Dreamcatcher in New Moon

Catching Up: ‘Twilight’ gave Pamela Whitehorse's business a big boost

By Gena KittnerFirst Pamela Whitehorse had her dream catcher featured on the silver screen. This spring, a larger version will grace a wall in the new Dejope Residence Hall on the UW-Madison campus.

“I think that one will be the biggest dream catcher I’ve made,” said Whitehorse, who lives in Stoughton. “I’m really excited about that.”

Whitehorse’s dream catchers became popular when a small one was featured in the worldwide blockbuster “New Moon” in 2009 as part of the wildly successful “Twilight” saga of novels by Stephenie Meyer.

In the movie, Jacob (the American Indian werewolf) gives Bella (a human who loves the vampire Edward) a dream catcher to thwart her recurring nightmares caused by heartbreak over losing Edward. The gift—not part of the book—appears in a few scenes throughout the movie.Comment:  This is a small but telling example of how badly movies portray Indians. Dreamcatchers originated with the Ojibwe in the Great Lakes region. They have nothing to do with the Quileute tribe of Washington.

The only reason they're identified with Indians in general is because they've become commercialized trinkets for tourists and New Agers. A Quileute Indian might have one in his house, but only because it made a nice decoration. It wouldn't be part of his cultural tradition; he wouldn't assume it had magic powers or use it to catch nightmares.

In other words, the whole thing is phony baloney. It's the "mystical" equivalent of assuming every Indian has a drum, flute, peace pipe, bow and arrow, tomahawk, etc. It would be like assuming every white person has a rabbit's foot with the power to bring the owner good luck.

We don't assume that most white men have magical talismans around their necks or in their pockets. But we do assume that of most Indians. Both assumptions are ridiculous, but Hollywood treats the latter as if it's real, not a bedtime story.

For more on dreamcatchers, see Indians in Bailey at the Museum and Paul Frank's Racist "Powwow."

Native Threads at Walmart

Native Threads: Coming to a Wal-Mart Near You

By Jacelle Ramon-SauberanOne of Indian Country’s only Native-owned and operated clothing companies has partnered with Wal-Mart to sell its Native-themed clothing line.

Native Threads merchandise can now be purchased at nearly 130 Wal-Mart locations.

“I’ll be honest it is still very surreal,” said Chris Rubio, Wholesale manager for Native Threads. “Every time I see our stuff in Wal-Mart I get that good feeling inside and can’t believe it's really happened.”And:“We started off with 96 Wal-Mart locations that sold our merchandise and we recently added about 30 more stores,” Bardwell said. “In total we have about 125 stores that now sell Native Threads merchandise.”

Many of the additional stores are located in the Northwest, but Oklahoma has the most stores of any state.

Rubio said Wal-Mart has expressed interest in selling Native Threads merchandise on Walmart.com and Walmart.ca (Wal-Mart's Canadian online store). Native Threads is also designing a spring line for Walmart.Comment:  For some t-shirts not made by Native Threads, see Gap Removes "Manifest Destiny" T-Shirt and Ecko's "Weekend Warrior" Line.

Skyhawk named cultural ambassador

U.S. State Department Asks Sonny Skyhawk to Be Cultural AmbassadorSonny Skyhawk, Rosebud Sioux, an accomplished actor and activist, has been asked by the U.S. State Department to serve as a Cultural Ambassador representing Indian country around the world. His first visits will likely be to South America, the Caribbean, Canada, and Mexico.

As a Cultural Ambassador, Skyhawk will be for the most part an educator, sharing all aspects of Native American culture with people in other nations upon request. Talks could be geared toward, for example, indigenous peoples or the business communities of the countries he visits. He also aims to promote tourism and economic development by inviting people to come to visit reservations and traditional Indian lands within the borders of the United States.

Skyhawk is the founder of American Indians in Film and Television, and has spent his career trying to improve the depiction of American Indians in media as well as the treatment of Native actors in Hollywood.

"It is an honor to serve and represent my people, and I am humbled by the privilege," Skyhawk said. "It is my hope to continue fostering lasting bonds of understanding amongst all indigenous cultures in the Americas, and to nurture our ancient Lakota belief, which is 'mitakuya oyasin'--'we are all related.'"Comment:  I've known Skyhawk for many years. He reads Newspaper Rock occasionally. I recently interviewed him for an article on his Hollywood advocacy.

For more on Sonny Skyhawk, see Native Diversity Meeting at NBC Universal and NIGA 2012 (Day 2).

Redskins "respond" to NMAI symposium

If you're wondering how the Washington Redskins might respond to the NMAI's symposium on racist mascots, wonder no longer. Here's what passes for their response:

'We Are Very Proud To Be Called Redskins'"We are very proud of our athletic teams and very proud to be called Redskins!"

These are the words of Coshocton High School athletic director George Hemming, who serves as the athletic director for just one of the 70 different High Schools in 25 states are known as the Redskins.

Redskins.com found that there are almost as many schools using the name Redskins as Cowboys, as only 75 schools use the name Cowboys, and interestingly just 19 use the name Giants.

Coshocton High School is located in east central Ohio which has a rich Native American history. Hemming said "the name represents to us competition and pride."The posting goes on in that vein for a while. It makes only one reference to the pro football team:These schools' athletes have a deep connection, just as the Washington Redskins alumni, and many high school student-athletes have pride in calling themselves Redskins.Yeah, and the South had a deep connection to slavery. So the hell what?

Reactions to the reaction

Along with everyone else, you're probably wondering "Is that it?" Some reactions to this posting:

Washington Redskins “Proudly” Defend Their Name In The Dumbest Way Possible

By Drew MagaryPrincipal Steve Cowser said... the name shows their "pride for the Native Americans and how they lived."

It will shock you to learn that neither Cowser nor Hemming are of Native American descent. You'll notice that both men use the word "pride" as an empty platitude when attempting to spin the unspinnable. "We're really proud of these people we know nothing about!" NFL commissioner Roger Goodell also barfed up a similar talking point when publicly defending the name, using his patented lifeless delivery:

"I think Dan Snyder and the organization have made it very clear that they are proud of that name and that heritage, and I think the fans are, too."

In this case, pride means virtually nothing. A team could be nicknamed the Buttchuggers and people associated with it would still be "proud" of them, whatever the hell that means. The Eagles are a proud franchise. The Giants are a proud franchise. Pride is the single most abundant commodity in the sporting universe. It has about as much value as a Canadian penny. Furthermore, you can clumsily justify virtually any long-standing practice just by saying the words "pride" and "heritage," as if the history of having a remarkably offensive team name somehow renders it inoffensive, which is logic for stupid people.

Of course, none of this really has anything to do with pride. The reason Dan Snyder and Roger Goodell are both loath to change the name "Redskins" is because the Washington Redskins brand is worth over a billion dollars, and changing the team name would have a (likely temporary) negative impact on the franchise's brand equity.Redskins' Defensive Tales of High School 'Pride' Fail to ConvinceThe article does not explain how the opinions of non-Native high school coaches and principals, however proud they may be, makes the term any less hurtful to the people it describes.

Further, the implication that such opinions can inform the judgment of an NFL franchise may strike some readers as a topsy-turvy, highly selective argument. If the Redskins are truly soliciting opinions on the value of their Native American name and logo, there are plenty already out there--from the Native American community itself. An NFL team seeking and publishing commentary from a non-Native high school coach in Ohio while ignoring the voluminous criticism from such groups as the National Congress of American Indians could rightly bee seen as, well, offensive.Natives deny the "honor"

Some of those Native opinions:

Native Americans speak on sports imagery

By Paul LukasOne of the day's recurring themes was a strong rejection of the notion that American Indian mascots and team names somehow "honor" Native Americans. Here's a sampling of thoughts that were offered on that idea:

• From E. Newton Jackson, professor of sports management at the University of North Florida and a member of Cherokee Tribes of South Carolina: "How does one person tell another that they honor them best? How do we do that when I'm telling you that what you're saying and doing does not honor me?"

• From Lois Risling, land specialist for the Hoopa Valley Tribes, who attended Stanford University in the early 1970s, when the school's teams were known as the Indians and were cheered on to "scalp the [Cal] bear": "We were told it was an honor to have an Indian mascot chosen as the symbol as a great university. When 55 of us presented a petition to have the name and symbol changed, we were told we were all taking it too personal and should just get over it. When we said Prince Lightfoot [the school's live mascot at the time] was wearing clothing that was wrong, and that his dance was wrong, we were told, 'Stanford Indians dress like this, and anyone who goes to Stanford is a Stanford Indian, so that makes it OK.'"

• From John Orendorff, a U.S. Army colonel and Native American: "I often feel that the underlying point of these 'honors' is that my Indian heritage is owned by others. The message I'm constantly getting is, 'We own you. We will define how we honor you. Don't tell us whether you like it or not, because we own you. When we hunt down Osama Bin Laden, we can refer to him as Geronimo--which happens to be my son's name--because we own you. You don't control how you're perceived. We control that. Because we own you.'"Comment:  It's pathetic how weak the pro-Redskins arguments are. Indians say the name is offensive; non-Indians say it isn't. And...that's it. White people get to tell Indians how to think and feel--and get to contradict the dictionary--because they're white. Once again, it's white privilege in action.

Orendorff's comments are especially good. I've said similar things before. Being an Indian mascot is like being a trophy on a wall or a display in a museum. It lets non-Indians feel good about the Indians their ancestors conquered and killed. It lets them dismiss thoughts about the ongoing injustices toward Indians--for instance, the failure to pass the Violence Against Women Act.

For more on the Washington Redskins, see Rob Quoted on Washington Redskins, Indians Are "Whiners," Not Warriors? and "Redskins" Approaching a Tipping Point?

Below:  "A graphic showing the helmet design of the McLoud Redskins, a high school foorball team in Oklahoma." I.e., Indians as savage spearchuckers.

Radmilla Cody at the Grammys

Navajo Singer Radmilla Cody: Grammys-Bound and GratefulNavajo recording artist Radmilla Cody, a former Miss Navajo Nation, is nominated for a Grammy Award in the Regional Roots Album category for Shi Kéyah—Songs For The People, a disc she made with her uncle Herman Cody and released on Canyon Records. Radmilla is the first Native American artist to be recognized in the catch-all rubric that was created two years ago when the Recording Academy decided to discontinue the Native American Album category. (The Regional Roots Album category has not been totally free of indigenous sounds, as Hawaiian music albums received nominations in both years.)

For Cody, the chance to win a Grammy is undoubtedly a highlight of her career, but even if she doesn't come home with the hardware she will have made her presence known at the gala event. She will join several other nominees as a presenter at the Pre-Telecast Ceremony, which takes place on Sunday, February 10, from 1 to 3:30 PM Pacific (4 to 6:30 PM Eastern). That event will be hosted by David Alan Grier (nominated for Best Musical Theater Album for The Gershwins' Porgy And Bess) and Cody's presenting colleagues include Janis Ian (Best Spoken Word Album for Society's Child: My Autobiography), Kaskade (Best Dance/Electronica Album for Fire & Ice), Britt Nicole (Best Contemporary Christian Music Album for Gold) and Manuel Valera (Best Latin Jazz Album, for Manuel Valera New Cuban Express' New Cuban Express). The ceremony will be streamed live internationally at GRAMMY.com/live and CBS.com.Former Miss Navajo introduces herself at the Grammy AwardsThe Navajo singer, Radmilla Cody introduced herself at the Grammy last night before celebrities and singers in Navajo. As her sparkled turquoise necklace shine on the crowd, she spoke with great gratitude.

The former Miss Navajo Nation, kicked off the 55th Grammy Awards.

Comment:  Alas, Cody didn't win.

For more on the Grammys, see Radmilla Cody Nominated for Grammy and No Grammys for Indians in 2012.

Braves reject "screaming Indian" cap

Braves reject 'screaming Indian' logo

By Moni BasuIn the end, the Braves are keeping with tradition - as in the signature 'A' that is the team's logo.

MLB.com posted a photo of the new navy blue batting practice caps with a red and white scripted 'A.' The team will wear those hats at spring training, which starts Tuesday.

The Braves said a decision on the batting caps had not been made yet when a potential design was leaked several weeks ago. That design drew ire for its "screaming Indian" logo.

"I like the selection we made this year," Braves President John Schuerholz said in a statement Monday. "We had a variety of choices that we looked at, some more thoroughly than others. But at the end, we liked this one."

But writer Paul Lukas of ESPN's Uni Watch blog, who broke the news of the cap design in December, wasn't buying the Braves' statement. He suggested the Braves withdrew the design because of the furor it caused.

"In other words, the Braves are claiming that they were never committed to the Indian head cap to begin with," Lukas wrote. "But that doesn't ring true.

"The Indian head cap has been shown for months in the official MLB Style Guide and is still shown there right now," Lukas wrote. "It's also shown in the new New Era catalog. All signs indicate that the Braves fully intended to go with the Indian design until the recent controversy caused them to have second thoughts."Comment:  For more on the Atlanta Braves, see Braves Bring Back "Screaming Savage" and Origin of the Tomahawk Chop.

Republicans fear VAWA's tribal jurisdiction

Congress is again debating the Violence Against Women Act. Here's a posting on the subject:

Measure to Protect Women Stuck on Tribal Land Issue

By Jonathan WeismanObscure as it might be, the issue of tribal court powers and Ms. Millich’s jurisdictional black hole has become the last remaining controversy holding up Congress’s broad reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act. The Senate on Monday is expected to approve the 218-page bill with broad, bipartisan support.

But in the House, Republican negotiators are still struggling over a 10-page section that would, for the first time, allow Native American police and courts to pursue non-Indians who attack women on tribal land. Supporters and opponents of the language acknowledge the plight of women like Ms. Millich. Native American women are two and a half times more likely to be raped. One in three will be assaulted, and three out of five will encounter domestic violence, said Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico.What's behind the Republican opposition to VAWA. Here's a revealing passage:Jacqueline Pata, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, said the tribes have tried to assuage Congressional misgivings, expanding financing and capacity, bolstering indigent legal representation, and changing rules to ensure that non-Indian defendants would face a jury of their peers, Indian and non-Indian alike.

At this point, said Ms. Pata, an Alaska Native, the opposition smacks of bias.

“When you see these amendments that give more rights to perpetrators than Native women, you start to wonder where the balance is,” she said. “We would give any other community in this country the resources and tools they need for justice, but we won’t give them to the Indians.”

Mr. Cole, whose state has one of the largest Indian populations in the country, agreed, to a point. He said some of his colleagues seem to “fear Indians are going to take out 500 years of mistreatment on us through this.”

“It’s that kind of fear, veiled in constitutional theories,” he said.Comment:  We have a bingo, people! A perfect example of how stereotypes of Natives as savage and uncivilized affect real-world issues such as passing legislation and saving lives.

For anyone who denies the importance of fighting stereotypes...you lose.

This is also a perfect example of how conservatives fear minorities. They can make up all the reasons they want for opposing tribal jurisdiction, but they all come down to fear of the "other." Deep down, these people think Indians hate the white man and will automatically lock him up--if not kill and scalp him.

This irrational fear of an entire race is also known as racism. Conservatives tend to be racist toward minorities because they fear minorities.

For more on conservative racism, see Young Conservative Slams "Freeloading Indians" and Limbaugh Calls Warren "Squaw Indian Giver."

Conservatives fear minorities

Tendency to fear is strong political influence

Fear can play a role in influencing political attitudes on hot-button issues like immigration, according to new research co-authored by Brown political scientist Rose McDermott. The study, published in the American Journal of Political Science, shows that individuals who are genetically predisposed to fear tend to have more negative out-group opinions, which play out politically as support for policies like anti-immigration and segregation.The research indicates a strong correlation between social fear and anti-immigration, pro-segregation attitudes. While those individuals with higher levels of social fear exhibited the strongest negative out-group attitudes, even the lowest amount of social phobia was related to substantially less positive out-group attitudes.

“It’s not that conservative people are more fearful, it’s that fearful people are more conservative. People who are scared of novelty, uncertainty, people they don’t know, and things they don’t understand, are more supportive of policies that provide them with a sense of surety and security,” McDermott said.

The researchers make clear, however, that genetics plays only part of the role in influencing political preferences. Education, they found, had an equally large influence on out-group attitudes, with more highly educated people displaying more supportive attitudes toward out-groups and education having a substantial mediating influence on the correlation between parental fear and child out-group attitudes.

“In this way, the definition of unfamiliar may shift across time and location based on experience and education, and a genetically informed fear disposition is hardly permanent or fixed,” the researchers wrote.Comment:  I'm not sure it matters which came first: the conservative beliefs or the fear of minorities ("out-groups"). The fact is that there's a "strong correlation" between the two.

In other words, the research confirms what many of us have been saying for years. Namely, that conservative antipathy toward blacks, Latinos, Indians, Muslims, gays, et al. is motivated by fear.

For more on conservative racism, see Whiteness Defines Others as Outsiders and White Men Lose to Demographic Change.

Why The World Until Yesterday is wrong

Ever since Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond has been writing about the history of civilization in general and indigenous people in particular. One critic says Diamond's latest book is fatally flawed.

Savaging Primitives: Why Jared Diamond’s ‘The World Until Yesterday’ Is Completely Wrong

By Stephen CorryJared Diamond’s new book, The World Until Yesterday, is completely wrong, writes Stephen Corry. Diamond argues that industrialized people (‘modern’) can learn from tribal peoples (‘traditional’) because they show how everyone lived until a few thousand years ago. Corry agrees that ‘we’ can learn from tribes, but counters they represent no more of a throwback to our past than anyone else does. He shows that Diamond’s other—and dangerous—message is that most tribes engage in constant warfare. According to Diamond, they need, and welcome, state intervention to stop their violent behavior. Corry argues that this is merely a political opinion, backed by questionable and spurious data. He sees Diamond’s position as one of supporting colonial ideas about ‘pacifying savages’ and says it is factually and morally wrong.Diamond makes two noteworthy claims that Corry disputes:

Tribal societies are staticIt is true that Diamond does briefly mention, in passing, that all such societies have “been partly modified by contact,” but he has still decided they are best thought about as if they lived more or less as all humankind did until the “earliest origins of agriculture around 11,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent,” as he puts it. That is his unequivocal message, and the meaning of “yesterday” in his title. This is a common mistake, and Diamond wastes little of his very long book trying to support it. The dust jacket, which he must agree with even if he did not actually write it, makes the astonishingly overweening claim that “tribal societies offer an extraordinary window into how our ancestors lived for millions of years” (my emphasis).

This is nonsense. Many scientists debunk the idea that contemporary tribes reveal anything significantly more about our ancestors, of even a few thousand years ago, than we all do. Obviously, self-­sufficiency is and was an important component of the ways of life of both; equally obviously, neither approach or approached the heaving and burgeoning populations visible in today’s cities. In these senses, any numerically small and largely self-­sufficient society might provide something of a model of ancient life, at least in some respects. Nevertheless, tribal peoples are simply not replicas of our ancestors.

Britain’s foremost expert on prehistoric man, Chris Stringer of London’s Natural History Museum, for example, routinely cautions against seeing modern hunter-­gatherers as “living fossils,” and repeatedly emphasizes that, like everyone else, their “genes, cultures and behaviors” have continued to evolve to the present. They must have changed, of course, or they simply would not have survived.

It is important to note that, although Diamond’s thesis is that we were all once “hunter-­gatherers” and that this is the main key to them being seen as our window into the past, in fact most New Guineans do little hunting. They live principally from cultivations, as they probably have for millennia. Diamond barely slips in the fact that their main foodstuff, sweet potato, was probably imported from the Americas, perhaps a few hundred or a thousand years ago. No one agrees on how this came about, but it is just one demonstration that “globalization” and change have impacted on Diamond’s “traditional” peoples for just as long as on everyone else. Disturbingly, Diamond knows these things, but he does not allow them to spoil his conclusions.Tribal societies are violentThe real problem with Diamond’s book, and it is a very big one, is that he thinks “traditional” societies do nasty things which cry out for the intervention of state governments to stop. His key point is that they kill a lot, be it in “war,” infanticide, or the abandonment, or murder, of the very old. This he repeats endlessly. He is convinced he can explain why they do this, and demonstrates the cold, but necessary, logic behind it. Although he admits to never actually having seen any of this in all his travels, he supports his point both with personal anecdotes from New Guinea and a great deal of “data” about a very few tribes—a good proportion of it originating with the anthropologists mentioned above. Many of his boldly stated “facts” are, at best, questionable.

How much of this actually is fact, and how much just personal opinion? It is of course true that many of the tribes he cites do express violence in various ways; people kill people everywhere, as nobody would deny. But how murderous are they exactly, and how to quantify it? Diamond claims that tribes are considerably more prone to killing than are societies ruled by state governments. He goes much further. Despite acknowledging, rather sotto voce, that there are no reports of any war at all in some societies, he does not let this cloud his principal emphasis: most tribal peoples live in a state of constant war.

He supports this entirely unverifiable and dangerous nonsense (as have others, such as Steven Pinker) by taking the numbers killed in wars and homicides in industrialized states and calculating the proportions of the total populations involved. He then compares the results with figures produced by anthropologists like Chagnon for tribes like the Yanomami. He thinks that the results prove that a much higher proportion of individuals are killed in tribal conflict than in state wars; ergo tribal peoples are more violent than “we” are.

There are of course lies, damned lies, and statistics. Let us first give Diamond the benefit of several highly debatable, not to say controversial, doubts. I will, for example, pass over the likelihood that at least some of these intertribal “wars” are likely to have been exacerbated, if not caused, by land encroachment or other hostilities from colonist societies. I will also leave aside the fact that Chagnon’s data, from his work with the Yanomami in the 1960s, has been discredited for decades: most anthropologists working with Yanomami simply do not recognize Chagnon’s violent caricature of those he calls the “fierce people.” I will also skate over Kim Hill’s role in denying the genocide of the Aché Indians at the hands of Paraguayan settlers and the Army in the 1960s and early 1970s. (Though there is an interesting pointer to this cited in Diamond’s book: as he says, over half Aché “violent deaths” were at the hands of nontribals.)

I will also throw only a passing glance at the fact that Diamond refers only to those societies where social scientists have collected data on homicides, and ignores the hundreds where this has not been examined, perhaps because—at least in some cases—there was no such data. After all, scientists seeking to study violence and war are unlikely to spend their precious fieldwork dropping in on tribes with little noticeable tradition of killing. In saying this, I stress once again, I am not denying that people kill people—everywhere. The question is, how much?

Awarding Diamond all the above ‘benefits of doubt’, and restricting my remarks to looking just at “our” side of the story: how many are killed in our wars, and how reasonable is it to cite those numbers as a proportion of the total population of the countries involved?

Is it meaningful, for example, to follow Diamond in calculating deaths in the fighting for Okinawa in 1945 as a percentage of the total populations of all combatant nations—he gives the result as 0.10 percent—and then comparing this with eleven tribal Dani deaths during a conflict in 1961. Diamond reckons the latter as 0.14 percent of the Dani population—more than at Okinawa.

Viewed like this, the Dani violence is worse that the bloodiest Pacific battle of WWII. But of course the largest nation involved in Okinawa was the U.S., which saw no fighting on its mainland at all. Would it not be more sensible to look at, say, the percentage of people killed who were actually in the areas where the war was taking place? No one knows, but estimates of the proportion of Okinawa citizens killed in the battle, for example, range from about 10 percent to 33 percent. Taking the upper figure gives a result of nearly 250 times more deaths than the proportion for the Dani violence, and does not even count any of the military killed in the battle.

Similarly, Diamond tells us that the proportion of people killed in Hiroshima in August 1945 was a tiny 0.1 percent of the Japanese people. However, what about the much smaller “tribe” of what we might call “Hiroshimans,” whose death toll was nearly 50 percent from a single bomb? Which numbers are more meaningful; which could be seen as a contrivance to support the conceit that tribespeople are the bigger killers? By supposedly “proving” his thesis in this way, to what degree does Diamond’s characterization differ significantly from labeling tribal peoples as “primitive savages,” or at any rate as more savage than “we” are?

If you think I am exaggerating the problem—after all, Diamond does not say “primitive savage” himself—then consider how professional readers of his book see it: his reviewers from the prestigious Sunday Times (U.K.) and The Wall Street Journal (U.S.) both call tribes “primitive,” and Germany’s popular Stern magazine splashed “Wilde” (“savages”) in large letters across its pages when describing the book.

Seek and you shall find statistics to underscore any conceivable position on this. Diamond is no fool and doubtless knows all this—the problem is in what he chooses to present and emphasize, and what he leaves out or skates over.Comment:  Diamond repeats the claims about murderous indigenous savages popularized in books such as War Before Civilization. I criticized this book in Methodology of War Before Civilization and Indians in War Before Civilization. I'm glad to see that Stephen Corry's arguments tally with mine.

As Corry notes, many of the claims for warlike Indians come from Napoleon Chagnon's study of the Yanomami people. For more on that subject, see Review of Fierce People and The Yanomami Scandal.

Finally, for more on Diamond's work, see Diamond Wrong About Easter Island and Educating Tony About Genocide.

The Cherokees gift shop

Here's a gift shop I recently learned about. It's noteworthy because it's supposedly run by Cherokees on the Eastern Cherokee reservation.

The CherokeesIndian & Cowboy
Gifts
Souvenirs
Costumes
Toys

At the Cherokees, we provide our customers with quality items made by the Cherokee Indians. We are located on the Qualla Reservation in Cherokee, North Carolina. The reservation is situated at the entrance to the Great Smoky Mountains.



Comment:  The headdresses may be quality replicas, but the children's toys look like the typical schlocky junk made in Asia for tourists. I wouldn't brag about this trash if I were the owners.

Everything in view qualifies as stupidly stereotypical. These Cherokees are foolishly contributing to the caricaturing of themselves and other Indians as primitive savages.

Being Cherokee doesn't give the owners any special insight into Plains headdresses, which they've appropriated from cultures a thousand miles distant. Presumably they're selling these headdresses to non-Indians who then insult Indians by dressing up and play-acting.

The whole shop looks like an exercise in putting greed and profit above Native culture and tradition. If Cherokees are indeed responsible for this, they should be ashamed of themselves.

For more on the misuse of headdresses, see "Cowboys and Indians" Beauty Showdown and Columnist Defends Mummers Parade.

Posters and comic books for health

Using art to save lives

By Chris ComleyYellow dots circle about the woman, framing her against a murky background. Her arms rest idly by her sides as she gazes askance. The portrait “Grandmother,” by artist Hulleah Tsinhnahjinnie (a member of the Seminole, Muscogee, and Diné tribes), is one of many pieces created by well-known Native American artists featured on public health posters throughout the nation.

The posters are part of a campaign by Native People for Cancer Control, based at the University of Washington, to raise cancer awareness and promote cancer-preventive measures to decrease health disparities in the Native community. By leveraging the appeal of art, a traditional tool for learning, the group hopes that the Native Art for Cancer Project will close what has been a persistent gap in public health.

“It’s a great way to start the conversation on cancer topics,” said Carrie Nass, program director for Partnerships for Native Health (PNH).And:PNH also utilizes art as an interactive tool to raise awareness of public health issues through the Native Comic Book Project. The project teaches youth through comic books.

“To solve health disparities, you have to start with the kids,” said Corinna Tordillos (Northern Cheyenne and Tlingit), a senior majoring in biochemistry and American Indian studies who has been involved with PNH as a student assistant and as a researcher since her freshman year.

By actively engaging the students in the learning process, the project aligns itself with a traditional Native way of learning, thus increasing its effectiveness, said Robyn Pebeahsy (Yakama and Comanche), research assistant for the Native Comic Book Project.Comment:  The Native Comic Book Project sounds like what the Healthy Aboriginal Network is doing in Canada. I wonder if the Washington people were inspired by the Healthy Aboriginal Network, or if they're working with them.

For more on comic books and health, see It's Up 2 You Available and CDC Books at NYC Con.

Billy Mills receives presidential medal

Lakota Olympic Gold Medalist to Receive Presidential Citizens Medal

By Levi RickertBilly Mills, 1964 Olympic Gold Medalist, will receive the 2012 Presidential Citizens Medal, the nation's second highest civilian honor by President Barack Obama at a White House event next Friday, February 15.

Mills is a tribal member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe is the only American to win the gold medal in the 10,000 meters. Billy Mills' win in the 10,000 meters is considered one of the greatest upsets in Olympic history.

He is one of 18 people who will receive the Presidential Citizens Medal. Each year some 6,000 applications are received by the White House for consideration to receive the Medal.

“It is my distinguished honor to award these individuals the 2012 Citizens Medal for their commitment to public service,” said President Obama.Billy Mills to receive medal from President Obama

Comment:  For more on the subject, see The Best Indian Movies. Below:  "Billy Mills, 1964 Olympic Gold Medalist, with Shawndiin Church in 2012."

NMAI symposium on racist mascots

Before the symposium

The Director of the Indian Museum Says It’s Time to Retire the Indian Motif in SportsWhen Kevin Gover was a kid growing up in Norman, Oklahoma, college students at the nearby University of Oklahoma had begun protesting the school’s mascot. Known as “Little Red,” the mascot was a student costumed in a war bonnet and breech cloth who would dance to rally crowds. Gover, who today is the director of the American Indian Museum, says he remembers thinking, “I couldn’t quite understand why an Indian would get up and dance when the Sooners scored a touchdown.” Of Pawnee heritage, Gover says he understands now that the use of Indian names and imagery for mascots is more than just incongruous. “I’ve since realized that it’s a much more loaded proposition.”

On February 7, joined by a panel of ten scholars and authors, Gover will deliver opening remarks for a discussion on the history and ongoing use in sports today of Indian mascots.

Though many have been retired, including Oklahoma’s Little Red in 1972, notable examples—baseball’s Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves, and football’s Washington Redskins—continue, perhaps not as mascots, but in naming conventions and the use of Indian motifs in logos.

“We need to bring out the history, and that’s the point of the seminar, is that it’s not a benign sort of undertaking,” explains Gover. He’s quick to add that he doesn’t regard the teams’ fans as culpable, but he likewise doesn’t hesitate to call out the mascots and the names of the teams as inherently racist.Racist Stereotypes in Sports to be Discussed at NMAI Thursday

At the symposium

Redskins name change demanded at Smithsonian forum

By Annys ShinThe symposium on “Racist Stereotypes and Cultural Appropriation in American Sports” was a day-long assault on the use of Native Americans as sports mascots. It was a thorough prosecution, delivered by a dozen or so mostly academic speakers before an audience of more than 300 people.

The speakers took issue with the standard defense offered by past Redskins owners that the name is a way of honoring Native Americans.

“Honors like that we don’t need,” said Robert Holden, deputy director of the National Congress of American Indians.

The name was intended to honor one man, former head coach William “Lone Star” Dietz, said Linda Waggoner, a lecturer at Sonoma State University in California. As the story goes, in 1933, co-owner George Preston Marshall renamed the then-Boston Braves the Redskins after Dietz, who adopted the identity of a Lakota man as part of his persona. The Redskins name followed the team to Washington.

Waggoner said Dietz may not have been Sioux at all but initially passed himself off as so to avoid military service.

Several speakers discussed how demeaning the term is considered. Manley Begay recalled being taunted as a “dirty redskin.”

“Those words have stayed with me,” said Begay, co-director of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development and one of the plaintiffs in a 1992 lawsuit challenging the Redskins trademark.After the symposium

Patrick Pexton: Listening to Native Americans

By Patrick B. PextonThe Post recently published a spate of columns, by different writers, calling for the local National Football League team’s nickname to be changed to avoid its racist overtones. You know, the red and gold team led by Robert Griffin III.

Meanwhile, on Jan. 28 The Post pulled from publication a short high school sports story about the girls swim team at Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, the Panthers. It was held because the photo that went with the story showed the girls, who dress in a different theme each meet to encourage team spirit, wearing face paint and feathers—seemingly Native American warrior garb.And:I talked to Native American groups and individuals this week, too, about the football team’s name, and about the swimmers in their garb. I’m not sure words can properly convey the depth of feeling I heard from them.

Wearing face paint and feathers, many Native Americans feel, is a taking of their cultural and religious traditions. The paint and feathers have distinct meanings for each tribe and nation, and they often are worn only because an individual has earned them through tests, deeds and ceremonies of which white culture has little knowledge or appreciation.

The best analogy I could come up with is the way we treat U.S. military uniforms and insignia. It is against federal law for a civilian to wear the uniform of a U.S. soldier, sailor, airman or Marine for personal gain. Similarly, within the military, if you wear a medal or insignia that you didn’t earn, it is a crime under military law.And:As for RGIII and his teammates, Harjo and every other Native American I spoke to see the team name as racist. It hearkens to the early European settling of this country, when French and British authorities put bounties on the heads, or skins, of Native American men, women and children.

“Every major national Native American organization has declared that the name of the pro football team in our nation’s capital is the most offensive thing native peoples can be called in the English language and has called for it to be changed,” she said.

“It’s okay if others aren’t offended by it,” she added. “They should respect that we are offended and that this is something they can do something about—in our world where we can do little about most things, this is something we can actually do something to fix. They should care about it even a tiny bit because we care about it so much.”Redskins: The Clock Is Now Ticking on Changing the Name

By Dave ZirinIt’s an awkward fact of life in Washington, DC, that we are home to both the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian and the Washington Redskins. One attempts to preserve the Native American cultures that weren’t eradicated by conquest; the other is both a symbol and result of the same eradication. These two worlds collided this past week when the museum hosted a day-long symposium about Native American sports nicknames. In a packed auditorium, panelists and audience members took the local team to task, calling their name “ugly,” “offensive” and “a racist slur.” Former Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the only Native American senator in US history, said from the stage, ”If you want [your mascot] to be a savage—use your own picture.” Not one person either in the audience or the crowd defended the use of "Redskin,” because, as one fan of the team said to me, “it really is defending the indefensible.”

Despite repeated requests from the museum, the Redskins refused to send anyone to make the case publicly that the name is anything other than a self-evident slur. Like their owner, the ham-fisted, rabbit-eared Dan Snyder, they celebrate the moniker only when no one is present to challenge them. Since purchasing the franchise in 1999, Snyder has maintained that the name "Redskins” was a “tribute,” as former team Vice President Karl Swanson said, “derived from the Native American tradition for warriors to daub their bodies with red clay before battle.” This is not an argument they felt confident making at the Smithsonian because the laughter would have cracked the Capitol dome. The team name was the brainchild not of an anthropologist who advised on the fierce honor of the “red-clay warriors” but of team founder, segregationist and Dixiecrat George Preston Marshall.

Senator Campbell said that he asks people, “How would you feel if the team was called the Washington Darkies?” George Preston Marshall would have felt euphoric because he adored minstrel shows and fetishized the confederacy. As Thomas G. Smith wrote in his book Showdown: JFK and the Integration of the Washington Redskins, when Marshall proposed marriage to his future wife Corrine, he did so “amidst fragrant honeysuckle while a group of African American performers [dressed like house-slave extras from Gone with the Wind] sang ‘Carry Me Back to Old Virginny,’” a song that speaks lovingly of how slaves love to see affection between their “Massa and Missus.” The Redskins were named for the minstrelsy Marshall adored and, as the southernmost team in the league at the time, to appeal to Dixie. They were also, surprise, the last team in the NFL to integrate.

If you know this background, it’s risible to hear NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell say, “I think Dan Snyder and the organization have made it very clear that they are proud of that name and that heritage, and I think the fans are, too.” There is nothing to be proud of in this “heritage,” unless your tastes tend toward the antebellum South. In a league that’s 70 percent African-American yet couldn’t seem to find any coaches or executives of color to hire this off-season, the Redskins are also a reminder, as William Faulkner wrote, that “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”Comment:  Patrick Paxton is the Washington Post's ombudsman. His commentary is another sign that people are starting to take this issue seriously.

Note that I compared wearing headdresses to medals in Hipster Medals Instead of Headdresses. Glad to see someone else recognized the validity of the comparison.

For more on the Washington Redskins, see Rob Quoted on Washington Redskins, Indians Are "Whiners," Not Warriors? and "Redskins" Approaching a Tipping Point?

Rolling Stone covers Idle No More

Rolling Stone Takes Note of Idle No MoreRolling Stone has gotten wind of Idle No More, and a story posted on February 4 explains in concise terms what the movement and the controversy that started it are about.

Most notable is the article’s succinct explanation of what measures in the omnibus budget Bill C-45 and its companion, C-38, appear to undermine treaty rights and sovereignty, and why.

C-45 “changes the way that First Nations approve the surrendering or leasing of territory, making it easier to open indigenous treaty lands to development,” Rolling Stone explains.

“The law also reduces the number of development projects that require environmental assessment and dramatically changes the nation's Navigable Waters Protection Act—which, since 1882, has made it illegal to ‘block, alter or destroy any water deep enough to float a canoe without federal approval.’ Now, only specifically enumerated bodies of water have that protection.”

Equally informative is the overview of how Idle No More has been perceived outside the movement: “Idle No More has been subject to many of the same criticisms as other social movements: that its purpose isn't sufficiently clear, that tactics will turn off potential allies, that infighting and tribal mismanagement mar the message.”

However, Idle No More has potential, and one source in the story calls it a turning point for First Nations.Comment:  For more on Idle No More, see Racists Infest Newspaper's Facebook Page and Spence Ends Hunger Strike.

Wounded Knee for sale

Native Sun News: Wounded Knee site put up for sale at $3.9M

By Brandon EcoffeyWounded Knee, the site of one of the most horrific and tragic events in all of American history, is being offered up for sale by its owner.

The family of James A. Czywczynski, owners of two 40 acre sites of land where the slaughter of approximately 300 Lakota men, women, and children took place on Dec 29, 1890 has agreed to sell the land for $3.9 million.

“It is time for our family to sell the land. We would really like to see the land returned to the Lakota people and that is why I am giving them an opportunity to purchase the land before I open it up to others for sale,” said Czywczynski. “I could offer it up for public auction like the Runnels did with Pe’ Sla, but I would prefer that the Lakota people be the ones to purchase it,” he added.And:The site does not include the mass gravesite where the members of the United States 7th Cavalry piled the bodies of those who were murdered that day. However, the parcels of land do include the immediate surrounding area where the massacre took place and the area surrounding Porcupine Butte (the site of KILI radio is not included). It does include the site of the original Wounded Knee Trading Post.

The Czywczynski family has owned the property since 1968, when they purchased the property from the Gildersleeves who had owned the property prior.

During the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee by the American Indian Movement, Mr. Czywczynski had his home, all of his personal belongings, the trading post he owned (including all of the artifacts inside), and several vehicles destroyed. At the time he and his family were returning from a high school basketball game and were told by the United States Marshall Service that he could not return to their home that night.

The losses the he incurred during the occupation have been included in the $3.9 million offering.History for sale? Man seeking $3.9 million for site near Wounded Knee memorial

By Daniel Simmons-RitchieElected tribal officials said the Oglala Sioux Tribe is interested in purchasing what is considered sacred ground to the tribe but not at a price that far exceeds its actual value.

"I think the tribe should take all necessary action to purchase the land but at a reasonable price. I understand it's a historic site but that shouldn't be a means to take the tribe for a huge amount,” said Garfield Steele, who represents the Wounded Knee District on the tribal council.

Kevin Yellow Bird Steele, who also represents Wounded Knee, said the property is inflated to the point of insult and is an attempted exploitation of a dark chapter in U.S. history.

"As a representative of Wounded Knee District, I'm totally appalled," he said.

According to Shannon County records, the property has an appraised value of $7,000.

Czywczynski, however, cites a second event that brought national attention to Wounded Knee when explaining his asking price for a piece of property in a rural outpost on the reservation.

The asking price, he said, includes compensation for the damage done to his property in 1973 when the American Indian Movement and others occupied the community of Wounded Knee for 71 days in a violent standoff that drew national attention.Some background on Czywczynski's purchase of the land:

Charles Trimble: Attempting to profit from hallowed grounds

Comment:  It's kind of ridiculous to ask $3.9 million for land worth $7,000. It's a shame Czywczynski lost so much, but he should sue the people responsible. Why should anyone pay millions of dollars to make up for pain and suffering they didn't cause?

For more on Wounded Knee, see Fire Totals Wounded Knee Museum and Pine Ridge Needs Tourism.

Montana rejects Winchester as state rifle

Montana lawmakers reject Winchester as state rifleThe Montana House on Tuesday rejected a proposal to name the Winchester Model 1873 the state rifle after Native American legislators said they couldn't honor a weapon that brought "devastation" to their ancestors.

Supporters said the designation was intended to memorialize an important symbol from the frontier era that led to statehood for Montana. They tried to mollify opponents by striking language from the bill that called the Winchester the "gun that won the West."

Rep. Edward Greef, a Florence Republican carrying the measure, noted the Winchester rifle was used by American Indians during their victory at the Battle of The Little Bighorn—although he said the focus should not be on who used the rifle to shot whom.

The gun was "readily available on the frontier and became hugely popular," according to the bill.

"The rifle is a symbol of this historical era," Greef said. "I urge you not to look at the rifle as a weapon, but as a symbol of a place in time."

But the measure was defeated 61-39 in the Republican-led House after Native American lawmakers from the Democratic side of the aisle said the gun still carries bad memories. They argued the lever-action repeating rifle, which could fire rounds more quickly than other models, helped slaughter bison relied upon for food, and was involved in Indian massacres.

State Rep. Carolyn Pease-Lopez said the stories of women and children being shot still resonate in Indian country.

"For me this is not so much in the past," she said. "I must rise in opposition of celebrating such a weapon as this that brought devastation to my people."Comment:  Here's the white privilege of the conquering Euro-Americans at work:"I urge you not to look at the rifle as a weapon, but as a symbol of a place in time."Look at a rifle as a symbol? And not as a weapon? Yeah, right.

While we're at it, how about if we look at Wounded Knee as a symbol of change? And not as a massacre?

Or...how about if we look at it as a massacre, since that's what it was? Same with the Winchester rifle.

What is the Winchester a symbol of, exactly? How Euro-Americans "won the West," obviously.

The lawmakers even spelled it out in the bill before they wised up and deleted the language. But their intent was clear: to glorify the white man for taming the "wilderness." And the "wild Indians," of course.

We do this in a million ways in our culture. Everything from our coins to our holidays to our monuments is an ode to the conquering white man. To do it yet again is a waste of time and energy.

For a similar effort, see Arizon's State Gun Killed Indians and Arizona Chooses State Gun.

Below:  Wounded Knee, a symbol of how we won the West, accomplished with another symbol, the Winchester rifle.

Native tells protesters they're illegal

Immigrant Protest: ‘Y’all Are All Illegal!!!’

By Abena Agyeman-FisherAt a Tucson, Ariz., anti-illegal immigrant rally, a group of self-righteous protesters were literally put on mute after a Native American decided to drop some knowledge on who the real “illegals” are.

Pushing a toddler in a stroller, a rightfully irritated self-identified Native American began yelling at the group, saying:

“Y’all f*cking illegal. You’re all illegal. You’re all illegal!

“We didn’t invite none of you here!

“We’re the only native Americans here.”Comment:  I've seen this response--Natives telling non-Natives they're illegal immigrants--before in cartoons. But this is the first live-action version I've seen.

For more on immigration, see Twitter War Over Immigration Reference and Obama: Natives Are the Only Natives.

Are Southern death camps plausible?

I wrote about Harry Turtledove's SF series in which the South won the Civil War in Indians in Turtledove's Timeline-191. Now I've reached the end of the series.

In the last few books, the US/Confederate history closely parallels our actual history with Germany. The USA defeats the CSA in the "Great War" and imposes harsh conditions. The Depression ensues a decade later. Seething with resentment, the South rises under Jake Featherston, a Hitler-like Army sergeant. It launches a war against the USA while sending its Negroes to Auschwitz-like death camps.

It's far-fetched that this timeline would parallel our timeline so closely. Especially some 80 years after the divergence began--when you'd expect things to diverge more, not less.

But I didn't find the details--the demagogic leader and the death camps--far-fetched. I believe something like this could've happened in reality if we hadn't been vigilant.

War of words

A couple of Facebook friends disagreed with my assessment, leading to a debate. It began with this tweet of mine:

Reading Turtledove's "Southern Victory" series. The South wins the Civil War and eventually consigns blacks to death camps. Plausible?No. He's trying too hard to replicate Nazism and WW2.Did you actually read it through to the final book? I thought you didn't like the series that much.

I agree that the Nazi parallels are a little heavy-handed, but we're talking about two things. 1) The literary merits of the Nazi parallelism, and 2) the real-world possibility of the South's emulating the Nazi example. I'd say the second point is all too plausible.Turtledove was an Ottoman historian. He does about as well as I'd do writing Ottoman history. For starters, political parties were banned by the CSA constitution. There were never any free elections. It was always an elite oligarchy, closer to a military/plantation owner dictatorship.Well, I don't remember the first few books in this very long series. Turtledove could've changed the CSA constitution somewhere along the line in his alternate history.

If the South was an an elite oligarchy, I'd say that would make the death-camp scenario more likely, not less. I still haven't heard anything that makes the scenario implausible.Why would a South that, as outlined in the novels, was completely and utterly dependent on black labor start killing off that supply? Even the Nazis put groups other than Jews in work camps (where they were often worked to death). I don't see anything in Southern history that would indicate a predilection to anything like the Holocaust. A victorious CSA would almost certainly be a brutal, repressive dictatorship (and in many ways, it was from the end of Reconstruction until the 1960's) but there's a huge difference between that and a full-on genocidal massacre.Because cheap labor is readily available from the CSA's Mexican states? Because the USA and CSA developed automated farming machinery faster in this timeline? (Tanks in the Great War--i.e., World War I--being an example of the accelerated technology.)

I haven't been paying enough attention to say the books treated the labor issue well, but they definitely did address it. Turtledove didn't just ignore the issue.

Featherston's role is key

And the genocidal massacre happened because a Hitler-like demagogue made it happen. Not because it's a natural outgrowth of the South's racist history.

So you're saying a Hitler-like demagogue couldn't make Southerners turn against blacks because, what, Southerners are more decent and rational than the Germans under Hitler were? Sorry, I'm not buying that the Germans were uniquely "bad" and the same thing couldn't happen here.I just don't see any historical evidence to support the notion. For example, there were PLENTY of slave revolts, often very bloody. No one suggested exterminating all slaves or shipping them back to Africa. Germany had a LONG history of bloody anti-Semitism. Jews had been massacred for centuries in Europe and the Near East (by the Crusaders) for centuries. The Holocaust didn't just appear out of thin air, with no history behind it. The South would be highly highly dependent on slaves, especially in a scenario where they are desperately trying to industrialize in order to maintain the war effort. There's no plausible reason for a culture that lacked the traditional German deference to authority to suddenly decide to go along with eliminating their labor base, Mexican conscripts or no Mexican conscripts.In the books, the CSA ended slavery sometime after the Civil War. By the 1940s, the system was an apartheid-like version of Jim Crow repression, but not slavery.

The South had a long history of brutal repression and bloody slave revolts. True, these things didn't go back to the Middle Ages, but they did go back a couple of centuries. I think that's long enough to embed a genocidal mania in the South's culture.

Besides, Euro-Americans had a history of demonizing brown-skinned people (Indians) as pagans and devil-worshippers going back to 1492. That's the same idea as the German demonization of Jews or the English demonization of the Irish. So there's no great difference between the two European-based cultures.

"No one suggested exterminating all slaves or shipping them back to Africa." Yes, because they were productive "property" at the time. And because a monstrous demagogue like Hitler or Jake Featherston hadn't come along. But once Hitler gave us a historical template, the idea became conceivable everywhere.

The South didn't have the "traditional German deference to authority"? But Al characterized the Southern culture as "an elite oligarchy, closer to a military/plantation owner dictatorship." That sounds like exactly the kind of culture that would defer to a small ruling class and finally to a single demagogue.

The Trail of Tears started in the American South. The genocidal actions continued in the American West. If these subcultures didn't have a traditional deference to authority, then this deference wasn't necessary to trigger a racial purge. In short, it happened here once so it could happen here again.

Hitler got the Holocaust idea from past genocides, including that of the American Indian. The Southerners in Turtledove's books would've had these examples to inspire them. Heck, some of them undoubtedly participated in the near-extermination of Indians. So putting blacks in rez-like concentration camps doesn't seem far-fetched to me at all.

Genocide there but not here?

So you are arguing that Germany had unique traits that made genocide possible there but not here? Even though we committed similar acts of genocide that gave Hitler his inspiration for the Holocaust? Sorry, I'm still not buying it.

Did Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda happen to have the same mix of cultural traits as Nazi Germany? Something the American South lacked even though it launched the Trail of Tears? That seems implausible if not impossible. So again, no sale.No, Germany wasn't unique clearly, but there were cultural conditions that contributed to it. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history. The Trail of Tears was ethnic cleaning, not extermination. Hitler did not, in fact, get the idea for the Holocaust from Native American history; he got the idea for treating Eastern Europe (driving people off their land).

Also, in the books the South ends slavery after another war with the US in 1881. And it's done in a very unsatisfying magic wand kind of way, mostly off camera.Hitler referred to America and its Indians in Mein Kampf. At least one historian quoted him writing, "Neither Spain nor Britain should be models of the German expansion, but the Nordics of North America, who had ruthlessly pushed aside an inferior race to win for themselves soil and territory for the future." Stannard offers this quote:Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination--by starvation and uneven combat--of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.

--P. 202, Adolph Hitler by John TolandI'm not sure how much of an inspiration the American model was, but it was more than zero, since Hitler was aware of it and wrote about it.

So the South had enough of a genocidal culture to send Indians marching off through the snow to their probable deaths? But not to send them to concentration camps where only the guards knew what was really happening? The difference seems minor and inconsequential to me.

As you know, Americans attacked and killed Indians many times. It was a fundamental part of their worldview to eliminate the brown-skinned menace one way or another. It didn't require any deference to authority; Americans from all walks of life shared this goal.

Sending blacks to concentration camps similar to reservations is consistent with that. And again, only the South's leaders knew for sure what was happening. Which is consistent with the German model. The books do not require a genocidal rage on the part of every Southerner to work. They require only the Nazi-like command structure that Jake Featherston provided.

Besides, this is speculative fiction, so the case doesn't have to be airtight to be plausible. I think it's close enough to airtight that it hasn't bothered me. If we can give Star Trek and Doctor Who a pass, we can give this a pass too.

Conclusion

Like many critics, I've compared the American Holocaust to the Nazi Holocaust many times. I've also said this genocidal urge is still present in the American mindset. Invading Muslim countries, killing foreigners with drones, ignoring hunger and disease around the world, letting minorities suffer and die without government assistance, hoarding guns to protect us from "them"...all part of the same impulse.

Heck, we sent Japanese Americans to concentration camps in the same time frame as Featherston's purge. It's absolutely part of our DNA to "reduce the population," as Featherston put it, of troublesome minorities. All it would take is a Hitler-style demagogue to convert Bosque Redondo, Manzanar, or Guantanamo Bay into another Auschwitz.

P.S. I don't think I read the book in which the South ended slavery. I'm not claiming the whole series is 100% plausible, since I haven't read every book. But I am claiming the Nazi-style ending is plausible--plausible enough to enjoy the ride.

For more on alternate histories, see Saving Columbus in Infinity Ring and The Pirate Prince Carlomagno.

Natives protest Tomahawk Tassels

In Tomahawk Hangs Up Her Tassels, the strip-tease artist seemed chagrined that Natives didn't like her stereotypical act. Now her contrition is in doubt.

Tomahawk Tassels protested over Native-themed burlesque performance

By Rebecca McDonaldCity Pages spoke with Edberg before the protest, and she recounted how deeply offended she was when she first saw Tassel's "mockery of Indian women." After Tomahawk's appearances at the Idle No More flash mob dance at the Mall of America, and the Minneapolis American Indian Center's New Year powwow, she called for the retirement of Tomahawk Tassels.

"We want [Tomahawk Tassels] and her audience to see that, we, as Native people, will define our own image, our own culture," stated Edberg. "The media may lack an understanding of white privilege and oppression of Indian people, but people in the [Indian] community have had conversations with her for years about why her act is offensive. Now, we are calling for her to retire Tomahawk Tassels, and the name."

Many of the protesters in attendance this weekend did not see Tassels' Facebook statement as an understanding why her performance may be seen as offensive.

This past Friday, in front of Mineapolis's Ground Zero nightclub, nearly 20 protestors voices echoed through the heavy, sub-zero air. Tassels was an invited guest to the Dr. Farrago's Burlesque Theater, and had been booked months in advance. Co-owner Charles Jennings made it clear that Tassels would not be performing her usual Native number, stating that "she is a top-shelf performer. When she performs here, she gets raving applause." He told City Pages that they were not worried about the protesters, and would not be taking any special precautions.

Before the protest, Tassels mocked her critics. Posting on Facebook, she said:I'm pretty sure the Haters will not be going inside because that would mean paying a cover. I think their plan is to picket outside. So I'd love to get photos of videos of them freezing their asses off in the name of "justice!" And yeah, I complied only for my safety. Vita.MN threw me under the bus and published my legal name which endangers me more.No wonder people doubted the sincerity of her apologetic "reflection."

P.S. I'd guess the protesters stayed outside because the nightclub wouldn't let them protest inside. Duhhh.

Burlesque Dancer Tomahawk Tassels Suspends Indian-Themed ActTassels, who says her father, whom she did not know growing up, was an unenrolled Cherokee Indian, has weathered criticism over her costume and act for years. Tassels' situation of late is a strange one: She's been attending Idle No More events wearing what many natives would consider a parody of traditional dress, and finding a chilly reception. According to Vita.mn, Tassels fears for her safety. However, she also says that the Violence Against Women Act is a factor: “I’ve heard the statistics [about the higher rates of rape and assault for Native women] quoted to me constantly. My response is that rape is awful anytime--I don’t support that… it’s one of the reasons why I’m suspending at the moment. Maybe VAWA will get passed, maybe it won’t be as much of an issue.”

Although cognizant of the statistics, Tassels doesn't feel there's a connection to what she does: “Getting onstage, you are empowered. It’s not saying I’m sexually available to everyone in this room, it’s not an open invitation.” She also sees attacks on her as a form of blaming the victim. “Why blame the woman when the issue at hand is the male dominated culture that is negative and hateful toward women?” she told Vita.mn.

She gave an explanation for her decision on her Facebook page which read, in part:

I have raised the white flag. Said my piece. Suspended the art that is supposedly offensive. Questioned, debated, gotten angry, felt misunderstood, cried until I can't cry anymore. Blocked all the haters. Tried to remain humble, honest, and true to myself. Now, I must move on. ... I am willing to step back. Listen. Research. Educate. Strengthen myself. Find clarity of vision.

Although Tassels is speaking in terms of surrender and education, she is apparently going to keep using her stage name even if she leaves the costumes and props behind. Some Natives see that as evidence she isn't really serious about change, and they've organized a Retirement Protest for Tomahawk Tassels tonight.I'm not buying the argument that stripping for money empowers women. If she thinks her performance is some sort of philosophical or artistic statement, she should do it in an art gallery, or on a sidewalk, for free.



Apparently Tassels has started a new venture called the Tribe of Tease. In it she performs with a troupe of strippers. She wears a bustier and a headband with a plume in it. It's reminiscent of her faux Indian identity but also of a French showgirl.

With the "Tribe" name and the headdress, she's obviously trying to maintain a connection with her previous gimmick. But this gimmick is different enough that it may not upset Natives.

For more on Indian women as sexual objects, see Native Beauty = White and Thin? and "Pocahontas" in Gossip Girl.

Native stereotypes in breakfast foods

In this posting:

I eat stereotypes like you for breakfast

Adrienne Keene notes that she could have a breakfast made only of Native-themed products: Calumet Baking Powder, Indian Head Corn Meal, Squaw Bread, Land O'Lakes Butter, Sue Bee Honey, Orangina drink, etc. She continues:The sad thing is I could keep going and going…I’m sure you come across other products in your daily life as well (feel free to share in the comments). And this is just food. In isolation, each of these would seem like no big deal–these are the “good” stereotypical images. The “noble savage.” No wild eyes or big noses, just headdresses and Indian maidens. But when taken as a collective, is it any wonder that most people in the world think of Native peoples as headdress-wearing Plains chiefs or buckskin-clad Indian women? I’m not saying there isn’t stereotypical imagery of other racial/ethnic groups in branding, but the ubiquity of Native imagery is striking.

Many/most of these products have “historic” ties to the logo, but that’s no excuse. If you look in the “about” pages of the companies, many of them mention the wish of the founders of the company to “honor” the local Native peoples. But, for example, sorry Umpqua Ice Cream, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians don’t wear plains headdresses. It’s 2012. I think it’s time to critically examine the way that Native peoples are represented in branding and advertising. Why is this still socially acceptable?

Much like Indian mascots, these images are not “honoring,” they serve to collapse hundreds of distinct nations and cultures into one stereotypical lump, and perpetuate stereotypes of Native peoples living like they did in the 1700′s, rather than modern people who are shopping at the local Star Mart (without a headdress on). Truly, for many people, these are the only representations of American Indians that they see. Add on to that Indian mascots, hollywood stereotypes like Tonto and Twilight, and is it any wonder that Native peoples and issues continue to be marginalized and forgotten? How is a small child supposed to know that all Indians don’t say “how” and wear feathered headdresses everyday, when every morning they are putting Land ‘O Lakes butter and Sue Bee Honey on their squ*w bread?

I don’t know about you, but this breakfast didn’t sit too well with me. Turns out racial inequality isn’t so yummy, it just makes my stomach hurt.Comment:  For more on food stereotypes, see Thunderbird Energetica Energy Bars and Plains Chief on Pemmican Package.

Commerce Casino's racist "Mayan" commercial

Doomsday apocalypse, Jamie Kennedy style. Aired live on KDOC Channel 56 during First Night with Jamie Kennedy New Years Eve Special.Comment:  The premise for this video is simple. "Mayans" (white guys dressed up in Plains outfits and garishly painted like clowns) predicted the world would end and thus spent all their money. Now they need to go to a casino to make more money.

You can see how bad this video is from the default image. Or from any random moment in the three-minute production.

As some commenters noted:Wowwwwww that's incredibly racist.

If you guys were smart you take that off of YouTube.

It's cool to see the Commerce Casino and Hotel supports overt racism.Indeed it is racist. Newspaper Rock readers don't need me to explain why.

For more on racist videos, see "Native American Christmas Gangnam Dance" and No Doubt's Looking Hot Video.

Lost Mesa in Fablehaven

Debbie Reese dissects another children's book in her American Indians in Children's Literature blog:

Brandon Mull's Fablehaven: Grip of the Shadow PlagueA few weeks ago, I pointed to stereotypes in Brandon Mull's Fablehaven: Rise of the Evening Star. Today, I'm pointing to problems in his Fablehaven: Grip of the Shadow Plague.The protagonist Kendra, who is one of the "Knights of the Dawn," seeks to recover a hidden artifact.That assignment takes her to the "Lost Mesa preserve" (p. 94) in Arizona which is on Navajo land. ... In chapter 7, Kendra and the other knights arrive at Lost Mesa. Here's the illustration at top of that page:


As Reese notes, Lost Mesa is obviously based on the real Taos Pueblo (below).

According to the book, the Navajo reservation was supposedly created to hide Lost Mesa. Even worse, "Persian magi actually established the preserve" before the Europeans arrived. The "Anasazi" and later the Pueblo and Navajo people only "managed" the "preserve" for its magical inhabitants.

There's more, but this is enough of an insult. It reinforces the typical Eurocentric belief that Indians didn't accomplish anything themselves. Native civilizations must've been built by lost races of white men or space aliens. Indians were only "savages" who couldn't do much more than grunt and kill people.

Actually, the Pueblos and their ancestors must've built hundreds of Pueblo-style structures throughout the Southwest over the last millennium. That demonstrates how unmagical and unremarkable the architectural skill was. It's ridiculous to turn an ordinary but "exotic" culture into a fairy-tale place inhabited by wizards or whatever.

For more on lost civilizations, see Indiana Jones's Criminally Bad Archaeology and "Light Beam" from Maya Pyramid.

Rob quoted on Washington Redskins

In DC, Talk of Redskins, Pigskins, and Winds of Change

By Christina RoseDoes a flurry of media support point to a turning of the tides on the Redskin team name? Recent chatter is promising: Washington, D.C.’s Mayor Vincent C. Gray recently challenged the Redskins Football Team to a conversation about the name, Representative Tom Cole has called for the name's retirement, and a Washington Post columnist sparked discussion by declaring that “bad karma” may have caused the debilitating injury of Redskin’s star player Robert Griffin III.And:The news of the mayor’s comment and the contest spread far and wide through Facebook and Twitter, and even Rush Limbaugh announced the time for change is on the horizon. In a transcript from Limbaugh’s January 9 show, he sadly stated, “There's nothing we can do. Folks, the Redskins are gonna have to change the name of the team. That's what's gonna happen.”

While Limbaugh predicted change, he hardly endorsed it. Instead, he padded his disdain for the change with this comment, “...environmentalist wackos love Native Americans. They're on a par with blacks, having been slaughtered, genocide, and all that as far as the leftists are concerned.”And:Rob Schmidt, whose popular blog Newspaper Rock has focused on Native stereotypes for more than a decade, suspects the current burst of media support is not just a flare-up. He noted, “There seems to be at least a spark of interest on the part of the media for change. In the past, columnists might have written an occasional column that was quickly forgotten, but this time it does look like there is a groundswell of support. Stereotypes have more and more been in the news with No Doubt’s “Looking Hot” video and the recent Victoria Secret outfits. There is a rising tide of awareness. Hopefully there will be some change, and hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.”Comment:  For more on the Washington Redskins, see Indians Are "Whiners," Not Warriors? and "Redskins" Approaching a Tipping Point?

Twitter war over immigration reference

The immigration comment I noted in Obama: Natives Are the Only Natives triggered a war of words:

Obama's 'Native American' Reference During Immigration Speech Sparks Bering Strait Twitter Surge

By Simon Moya-SmithYesterday, during a speech on immigration in Las Vegas, President Obama reacquainted the nation with the actuality that “unless you’re one of the first Americans, Native Americans, you came from somewhere else–somebody brought you,” he said.

Immediately, anti-amnesty apologists and Bering Strait Theory enthusiasts took to Twitter to argue against Mr. Obama and the position that Native Americans never migrated across the northern land bridge 15,000 years ago:

Conservative tweeter @MarkWonderful remarked: “Needless to say, those of us w/some education know that even ‘Native Americans’ are immigrants, having come over land bridge from Asia.”

@QuoteLawrence wrote: “This is the stupidest comment made by stupid criminal sympathizers. You’re a native once you’re born here.”

Although the Bering Strait Theory is frequently considered as an irrefutable fact (at least in the Twitter-sphere), Harvard Medical School Professor of Genetics David Reich declared in July that the Bering Strait remains a theory–and one he anticipates will be refuted with further research.

Still, that hasn’t staved the American populace from utilizing the Bering Strait argument whenever the issue of immigration is the topic of caustic debate.

Comment:  To answer "@MarkWonderful," those of us with some education understand that "native" is a relative concept, not an absolute. Since the earth coalesced out of space dust, continents merged and split, and species evolved, it's hard to say anything is truly "native" to a particular time or place. You have to pick a reasonable cutoff point or the word has no meaning.

As for "@QuoteLawrence," Obama was talking about historic groups of people, not individuals. That's generally what we talk about when we talk about immigration. People such as the Irish migrated to America even if many Irish children were born here.

To use an analogy, even if something--say, a spaghetti dish--was created here, it may come from elsewhere. A particular serving of spaghetti originates where it was cooked, or where its ingredients came from. But "spaghetti" as a kind of food originated in Italy.

If you don't understand this childishly obvious distinction, "@QuoteLawrence," you win the award for stupidest comment. Duhhh.

Clarifying the point

Moya-Smith raises several issues in his commentary, but he doesn't distinguish them clearly. Let's go through them:

1) Conservatives are using the Bering Strait theory only to claim Natives aren't "native" to the Americas. If another migration theory replaced the Bering Strait theory, conservatives would use that theory instead.

I've addressed this claim several times--for instance, in Conservatives Think They're "Natives," Conservative Website Calls Indians "Beringians," and Were Indians "Colonists" Too?

Marty Two Bulls's cartoon captures what's going on here. Conservatives don't care about the science behind the Bering Strait theory. They're using the theory to delegitimize and discredit Natives. It's part of the 500-year Euro-Christian effort to promote white superiority and justify stolen land.

2) Based on their origin stories, Natives such as Vine Deloria Jr. claim Natives have always lived in the Americas. Presumably because their gods created them here, not because they evolved from apes here. I don't think any reputable scientist buys this theory.

3) Many scientists do dispute the Bering Strait theory, saying indigenous people may have arrived by boat. This doesn't affect the immigration debate. Conservatives still would say Natives were immigrants, and Natives still would say they're "native" by any reasonable definition of the word.

For more on migration theories, see Paleo-Indians Arrived Before Clovis and Ice Age Documentary Stars Alaska Natives.

Racists infest newspaper's Facebook page

Newspaper removes Facebook page over racist comments

Thompson Citizen in Manitoba condemns 'anti-aboriginal racists and haters' onlineA newspaper in Thompson, Man., has disabled its Facebook page due to racist slurs that were being posted by the public about aboriginal people.

Staff with the Thompson Citizen say they could not accept what some people were writing on the newspaper's Facebook page, but they couldn't control what was being posted.

"We're leaving because for some time commenters have been posting virulently racist anti-aboriginal comments on our page and tagging photos in a similar way, including our profile photo of the Thompson Citizen building this morning," editor John Barker wrote in an editorial posted on the paper's website Thursday.

"It ends here. This newspaper is not going to stand by and let anti-aboriginal racists and haters spew their evil on a vehicle we're facilitating them using."Comment:  For more on the subject, see Racist Comments in Canadian Newspapers and Morris Mirror: Natives = "Terrorists."