cyrano Jones...as a big fat joke.

Same with Cruz's other hero, Spider-Man. Except the comparison there would be to an egotistical egghead like Dr. Octopus.

For more on the subject, see The Native Spock and The Political Spock.

Native woman has white privilege

A light-skinned Native woman talks about whether she has white privilege:

I Am a Native American Woman With White Privilege

By Misty Shipman EllingburgI’ve thought about this more and more in passing weeks. The shooting in Charleston, the death of Sandra Bland, the deaths of many, many more–all of these things have affected me on a deep level. When Mike Brown was murdered, I was so outraged that I immediately became that awkward person, jutting into a conversation not my own, all well-meaning, bumbling passion that needed to learn its place. My place, I now know, during this epidemic of police brutality, violence, and death, is as an ally. I can listen to what my Black friends share and say is their experience. I can believe them because they tell me it’s true. And I can choose to stand with them, encourage them, lift up and amplify their voices by listening, learning, and sharing what they tell me.

And part of what they’re telling me is that there are things I take for granted that I receive as a direct result of my skin color. Because I am Indigenous and I do face a great deal of challenges specific to my nationality, I have often wrongly believed that I don’t have white privilege. That isn’t true, because the larger world views me as a white woman. When I’m out and about in the rural area I live in, white people assume I am their natural ethnic ally. Police officers don’t stop me on erroneous, trumped up charges. In fact, I could, hypothetically, see a police officer, and feel either more safe, or neutral. I can look at a TV and see people who look like me. In magazines, movies, and casting calls, white is considered normal or standard. Avatar actress Zoe Saldana once said that she was turned down for a role because her skin was “too dark.” Said Zoe, “It’s only dark if you’re comparing it to something.”Comment:  Answer: Yes, she does. Because white privilege is mainly a function of skin color. The whiter you are, the more you benefit from it.

For more on white privilege, see Even Children Enjoy White Privilege and White Men = Winning Tribe.

Native ghosts in comic books

A teacher e-mailed me to say she was interested in Native ghosts. For a section of her literature class, she wanted to know about Native ghosts in comic books. I sent her this response:

Native ghosts in comic books...interesting question.

There are a ton of stories in every genre--comics, movies, TV shows, novels, etc.--that feature Indian ghosts, spirits, or demons. Often they arise from an Indian burial ground that's been cursed somehow.

But these are usually throwaway stories. They're not central to the comic book, movie, or whatever in question. So it's difficult to produce a list of such stories. You'd have to search for "Indian burial ground," "Indian ghost," "Indian spirit," and so forth and weed through the false hits.

There are all sorts of variations, of course. I remember an old Tomahawk story where some Brits pretended to be ghosts to scare the Indians. Lots of wacky things like that.

As one approach, I'd suggest perusing my blog on two topics:

Burial grounds
Supernatural

Most of the postings are about movies or TV shows, not comics. But they may spark your interest anyway.

As for particular comics, characters such as Alpha Flight's Shaman, the New Mutants' Dani Moonstar, the Justice League of America's Manitou Raven, and DC's Arak sometimes enter the spirit world or the dream world. That's kind of like being a ghost. You could search those series for individual issues about ghosts. For instance, try "Alpha Flight Shaman ghost." See what it pulls up.

Beyond that, I can think of a few possibilities. Most of them don't involve ghosts in the classic European sense, but they may be close to what you want:

Desperadoes: Buffalo Dreams. I don't remember this mini-series well, but it may involve actual ghosts.

Ghostdancing. Dancing through different realms or dimensions--kind of like being a ghost.

Muktuk Wolfsbreath. Entering the dream world--again kind of like being a ghost.

I Am Coyote (Epic). Coyote shifts into a phantom state, which is kind of like being a ghost.

Timespirits. I don't remember this series well, but the characters go traveling through time and space. I wouldn't be surprised if they entered a ghostly state too.

New Mutants: The Demon Bear Saga. Dani Moonstar faces a spectral demon, which is kind of like a ghost.

As you can see, there are many suggestions about characters like a ghost. I don't know if that helps, but it's about all I can think of.

As for buying them, I sell just my own comics and a few others. I'd try Mile High Comics at http://www.milehighcomics.com. They have a huge inventory--possibly the biggest online.

From what I've seen, it's about 50-50 whether they have Native-themed comics such as the ones I've mentioned. But the prices for lower-quality items are reasonable.

I trust that helps!

Rob



P.S. In a follow-up message, the teacher said she was also interested in Native spirits, demons, and related supernatural beings. That would increase the number of relevant comic books immensely.

Review of Allen's Pocahontas

Pocahontas: Medicine Woman, Spy, Entrepreneur, DiplomatIn striking counterpoint to the conventional account, Pocahontas is a bold biography that tells the extraordinary story of the beloved Indian maiden from a Native American perspective. Dr. Paula Gunn Allen, the acknowledged founder of Native American literary studies, draws on sources often overlooked by Western historians and offers remarkable new insights into the adventurous life and sacred role of this foremost American heroine. Gunn Allen reveals why so many have revered Pocahontas as the female counterpart to the father of our nation, George Washington.

From Publishers Weekly

In what is presented as the first study of its kind by an American Indian scholar, Allen (The Sacred Hoop) offers a corrective to the romantic story of Pocahontas told initially by Capt. John Smith of the Virginia Company and most recently by Disney Studios. Euro-American historical accounts of Pocahontas's brief life, asserts Allen, typically depict her as a lovelorn and tragic character (she died in 1617 in the aptly named river port of Gravesend, England, at the age of 20 or 21). Allen's Pocahontas, by contrast, is a real visionary, a prodigiously gifted young woman fervently devoted to the spiritual traditions of her people: a loose-knit group of Algonquin tribes known as the Powhatan Alliance, or Tsenacommacah. When the English colonists who began establishing Jamestown in 1607 invaded the Tsenacommacah, Pocahontas immediately identified it as the fulfillment of a prophecy that foretold the end of their world and the beginning of a new one, argues Allen. It was "world change time," she writes, and Pocahontas (also called Matoaka, Amonute and finally Lady Rebecca Rolfe) was nothing if not mutable--as implied by the book's subtitle. Still, notwithstanding Pocahontas's significant role in American history, Allen's claims that Pocahontas "set in motion a chain of events that would," among other things, "liberate the starving and miserable peoples of Europe and beyond" can seem overstated. More persuasive are Allen's comments about the cultural similarities between the English and Algonquin and the idea that each group changed the other. When casting Pocahontas as "the embodiment of this dual cultural transformation," her role, and the book, are at their clearest, and are made manifest by Allen's often lyrical and powerful writing.Allen's take on Pocahontas

Some statements from Paula Gunn Allen's "Sendings" from Pocahontas: Engaging with an Unusual Reality show how Allen reinterpreted Pocahontas's life:Before Pocahontas is born, the elders receive a vision from the Manito. The Manito reveal that an influential child "possessed of a high-order of spiritual identity" will be born into the Powhatan peoples (235). That child is Pocahontas.

Pocahontas is an "adept"—one who is highly educated in Dream-Vision disciplines (21). She was granted this skill before birth by the Manito, so she could communicate more proficiently with supernaturals throughout her life.

Because of Pocahontas's Dream Vision, wherein she saw Smith's façade float to shore, Smith will be initiated into the Powhatan Alliance to be an ambassador between the English and the Powhatans; to maintain a peace; and aid the Powhatan peoples in the time of transformation.

Allen declares that Pocahontas boarded ship with Argall because "it was the occasion she was waiting for," it was "a continuance of her duties as spy and perhaps as emissary ... and the council needed eyes and ears within the [English] enclave" (131).

Pocahontas married John Rolfe, not because of "romantic impulses" (90), but because marrying him would insure the "spirit of tobacco would find a home in the new world" (235).

Pocahontas's intentions in going to England were quite different from Rolfe's. Her Manito-directed mission was to exchange "arcane knowledge" with the English occult and to deliver this knowledge back to the Native Elders (284).

Pocahontas ... successfully built a bridge between "Manito and Faerie," she introduced the shamanistic herb tobacco to the world, and "she was the mother of a new race"—there are three million mixed-blood descendants of English and Powhatan stock (305).More reviews

Some reviews from Goodreads:Meg rated it 3 of 5 stars

This book was intriguing at times, maddening at other times. I really liked the way the author just laid it out there at the beginning that she was going to mix up traditional Western linear biography narrative with a cyclical-time-based spiritual understanding of history. Her opening chapter describing this is really brilliant. While reading the rest of the book, I felt that (on the one hand) she had some super insightful ways of envisioning Pocahontas' history. It never would have occurred to me that Pocahontas was a spy but it makes total sense when put in this perspective. On the other hand, I wanted to be more clear about when she was giving known historical (Western linear etc etc) fact, when she was looking from a more cyclical-time lens, and when she was speculating. And sometimes she got really too into the whole trip of Native Americans having a unitary philosophy/way of seeing things. As a side note, I loved how she made parallels between Native American spiritual worlds and the pagan English alternative spiritual world (alchemy, ceremonial magic, fairies, etc). That was fun and unusual.

Emily rated it 3 of 5 stars

Although this book is supposed to be a biography of Pocahontas, it is unlike any biography I have read before. Rather than recount what few facts we know about her life, (and, as Allen points out, most of those facts are filtered--several times--through a foreign lens), Allen seeks to provide a context for Pocahontas, to flesh out the world she came from, so that we can reinterpret who she was and what her life meant. And as far as that goes, I though Allen did a fantastic job. In fact, the context of Pocahontas' world turned out to be far more interesting to me than the woman herself, at least as described by Allen. Sometimes the book becomes quite repetitive (Allen says she does it on purpose, as repetition in the oral tradition is meant to emphasize important points), and sometimes she makes what seem to me to be long leaps of logic (though she says she is writing from a perspective outside of the world of rationality). Nonetheless, this book is well worth the read if you're interested in learning more about what a Native American worldview might have been like during a time when tribal cultures were still strong and intact throughout the continentComment:  These postings give you an idea of what the book is like, but it's hard to pin down.

I'd say Allen's claims are provocative and compel you to see Pocahontas in a new light. But they're speculative more than persuasive. You may end up thinking none of them are true.

Allen's Pocahontas may be a must-read for Pocahontas aficionados. But I'm not sure anyone else will enjoy it. Especially if they're not interested in Native subjects in general. Rob's rating: 7.0 of 10.

For more on Pocahontas, see Fever Sexualizes Pocahontas and "In Defense of Pocahontas."

America the biggest loser

“The U.S. often goes to war very overconfident about how the war will turn out”

We've lost four of our last five wars, despite being the superpower. Dominic Tierney explains why this happens

By Michael SchulsonSince the end of World War II, the United States has fought five major ground wars—one in Korea, one in Vietnam, two in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan. By many measures, we’ve lost four of them (the first Gulf War is the one clear exception). The U.S. may be the world’s dominant military power, but we seem to have lost the ability to win.

Dominic Tierney’s new book, “The Right Way to Lose a War,” begins with a depressing premise: the United States will probably lose again. “We live in an age of unwinnable wars, where decisive triumph has proved to be a pipe dream,” he writes. For Tierney, a professor at Swarthmore College and a contributing editor at The Atlantic, the solution is not just to prepare to win wars. It’s to develop clearer plans for how to cut our losses and run when the situation demands it, instead of becoming bogged down in a protracted, fruitless conflict.

In our era of ambiguous, stateless wars, Tierney argues, “losing the right way is a victory.” He argues that the military needs to be ready to surge (adding more troops, briefly), talk (spin the narrative) and then leave (before it’s too late). The strategy, Tierney suggests, is less about pride, and more about pragmatism—and saving lives.

Over the phone, Tierney spoke with Salon about ISIS, nation-building and why the military destroyed all its counterinsurgency notes after the Vietnam War.

You’re talking about losing wars. I’m an American. Why does this make me feel so uncomfortable?

American culture is very much a victory culture, a culture of competition and winning. The notion of cutting losses or dealing with an unwinnable situation might seem vaguely unsettling and un-American. But the reality is that four out of five wars that the U.S. has fought in recent decades have become unwinnable. Although it might make us uncomfortable, I think it’s necessary for us to think seriously about the question.Comment:  I've talked about this subject often--especially after 9/11. The whole premise of invading Afghanistan and Iraq was to get even for the terrorist attack. Bush didn't consider any alternatives and didn't have any fallback plan. It was all schoolyard machismo: Muslims hit us hard so we'll hit them harder.

For more on the subject, see America's Cultural Mindset.

Adam Sandler defends Ridiculous 6

Adam Sandler: ‘Ridiculous Six’ Racism Controversy Was ‘Just a Misunderstanding’

By Alex StedmanAdam Sandler is finally addressing the controversy that surrounded his Netflix project “The Ridiculous Six” after about a dozen Native Americans walked off the set of the movie in April.

The actors complained of racist jokes against Native Americans, but, finally speaking on the issue at the premiere of his upcoming movie “Pixels,” Sandler said he wasn’t trying to offend anyone.

“It was just a misunderstanding and once the movie is out will be cleared up,” Sandler told the Associated Press.

The comedian also called “Ridiculous Six” a “pro-Indian” movie.

“I talked to some of the actors on the set who were there and let them know that the intention of the movie is 100% to just make a funny movie,” he told ScreenCrush. “It’s really about American Indians being good to my character and about their family and just being good people. There’s no mocking of American Indians at all in the movie. It’s a pro-Indian movie. So hopefully when people see it—whoever was offended on set and walked out, I hope they realize that, and that’s it. It was kinda taken out of context.”A partial rebuttal of Sandler's claims:

Adam Sandler’s insulting “Ridiculous 6″ defense: Being “pro-Indian” looks nothing like this

"It's really about American Indians being good to my character" doesn't exactly redeem this ill-advised project

By Paula Young LeeCould Sandler’s P.R. problem get any worse? Of course it could. Yesterday, Sandler dug himself into a hole by affirming that “The Ridiculous 6” was a “pro-Indian” film. He explained: “It’s really about American Indians being good to my character and about their family and just being good people.”

Alas, poor unhappy Gilmore, we hardly knew ye understood so little about the medium that made you so very rich. To explain, let me begin by making three observations. First, “Me smoke peace pipe, Kemosabe”-style jokes don’t only reduce First Peoples to stereotypes, they also mindlessly reinforce every negative stereotype Hollywood has manufactured about them.

Second, the “White Savior” trope goes like this: Clueless white person stomps all over Noble Savages who fight against Regular Savages, and then receives Enlightenment for which he is eternally grateful (but will never share credits, profits or royalties), for he has already rewarded the Noble Savages with the greatest of all gifts: the opportunity to help him.

Third, when the White Savior film is “historical,” it can even be sanctified with an Oscar nomination for best picture—an Oscar that “Dances With Wolves,” 1990, actually won.My thoughts

There's no mocking, says Sandler...in the unlikely event he removed every joke reported in the press. I wouldn't bet a dime on that.

The Indians raise Sandler's character...which proves they're good? Not if the jokes mocking them are still in the movie. All sorts of characters can be good and kind yet still treated as idiots and savages. In fact, the idea of Indians as big-hearted but comical buffoons is an old tradition in movies.

Repeating jokes that might've appeared in old comedies isn't mocking them. You mock movie conventions by having Indians laugh at other people, not by having other people laughing at them.

I bet the debate will come down to this:"Adam Sandler feels that when audiences finally see his upcoming Netflix comedy, 'The Ridiculous Six,' they will realize he wasn't trying to offend anyone."No, you stupid ass. The issue isn't whether you were trying to offend someone. It's whether you did offend someone despite your ignorant and ill-considered intent.

Only a few movies in Hollywood history were trying to offend Indians. But the fact is that several thousand of them did offend Indians with their racist and stereotypical depictions. How do you not understand this distinction, Sandler?

More trashing of Sandler:

Why Adam Sandler should retire immediately

Why No One Likes Adam Sandler Anymore

For more on Adam Sandler, see Adam Sandler's History of Racism and Sandler's Racist Ridiculous 6 "Jokes."

"Restoring America's greatness" = Disneyesque dream

Those Who Advocate "Restoring America's Greatness" Are Living in a Mythology

By Mark KarlinThe United States has been, for years, on the cusp of either returning to the fantasy of a privileged elite or moving forward to achieve the creative possibilities of an actualized democracy.

Those politicians and individuals who advocate "restoring America to its greatness" are living in a Disneyesque dream, guided by the image of a Norman Rockwell portrait of a white-ruled United States that is the "greatest nation in the world." The underlying message here--which helps explain Donald Trump's appeal to an overtly racist sector of the population--is that only the continuation of white dominance in the electoral process can "save" the country. It is a vision of the United States that looks backward through a fractured, distorted lens.

The late Eduardo Galeano wrote about the European-descended ruling class at the end of the last century. He focused on South and Central America, but what he wrote in his brilliant book Open Veins of Latin America equally applies to the US:Veneration for the past has always seemed to me reactionary. The right chooses to talk about the past because it prefers dead people.... The powerful who legitimatize their privileges by heredity cultivate nostalgia. History is studied as if we were visiting a museum, but this collection of mummies is a swindle. They lie to us about the past: they mask the face of reality. They force the oppressed victims to absorb an alien, desiccated, sterile memory fabricated by the oppressor, so that they will resign themselves to a life that isn't theirs as if it were the only one possible.Comment:  For more on the subject, see The Confederate Flag Must Go and Rubio Ignorant of US History.

Wyoming pageant features whites in redface

Wearing ‘red face’: A changed perspective

By Caitlin TanUnfortunately, there is one other event that makes the entire Green River Rendezvous Days controversial. The last day a play is put on called the “Pageant.” Basically it reenacts the meeting and trading of the mountain men and Native Americans.

The controversial part is the cast is made up almost entirely of white Pinedalians. The mountain men simply dress-up in buckskin hide outfits and fur hats; however, the Native American actors not only wear buckskin outfits, but their faces are painted a deep brown, almost red color, and they either wear black wigs or dye their hair crispy black.

I regret to say I have worn the latter costume in past years.

My only defense is I grew up in the town, submersed in the culture and simply did not know better. The entire town participates and people see the event as a fun, innocent celebration, and in some ways it is, but the ‘red face’ is simply taking it a step too far.

Even worse, Rendezvous involves excessive drinking; thus, many people painted-up in ‘red face’ are running around drunk, “playing” the roles of Native Americans.

Again, I painfully have to admit I used to do this.Her conclusion:Therefore, white people dressing-up like Natives–painting their skin dark and attempting to reenact the culture–is simply a sad disgrace.

Changing my standards on this issue was incredibly difficult–I feel like I am saying goodbye to a part of myself forever; however, it is liberating to now stand for something that is morally correct and sensitive to another culture.Comment:  Good for her!

For more on redface, see Ontario Camps Feature Mock Ceremonies and Sandler Crew "Bronzed" Native Actress.