Native Appropriations

Tracing the Urban Outfitters case and the role of Native social media

2012-05-09T09:16:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, an awesome, awesome reader named Thelma sent this Prezi over, it was her final presentation for a course in grad school. It's a presentation that visually traces the whole Urban Outfitters case through the lens of social media, highlighting the role blogs and other Native media outlets had in driving the story. It's really cool to see it all laid out in one place, and really does give me a sense of pride and accomplishment that we as an online community were actually able to make some measurable difference!

So check out the presentation below, or you can visit the Prezi site directly here. (navigate the Prezi through the arrows at the bottom). Thelma also said you can feel free to share!

Native Americans vs Urban Outfitters on Prezi

Some of the stories referenced in the presentation:

Native Appropriations: UrbanOutfitters is Obsessed with Navajos

Racialicious: An OpenLetter to Urban Outfitters on Columbus Day

Jezebel: UrbanOutfitters and the Navajo Nation: What Does the Law Say?

Jezebel: UrbanOutfitter's 'Navajo' Problem Becomes A Legal Issue

(Thanks so much Thelma!)

Nelly Furtado's "Big Hoops" Video: Native dancers represent!

2012-05-08T14:05:00.002-04:00

(pic from Nelly's Twitter)

Do you know how rare and exciting this moment is? A mainstream music artist used Native influences in her music video, and I HAVE NOTHING NEGATIVE TO SAY!!!! Yesterday Nelly Furtado debuted her new music video for Big Hoops (The Bigger the Better), featuring the awesome hoop dancing of Tony and Kevin Duncan (Mandan/Hidatsa/Arikara/San Carlos Apache) and the fancy shawl stylings of Violet Duncan (Cree/Taino).
Basically, this is going to go down in history as my example of how to incorporate Natives without crossing the line into cultural appropriation. So check out the video below, and we'll talk more after you get a chance to see how great it is:

(Vevo is mean about embedding, so you might have to go watch it on the youtubes, los siento)

What I like about the video is that Nelly just let the Duncans do their thing and show off what amazing dancers they are without having to fit into some overly constructed storyline. Chatting with some twitter friends last night, we remarked that it was also notable that Nelly didn't feel the need to "go Native" like say, Ke$ha, with her styling for the shoot.

You know how I enjoy things that converge tradition and modernity, so this is right up my alley. So far the video has 42,000 views on YouTube, so 42,000 people have seen Native folks representing themselves, showing off their skillz, not painted up with a bird on their head. These are the kind of representations I'd like to see on a more regular basis.

Even better, Nelly introduced Tony, Violet, and Kevin in her "behind the scenes" clip in April--further solidifying that they weren't just backdrops for her song, they were co-collaborators. She notes that she "has the privilege" to work with them, and hammers home that they are "world champions." She also let them introduce themselves and talk a little bit more about what their dancing represents:

Pretty cool, right? Nelly is Canadian, and all of this reminded me of the Vancouver Olympics opening ceremonies, where she performed. I covered it back in the early days of my blog (when I first learned how to screen shot!), but here she is singing with all the First Nations dancers surrounding her:

And during the song they did "spotlight dances" on hoop dancers, fancy dancers, etc:

So clearly she's no stranger to appreciating the awesomeness of Native dancers.

Finally, an "inside source" (love how everyone is related in Indian Country--my colleague is their cousin) told me that the Duncans will be performing with Nelly at the Billboard Music Awards May 20th, along with several other hoop dancers (7 total). Yay!

So guys, for all of you that email me all the time and say that I must have such a sad and miserable existence finding fault in absolutely everything, let it be known: Adrienne K. likes this video, and has nothing negative to say about it!! Apparently I am human, not a society-hating-automaton programmed to spit out criticism. ha.

(Thanks Jessica, Sarah, Frances, Jason, and everyone else who sent it over!)

YouTube: Big Hoops (the Bigger the Better)
YouTube: Behind the scenes of Big Hoops, Chapter 1
Yellowbird Dancers (The Duncan's Dance group)

Earlier:
Vancouver Olympics Opening Ceremonies: Honoring Canadian First Nations?
Not Again, Ke$ha

PS- It's the end of the semester for me, which = grading and busy times galore. I have a lot I want to write about in regards to Elizabeth Warren, more on Tonto, and all the ugly hate I've been getting in the last two weeks, but it'll have to wait. Hope you can forgive me! Much Love!

Johnny Depp as Tonto: I'm still not feeling "honored"

2012-04-24T12:25:00.000-04:00

I guess we can put all the talk about Johnny Depp "honoring" Native people to rest now. Cause it's been over a month since those first horrendous publicity pics of Depp-as-Tonto surfaced, and more information has been trickling out about Depp's "inspiration" for his lovely costume. I think we'll now see just how careful, respectful and honoring Mr. Depp was with his "research" for his role.

As background, Depp has said in numerous interviews that wanted to change the role of Tonto, and wanted to "reinvent" the relationship between Indians and Hollywood. He also cited his Native heritage--"Cherokee or maybe Creek"--as part of his reasoning behind taking the role. In this clip from MTV news, Johnny describes his plans for Tonto's character, which, out of context, actually sound pretty good:

He says in the clip:

"I like the idea of having the opportunity to sort of make fun of the idea of Indian as sidekick...throughout the history of hollywood, the Native American has always been the second class, third class, fourth class, fifth class citizen, and I don't see Tonto that way at all. So it's an opportunity for me to salute Native Americans."

Based on all of these interviews, I was still holding out a shred of hope that there was some major piece of information I was missing, that maybe Johnny had actually done his research, or that maybe he had no control over the actual costuming of Tonto, and that all of this anger and blame should be placed on some wardrobe stylist on set. But Entertainment Weekly published a blog post on Sunday that confirmed what I had been arguing all along. Johnny Depp decided to "honor" Native peoples and "reinvent" our role in hollywood by relying on the most tired and stereotypical tropes imaginable. On his "inspiration" for Tonto's makeup:

"I’d actually seen a painting by an artist named Kirby Sattler, and looked at the face of this warrior and thought: That’s it. The stripes down the face and across the eyes … it seemed to me like you could almost see the separate sections of the individual, if you know what I mean.”

Though that quote makes absolutely no sense ("separate sections of the individual?), the picture in reference is below. The connection between the Sattler painting and Depp's costuming was actually caught quickly in March by some fans of the Native Appropriations facebook page, one of whom even took the time to call Sattler's studio. The PR rep on the phone assured her to wait until the movie came out and that she was certain "everything would be done in an appropriate manner." I guess "appropriate" is relative?

The thing about Kirby Sattler, a non-Native painter, is that he relies heavily on stereotypes of Native people as mystical-connected-to-nature-ancient-spiritual-creatures, with little regard for any type of historical accuracy. He says, right off the bat, that the images come from his imagination:

"My paintings are interpretations based upon the nomadic tribes of the 19th century American Plains. The subjects are a variety of visual sources and my imagination...I purposely do not denote a tribal affiliation to the majority of my subjects, rather, I attempt to give the paintings an authentic appearance, provoke interest, satisfy my audience’s sensibilities of the subject without the constraints of having to adhere to historical accuracy."

So he's telling us, in so many words, that he makes these subjects up based on the (heavily stereotyped) images in his own head. Just listen to the language he uses to describe his paintings:

"Each painting functions on the premise that all natural phenomena have souls independent of their physical beings. Under such a belief, the wearing of sacred objects were a source of spiritual power. Any object- a stone, a plait of sweet grass, a part of an animal, the wing of a bird- could contain the essence of the metaphysical qualities identified to the objects and desired by the Native American. This acquisition of "Medicine", or spiritual power, was central to the lives of the Indian. It provided the conduit to the unseen forces of the universe which predominated their lives."

Note the past tense, since clearly Indians don't exist anymore. Note the presumption that all Indians were/are the same, and that all our spiritual practices were/are the same. To refer to an entire population of diverse, living, breathing people of over 500 nations as "The Native American" is more than a little patronizing and offensive.

I say all this to establish the "credibility" of Johnny Depp's source material. But Depp's descriptions of why he was so drawn to the piece are even worse. On the striped make-up representing the "separate sections of the individual":

“There’s this very wise quarter, a very tortured and hurt section, and angry and rageful section, and a very understanding and unique side. I saw these parts, almost like dissecting a brain, these slivers of the individual. That makeup inspired me.”

Because Tonto happens to be Native American, he has to be "wise," "tortured and hurt," "angry and rageful," and "very understanding and unique"? That's like Hollywood Indian Stereotypes 101. Finally, on the hideous crow headdress itself:

“It just so happened Sattler had painted a bird flying directly behind the warrior’s head. It looked to me like it was sitting on top. I thought: Tonto’s got a bird on his head. It’s his spirit guide in a way. It’s dead to others, but it’s not dead to him. It’s very much alive...The whole reason I wanted to play Tonto is to try to [mess] around with the stereotype of the American Indian that has been laid out through history, or the history of cinema at the very least — especially Tonto as the sidekick, The Lone Ranger’s assistant...As you’ll see, it’s most definitely not that.”

Right. So, I like the calling of the subject in the painting a "warrior," based solely on the fact that he is Native and male (stereotype #1). Of course the "warrior" has to have a "spirit guide" (stereotype #2), and has a mystical connection that outsiders cannot understand--"It's dead to others, but it's not dead to him" (stereotype #3). I think, Mr. Depp, when you said you hoped to "mess around with the stereotype of the American Indian," you actually meant "completely play into the stereotype of the American Indian," because I'm really not seeing anything subversive or new about your language or this mess of a portrayal. If this is your "salute" to Native Americans, I'm really afraid to watch the actual movie. Also, since we haven't seen a clip of the film yet, it remains to be seen if Depp will talk in the stereotypical broken-english "Tonto speak." Let's hope he drew the line somewhere.

What we have here is a case of an extreme mis-match between intent and impact. Johnny Depp might have entered this project with the nobelest of intentions, hoping to "honor" his heritage, "re-invent" the role of Natives in Hollywood, give Tonto more agency and move him from his sidekick status--but he went about it in exactly the wrong way. I don't know what the right way would have been, perhaps going to talk to some Comanche community members (turns out Tonto is "full blooded Comanche" in this version, not Apache as I had reported earlier) to ask how they would feel comfortable being portrayed on the big screen--or if they even felt comfortable at all. I know the right way would have been doing a little more research into hollywood portrayals of Native peoples, and realizing that picking your costume from a non-Native painter who openly admits he has no regard for historical accuracy would probably be a bad idea. Many people have given Johnny a free pass because of his Native heritage, but I think that means we should hold him to a higher standard. If he is serious about honoring his ancestors and his past, he needs to realize that costuming Tonto like a fantasy Indian stereotype is not helping Native people, and his "intent" in the portrayal doesn't save him.

Johnny Depp might have thought his intent cleared him of any criticism. That we would stand back and say "well, he didn't mean to be offensive." or "his heart was in the right place." But that logic ignores the impact of his statements and his portrayal of Tonto. Think how many policies in Indian country were done by people with "good intentions," and how all that turned out for us. The impact here is that millions of people will see this film, and they will walk away with this inaccurate and stereotyped image of American Indians burned in their brains.

So if Johnny Depp is serious about wanting to "salute" Native peoples, I would urge him to start a major PR campaign, since it's presumably too late to change the costume. Admit your mistake, start a national dialogue about how American Indians are portrayed in film. Continue to support important Native causes (I hear Johnny has agreed to be the spokesperson for teen suicide prevention in Navajo?), and bring light to how issues of stereotyping are real and incredibly problematic. Because despite the best of intentions, these images continue to marginalize contemporary Native peoples, and no amount of face paint is going to hide that fact.

And if you're still not convinced this is even worthy of talking about, check out my earlier post: Why Tonto Matters.

Entertainment Weekly (they link to me, which is kinda exciting!): Johnny Depp reveals origins of Tonto makeup from 'The Lone Ranger'
Native Appropriations: Johnny Depp as Cultural Appropriation Jack Sparrow...I mean Tonto
Native Appropriations: Why Tonto Matters
Indian Country Today: Tontomania: Who are we'z anyways?
Guardian: Why I'm Willing to Believe in Johnny Depp's Tonto
Ryan McMahon gets angry episode 4: I Ain't Gettin On No Horse
Academic Article on Hollywood Stereotypes: The White Man's Indian: Stereotypes in Films and Beyond

Midweek Motivation: "Savage That", an awesome video by Dartmouth Natives

2012-04-18T11:49:00.000-04:00

I have a million things swimming in my head this week (I promise I'll write about some of them soon)--from the hideous Coachella headdress pics that keep popping up in my inbox, to those new Johnny Depp/Navajo pictures, to the water rights ish going down in Navajo, to this ridiculously racist kid's party...and sometimes I just need a little push to keep me going. This video, put together by Native students at Dartmouth, is an awesome example of how something simple can have a powerful message. It's stuff like this that helps me keep pushing back!

Dartmouth has had a long and frustrating history with their Indian mascot, and it's an issue that won't seem to go away, despite the best efforts of a strong campus Native community and alumni base. Since like 90% of my Native friends on the East Coast are Dartmouth Indians (I don't know how that happened...), I've heard firsthand plenty of stories of horrible ignorance about mascots and Indian issues on campus. Read some of the comments on the youtube video if you don't believe me.

UPDATE: I was just sent this article from The Dartmouth Review, which puts the youtube comments in context. Choice quote:

"First off, it trades on the idea that nicknames derived from American Indians are inherently offensive. This is a bit of a stretch, as just about every poll done on the matter has indicated that a significant majority of American Indians are completely fine with such nicknames or consider them an honor. A glance at the nicknames used at reservation high schools in my home state of South Dakota finds several tribal nicknames and even one school calling its teams the Redmen. While there is no need to doubt the legitimacy of the offense some take, it must be acknowledged that they are an aggrieved minority, and one can find an aggrieved minority for just about anything."

Um, no. Just no. They ARE inherently offensive. Those polls you cite have been shown to have sampling and bias issues. A "significant majority" of YOUR campus community is telling you that these mascots are offensive, and that should mean something. There are plenty of people in South Dakota fighting to change those school mascots, including the state school board (all the way back in 2001), and reservation high schools that don the Indian name are totally different. There's a difference between choosing how you represent yourself versus how outsiders represent you. That's called power, and why the whole "fighting Irish" argument doesn't hold up. And your last sentence is just patently dismissive and dripping with privilege.

So to those out there that think the Native students at Dartmouth are being "too sensitive" or should just "get over it"-- Native mascots are demeaning and offensive. Period. There is nothing "honoring" about them. They just serve to further marginalize and erase the presence of Native peoples. So "get over" your privilege and realize that these images are hurtful and wrong.

Keep up the great work guys, I know it took a lot of guts to put yourselves out there with this, and I hope the video will open the eyes of your classmates to their insensitivity and ignorance. I also encourage other schools dealing with Indian Mascot issues to think up their own ways of pushing back--and, as always, let me know!

A selection from my (many) posts on Indian Mascots:

The Fighting Sioux are back: Part 1 (the passionate plea) and Part 2 (the science behind why mascots are harmful)

Thanks for the severed head, you've proved my point
A reminder of why this blog exists: One reader's experience (A former Stanford Indian supporter)
The Stanford Indian: Then and now

and the link to the video:

Youtube: Savage That!

PS--Dartmouth folks, I'll see you at your powwow! (Stanny friends, don't hate me...)

(Thanks Autumn, Karenina, Meg, Stew, Preston, JesAnne, Laura, Mattie, and Taylor!)

Dear Native student who was just admitted to college

2012-04-09T12:03:00.000-04:00

AK Note: I’ve been working on this post for a while, but last week’s comment chain on this post on Jezebel stirred me into action. I’m so sick of the myth that it’s somehow “easier” for Native students get into college, or that the government pays for our whole education. These myths and stereotypes are harmful to Native students and are patently untrue. So I thought we should talk about it.

Dear Native High School Student who was just admitted to college,

First and foremost, congratulations! Yay! I can’t even convey in words how excited I am for you. You are making your family, your ancestors, your tribe, and your community proud. You’ve worked your butt off, putting your studies first, navigating a complex and confusing application process, making difficult choices along the way. After all those essays, standardized tests, and maybe an interview or two, you’ve done it, and I am so proud of you.

After all that work, you now get to reap the rewards. Revel in the excitement of your family, let your mom bring your admission letter to work, let your little brother wear your new college sweatshirt to school. Because you deserve the praise. I know it can feel weird sometimes, but I want you to realize that going to college is not a selfish choice. It’s a choice that will give you the means to give back to your community, and the broader Native community as well. You will have the power to shape the future of Indian Country, and that is the most decidedly un-selfish thing you can do.

But I wouldn’t be being truthful if I told you that things in the next few weeks or months won’t be hard. People may say things to you to try and diminish your accomplishments, and I want you to be prepared, but I also want you to know that they’re 100%, completely and totally, wrong.

When I got into my school, it was the happiest day of my entire life. I remember crying and jumping around my living room for what felt like hours, in complete disbelief that my dream since 5th grade had come true. But at my large, suburban, mostly white high school, others weren’t so kind. Though I had some amazing friends and teachers who supported me, the rumors started flying that I had “checked the Indian box” to “cheat the system” and get into school. My best friend told me “If I were I minority, I’d be going to your school too.” People gave me the side-eye and questioned if my admission was “legit”—while ignoring the other things like loads of AP classes, A’s, community service, and sports that might have, you know, helped. Suddenly, this girl who looked like them, talked like them, was “different,” and that wasn’t “fair.”

In all truthfulness, I went to college feeling like an imposter, having internalized all of these messages. I grew up so far away from my Native community, and had grown up with few Native influences in my life—by no fault of my own—so I thought my classmates must have been right. But from the moment I stepped onto my college campus, I made sure the Native community was a huge part of my life, volunteering at events, working at the Native center, listening, learning, and always giving back. By the end of my four years on campus, there was no question in my mind—I knew I belonged, and that my experience had given me the skills to keep learning, listening, and giving back to my own community, as well as a commitment to serve Native people and Native causes for the rest of my life.

After I graduated, I worked in undergraduate admissions, mostly because I wanted to help support and grow the college community that had given me so much. I was the Native recruiter--traveling out to communities, bouncing over rural dirt roads, presenting hundreds of times to students and families in VFW halls and HS auditoriums. Every year, I read mountains of applications and admitted amazing, talented, incredible Native students. And you know what? Not a single one of them was admitted simply because they were Native. I want to say that again. You were not admitted to college simply because you were Native. You were admitted because your special combination of talent, academics, extra curriculars, and personality was exactly what your college was looking for. Period.

In life, some people will throw around the term “Affirmative Action” like it’s a dirty word. To them, it means “some people” (ie minorities) get an “unfair advantage” in the admission process. Do you know how much “affirmative action” goes on in admissions offices that has nothing to do with race? Students of alumni (“legacies”), athletes, students from underrepresented states, children of wealthy donors, students from low income backgrounds, women interested in science and engineering, LGBT students, students with disabilities, students who have extraordinary talent in something…I could go on and on…they all get “special” consideration in the admissions process. The goal is to create a well-rounded class that represents many different perspectives, not to be able to say the class has X number of Native American students. You were not admitted to college simply because you are Native.

In addition, you as a Native student are in a different position than other students. Your background is not just a racialized one, but a political-social identity as well. You are a citizen (or descendant) of a tribal nation. A nation that is looking for future leaders, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and engineers. Your ancestors signed treaties that promised education for their people in exchange for land, and therefore you have a sovereign right to your education. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. By going to college, you’re directly contributing to the Nation Building of your tribe, building capacity for the future. And that is so incredibly awesome.

So it may be hard in the next few months, and even harder when you get to campus, to hear these messages from your classmates—especially when dealing with the other challenges that come with going away to college. But know that there is a huge, loving, supportive Native community out there holding you up and sending you prayers and good thoughts. There were many strong Native men and women who paved the path before you, and now it’s your turn to make the path even stronger for those behind you. But don’t be afraid to reach out if you need a little extra support—there is always someone willing to help, and needing a boost is not a sign of failure, it’s a sign of your commitment to success. You can do it. You’ll be amazing. I know it.

Much love,

Adrienne K.

Readers, tomorrow I’m going to post a compilation of advice/words of wisdom for college-admitted Native students I pulled from Twitter and FB last week. If you have thoughts you’d like to add, or your own personal story to share, email me, or feel free to comment below.

Earlier:
Words of Inspiration: Native High Schoolers' College Essays
Cal's Affirmative Action Bakesale: I want my free cookies

Another post on the topic:

Sociological Images: How Affirmative Action can undermine the confidence of students of color

Harvard "Lampoon Indians" vs. Harlem Globetrotters

2012-04-02T16:13:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Harvard, where we show extreme insensitivity toward members of our community in the name of humor! Tonight, members of the Harvard Lampoon, a student-run humor magazine that's been around since 1876, will be playing a game of basketball against the Harlem Globetrotters. The name the hilarious Lampoon-ites have chosen for their team? The Lampoon Indians.

The screenshot above is an email sent out to members of the undergrad community on Saturday, advertising tonight's game. We all know how I feel about the use of Indian Mascots in any capacity, and to some, this might seem like a minor battle and not worth it. But this event is taking place a block away from where I am sitting this very moment, and this, to me, is just another instance demonstrating how marginalized Native students are at Harvard.

My guess is the Lampoon chose the "Indians" to "honor" Harvard's past. Little known fact, but way back in the day, Harvard had an "Indian College" that was built for the express purpose of educating (and christianizing) young men from the local Native communities. It was also built cause the university was in a whole lotta financial trouble, and they knew that if they built the Indian College they could get cash money from the local missionary societies that so badly wanted to "save" the local "savages." True story. In the 1650 founding charter of the University, it even states the purpose of the university is "the education of the English & Indian Youth of this Country in knowledge: and godliness."

Today, in 2012, there is a solid Native community at Harvard and a Native program that supports students, but Native people still nearly invisible on campus and in the classroom. There are repeated instances of ignorance towards Natives at Harvard, some of which I've chronicled on the blog. I wrote about the Harvard chapter of Sigma Chi's "Conquistabros and Navajos" party, which to their credit, they apologized for, and my "Open Letter to Pocahotties and Indian Warriors this Halloween" was inspired by a conversation with Harvard undergrads. I've also shared some of my experiences in the classroom and the cafeteria. I have come to realize just how accepted and normalized these instances are in this community--as they are in most of the US and Canada--and that's simply unacceptable.

So back to the Lampoon. This is actually the second time they've donned the "Lampoon Indians" name, the first was in October 2011, when they played the Boston Bruins in a game of dodgeball (and got their asses kicked). In two minutes of perusing the Harvard Lampoon website, I found a couple of instances of outright disrespect towards Native people, which doesn't help their case if they decide to stick to the argument of "honoring" Native people. Remember friends, lighten up, cause these are supposed to be funny.

Instance #1: A piece entitled "A Guide for the Freshmen of This College, 1670 by JBO, '10." Please direct your attention to rule number 4, emphasis mine:

4. No freshman shall wear his hat in the College yard except when it rains, snows, or hails, or if he be on horseback and hath both hands full with corn, sow feed, or the like, or if he be whipping of his Indian.

OMG SO MANY LULZ!!!!

Instance #2: This whole story. I don't really get it. Though I'm just a dumb Indian, so what do I know? But I know the punchline is that they "kicked the crap" out of a "Cherokee Priest." Again, LOL!

This is where we get into a supposed conundrum-of-sorts. But where do we draw the line with humor? It's satire, it's supposed to be subversive and borderline offensive! Lighten up, it's just a joke! No one is safe from the jabs of the Lampoon, they're equal opportunity humorists! But the thing is, they're not. At least on their website, no other racial or ethnic group is mentioned in such a "satirical" way in their published stories. Just Indians.

So what does this have to do with the Lampoon calling themselves "Indians" tonight? It establishes a pattern. A pattern of "jokes" that I don't find funny.

So here's the letter I'll be sending them, along with a link to this post. The letter is admittedly not my most impassioned or well-reasoned, but I'm tired guys. It makes me so sad that this is how my fellow community members perceive me. If you're in the area tonight at 5pm, feel free to come by the game and tell them what you think.

Dear members of the Harvard Lampoon,

It has come to my attention that you have decided to use the team name "Lampoon Indians" tonight as you take on the Harlem Globetrotters. As a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and more importantly, a member of the Harvard community, I am respectfully asking you to change the name of your team for this evening.

I do not find the use of "Indian" as a mascot to be honoring of my culture or my community, in fact, I find the equating of my culture with animals or mythical creatures to be downright insulting. I have no idea if you plan to "dress up" as Indians or use any type of Native imagery to represent your team tonight, but the name in itself is bad enough.

I write a blog called Native Appropriations, where I examine representations of Native peoples in mass media and pop culture. I've written about the mascot issue many times, but most recently have covered the "Fighting Sioux" controversy here and here. I would encourage you to read those posts if you are still unsure of where you stand on the issue, or this post, written by a non-Native, which takes my arguments even further. I don't feel the need to re-argue those points here. The bottom line is that the use of Indian mascots stereotypes, demeans, and marginalizes Indigenous peoples, and has real effects on the psychological well being of Native students and community members.

To me, this is not an issue of humor or history, it is an issue of basic human decency. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and trust that you didn't mean to be offensive, but the intent of your choice and actions doesn't negate the impact these instances have on the well being of Native people in the Harvard community and beyond. I trust you'll make the right choice and change your team name for this evening. There are any number of names you can take that would give a nod to your Harvard roots while being actually funny, without marginalizing an entire race of people in the US.

I have also posted this letter on my blog, with more background information about the Lampoon and other instances of disrespect towards Natives on Harvard campus.

Best,
Adrienne K.

UPDATE 4/2: They apologized, and didn't even use the Indians name! I'm so used to my posts going off into the abyss or responses of anger/defensiveness, I stared at the email for a good minute or so before it sunk in. I seriously applaud their reaction , and we're going to set up a time to meet soon so we can chat more. It's a pretty great and all-too-rare feeling when things actually work out, isn't it? Their email is below:

Hi Adrienne,

Per your request, we decided not to use the team name Lampoon Indians. You were right: it wasn't us at our funniest. You were also right in that we did not mean to insult anyone. I apologize for any offense we caused you or any Native-American members of the Harvard community.

I would love the chance to talk to you more in depth about this. If you would like to have a dialogue, please feel free to call me at xxxxxx. Again, our apologies.

Sincerely,

<Pres of Lampoon>

Native Appropriations: The Fighting Sioux Are Back: My Passionate Plea against Indian Mascots
Native Appropriations: Indian Mascots Part 2: The Science

Harvard Lampoon: History/About
Harvard Lampoon: A Guide for the Freshmen of This College, 1670 by JBO, '10
Harvard Lampoon: Pet Cemetery by CAS '12

A Tribe Called Red: Powwow Step and social commentary for the masses

2012-03-27T15:14:00.000-04:00

Something super exciting happened at midnight last night. So exciting, in fact, that I just had to share it with all of you. I don't know about you, but my weekdays pretty much start out this way: Get up, head to my office, sit down at my computer, open A Tribe Called Red's soundcloud page, and then proceed with my day. Just me?

Well now you can have A Tribe Called Red on your very own computer--because last night at midnight they dropped their debut album, which is available for download here, FOR FREE. How awesome is that?

For those of you new to A Tribe Called Red, they describe themselves on their blog as creating "a never before heard sound made up of a wide variety of musical styles ranging from Hip-Hop, Dance Hall, Electronic, and their own mash-up of club and Pow Wow music, known as Pow Wow Step, that is quickly gaining respect from all kinds of communities from all around the world."

I've loved them since I read an interview back in Jan 2011 where they rail against hipster headdresses and mainstream representations of Natives. Some of my favorite quotes are below (both from DJ Bear Witness, though the other guys have great insights as well. I definitely recommend a read of the whole interview):

What is your goal when you sample images or references to indigenous people from Hollywood movies or pop songs?

Bear Witness: Reclaim, repurpose and reuse. I like to look past the automatic reaction to say these images are racist or stereotypes (which they are) and flip it around. We make these images our own. Taking away the power they have to harm us and reclaim it for ourselves. It’s like how we and many other young Native people like to wear things like the Cleveland Indians and Atlanta Braves logos. We have made these images our own.

Is it ever strange to bring music that samples traditional tribal music into a club setting?

Bear Witness: I’m a strong believer in the idea that culture and tradition are living, growing and changing things. We learn to understand our past to guide us into the future. I will always remember going to pow wows when I was a kid in the early ’80s, right around the time break dancing was getting really big. There were fancy dancers who were adding break dancing movies in with the pow wow steps and things like checkered bandannas to their regalia.

As someone who deeply cares about representations of Native people, I love how ATCR manages to reimagine what "Native" music sounds like, causing people to question their preconceived notions and stereotypes. They also are very aware of and respect cultural boundaries as well, striking a balance between wanting to be subversive and respecting tradition: “We want people to dance, so we use songs that are meant for people to dance to. We won’t use sacred songs, such as ‘honour’ or ‘grand entry’ songs, which aren’t even allowed to be recorded. We have way too much respect for the tradition to do that.”

They also did an awesome collaboration with the ethnomusicology lab at UCLA, where DJ Shub (Dan General) was able to work with some archival wax cylinder recordings of Cayuga tribal members. The song "General Generations" was the resulting track and can be found here, along with the story behind it. The scholar who worked with them also gives a great anecdote that I loved of not knowing how to address DJ NDN over email--"Dear Mr. NDN?"

Along with the music, images are a large part of ATCR's weekly "Electric Powwows" at clubs throughout Canada, and many of their music videos are mash ups of stereotypical images from movies and other sources, carefully selected to re-appropriate and reclaim them.

Basically, their music is amazing and I love it, but I love that the group members are so into social commentary and working against stereotypes and negative representations of Native people even more. It's like someone designed the perfect genre of music just for me! I thought this quote summed it up quite well: "A Tribe Called Red are more than just a music act; they are an audio-visual, cultural phenomenon."

But because I am who I am, of course this post can't be complete without some critical analysis of how ATCR has been portrayed by non-Native media outlets. I was ready and bracing myself for some of the usual racist BS, but was pleasantly surprised that the majority of the reviews of the group were great--highlighting the social activism and re-appropriation/reclaiming aspects of the group, as well as the popular appeal of the music.

But, one from MTV Iggy referred to "tribal drum circle music" and "sick tribal chanting," and this one in the National Post calls the sampled Northern Cree songs "high pitched aboriginal cries." Definitely a little exoticizing and othering, but in the grand scheme of things, not too bad?

TL;DR: Go download A Tribe Called Red's debut album. It's amazing, and you'll be glad you did.

Download the album above or right here: http://www.electricpowwow.com/

You can also find A Tribe Called Red on Facebook, Twitter, and their blog.

MTV IGGY Album Review: S/T by A Tribe Called Red
MTV IGGY Interview: Q&A With Powwowstep Pioneers A Tribe Called Red: “Ke$ha Must Have A Big Pair [Of Balls]”
UCLA Ethnomusicology Review: Notes on the Collaboration with A Tribe Called Red
National Post: A Tribe Called Red's Urban Powwow

Have you had your identity stolen? Great cartoon from Last Real Indians

2012-03-26T16:48:00.001-04:00

Just a quick post for today--I thought this image from LastRealIndians.com was great. The "hipster repellent" is definitely my favorite part. Also check out their site for some great critical essays about Native issues.

Are you following any interesting or important Native stories this week? Feel free to post in the comments!

Last Real Indians: Anti-Appropriation Cartoon

Why Tonto Matters

2012-03-16T15:38:00.002-04:00

It's been a week or so since the original photos of Johnny Depp as Tonto have surfaced, and the internet has been abuzz with Depp defenders and Depp defectors--and while the Native Appropriations community and my internet circle have been on the "oh dang, this is real bad for us" train, I've been surprised at how many people have basically told me and others with similar opinions to STFU and "get over it" (with also some more choice words than that...).
But I still stand by the fact that Tonto and his portrayal matter to Indian Country, and should matter to Indian Country. And here's why.

Defenders of Depp-as-rodeo-clown-Tonto's arguments basically boil down to the following: Tonto is a fictional character. The Lone Ranger is a fictional movie. Johnny Depp is a great actor. We should be glad to have him portray Tonto. No one thinks Tonto is representative of a real Indian. There are bigger things to worry about in Indian Country, this is so trivial it shouldn't even be an issue.

Here's the thing. Yeah, Tonto is a fictional character, and there are plenty of white actors and actresses who play fictional characters, and we don't automatically assume that white people are fictional, so it shouldn't matter, right? We saw Natalie Portman as an evil-crazy-swan-human in the Black Swan, and we don't assume that Natalie Portman's character is representative of her, or all white people, in real life. But that, my friend, is white privilege at work. Everyday we see millions of representations of white people in varied and diverse roles. We see white actors as "real" people, as "fantasy" characters, and everything in between.
But for Native people, the only images that the vast, vast majority of Americans see are stereotypical in nature. You go to the grocery store and see plenty of smiling white children on cereal boxes, contrasted with the only readily recognizable Native image--the Land o' Lakes butter girl. In advertising we see plenty of non-Native folks participating in everyday life, and then we get ads like this featuring Native people. There are also hardly any (if any) Native people in current, mainstream television shows. And this carries over even more strongly into Hollywood.

The last big blockbuster series to feature Native characters was the Twilight series, and we are portrayed as wolves. Think of every recent major studio film that featured a Native character or Native actor. All of the ones I can think of off the top of my head were set in a historical context, were a fantasy film, or were offensively stereotype laden. There have been so few accurate, modern, nuanced portrayals of Native people it's not even funny.

So, when we live in a world where there are other, more nuances portrayals of Native people for non-Natives to draw upon--when there are Native people featured in mainstream romantic comedies, dramas, sitcoms, even reality TV, or news--then, maybe, will I be able to be looking forward to a stereotypical mess of a Tonto on the big screen. But I doubt it.
Comedian Ryan Mcmahon has a fabulous podcast series called "Ryan McMahon Gets Angry", and he just did an awesome 5 minute rant on Johnny Depp as Tonto, and the responsibility we have as a community to question these representations. I can't recommend it enough (language slightly NSFW):

Here's a transcript of the end of his podcast:

So is Johnny Depp putting a bunch of Indians on the back of horses for this Lone Ranger Jerry Bruckheimer car crash gonna be good for us? Hell no. I’m not looking forward to it, I don’t think we should be happy about it, and I don’t think we should immediately go to that excited-happy-place everytime we see ourselves on TV. Because more oftentimes it hurts us more than helps us.

I think the time to take back our stories, to take back our pride, and to start empowering and helping each other to rise is the time that we’re in now. That’s what I look forward to, that’s what I’m trying to do, that’s what a whole bunch of other people are trying to do. Is Johnny Depp being on the back of a horse with a g*ddamn crow on the his head supposed to help us? Probably not. But it’s definitely not going to. So don’t get happy when you see four or five other brothers sitting on the back of a horse in their loincloth. Don’t be surprised, don’t be happy about it, don’t celebrate it, cause it’s bullsh*t. The time to reclaim, recapture, redefine, our own stories, in our own ways is now, and g*ddammit we gotta do more of it. Demand more from the producers, demand more of the television people, demand more from the people who are writing these stories. Because the stories are there. We are strong, proud people, and we need to be represented, by ourselves, as such.

I couldn't agree more. There are several sub-arguments that I've seen in the last few days, citing how many Native actors would miss out on work as extras if this movie weren't made, or how Johnny Depp's "star power" was needed to get the film made in the first place. Those arguments are upsetting to me. We need to demand more. We can't be complacent with just going to that "excited-happy-place" every time we see any representation of an Indian on screen. We can't be thankful that 50 Native actors are able to ride around bareback in the background of a film, or be psyched that a big name Hollywood actor put a crow on his head to "honor" us--talk about ongoing colonization of the mind. Our community is so much better than that. We are worth so much more than background roles and misrepresentations.
Ryan also said something that resonated with me beyond this issue alone, quoting his grandmother:

Everything you do, grandson, is going to be political because you’re Anishinabe.

The way we represent ourselves is, therefore, inherently political. These "trivial" issues are representative of deeper, darker, larger issues within Indian Country. For those who live in predominantly Native communities, fighting against cultural appropriation and misrepresentation may seem like the cause of a privileged few who can sit in their ivory towers and point fingers all day, ignoring the "real" issues in Indian Country. I've said it many times before, and I'll say it as many times as I can until it sticks:

Yes, unequivocally, we have big things to tackle in Indian Country. We have pressing and dire issues that are taking the lives of our men and women everyday, and I am in absolutely no way minimizing this reality. But we also live in a state of active colonialism. In order to justify the genocide against Native peoples in this country, we must be painted as inferior--that's the colonial game. These images continue that process. The dominant culture therefore continues to marginalize our peoples, to ignore and erase our existence. We are taught everyday, explicitly in classrooms, and implicitly through messages from the media, that our cultures are something of the past, something that exists in negative contrast to "western" values, and something that can be commodified and enjoyed by anyone with $20 to buy a cheap plastic headdress. These stereotypical images like Johnny Depp's Tonto feed into this ongoing cycle, and until we demand more, our contemporary existence (and therefore the "real" problems in Indian Country) simply doesn't exist in the minds of the dominant culture.

How can we expect mainstream support for sovereignty, self-determination, Nation Building, tribally-controlled education, health care, and jobs when the 90% of Americans only view Native people as one-dimensional stereotypes, situated in the historic past, or even worse, situated in their imaginations? I argue that we can't--and that, to me, is why Tonto matters.

Earlier:
Native Appropriations: Johnny Depp as Cultural Appropriation Jack Sparrow...I mean Tonto.

Further background reading:

If you want to read Ray Cook call me out and tell me that my writing is "So much hog-wash, so much wasted cyber-space, so much wasted oxygen" (awesome!): Tontomania: Who are we'z anyways?

Guardian: Why I'm Willing to Believe in Johnny Depp's Tonto

Reel Injun (documentary about stereotyping of Indians in Hollywood): http://www.reelinjunthemovie.com/site/

Academic Article on Hollywood Stereotypes: The White Man's Indian: Stereotypes in Films and Beyond

Ryan McMahon gets angry episode 4: I Ain't Gettin On No Horse

PS- There are other things that I think need to be addressed with the controversy, but I didn't have space here. The issue of Depp being "Indian enough" is a big one, or what "Indian enough" even means, or the historical accuracy of his costume, or the role of Native people in the film overall. I'd recommend a read through the comments on my first post for some great, interesting, and intelligent conversations.

EDIT 3/20--I switched out the cartoon at the top of the post because of my complete ignorance to the homophobic undertones to the original. My deepest apologies to the LGBTQ community for using an insensitive image, it was definitely not my intention to marginalize anyone. I definitely try to be aware of when my hetero/cis privilege comes out--so please continue to call me out on it, and I'll definitely do better moving forward. Wado!

Johnny Depp as Cultural Appropriation Jack Sparrow...I mean Tonto.

2012-03-08T14:29:00.000-05:00

Entertainment Weekly just posted the "first look" of Johnny Depp as Tonto in the new Lone Ranger movie. I'm really at a loss for words right now. I...can't.

There was a bunch of controversy over the casting of Johnny Depp to begin with--and I was right on board, mad that they hadn't cast a Native actor in the role. The Johnny defenders note that he has Indian heritage that he's proud of...so proud that he says it probably started with a rape:

“The interesting thing, if you find out you’ve got Native American blood, which a lot of people do, is you think about where it comes from and go back and read the great books, Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee or [John Ehle's] Trail of Tears, you have to think, somewhere along the line, I’m the product of some horrific rape. You just have that little sliver in your chemical makeup.”

and this:

"I guess I have some Native American (in me) somewhere down the line. My great grandmother was quite a bit of Native American, she grew up Cherokee or maybe Creek Indian. Makes sense in terms of coming from Kentucky, which is rife with Cherokee and Creek."

That's a whole 'nother post. But I think it gives you some context as to how "connected" and "proud" Johnny is of his ancestry. Always the Cherokee great-grandma, amiright?

Every article since the casting decision has stressed how this version of the Lone Ranger is going to be much more about Tonto, and he's going to be given a bigger role, and that Depp hopes to "reinvent" the relationship between the two characters:

"When the idea came up [for the movie], I started thinking about Tonto and what could be done in my own small way try to — ‘eliminate’ isn’t possible — but reinvent the relationship, to attempt to take some of the ugliness thrown on the Native Americans, not only in The Lone Ranger, but the way Indians were treated throughout history of cinema, and turn it on its head.”

If this horrific image is "an attempt to take some of the ugliness thrown on the Native Americans...and turn it on it's head", I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

He looks like they just took the Captain Jack Sparrow costume and removed the pirate hat, put a bird on it, and added some menacing facepaint.Or wait, they already did that:

(Pirates 2)

(Lone Ranger)

The Tonto costume is a mish-mash of stereotypical Indian garb, a Plains-style breastplate with a southwest-style headband (minus the effing bird), random feathers and beads--but the face paint that makes him look evil, forlorn, and angry all at once is a nice touch. Then, the fact that the publicity photo shows the "wild" and "unruly" (ok, I'll say it, "savage") Tonto behind the clean, polished, (and white) Lone Ranger is a great "honoring" to Native people too, and shows how much agency Tonto has, right? (/sarcasm)

You guys, I'm pissed off. Like for real. I had a teensy-tiny bit of hope that this wouldn't be another othering-stereotype-filled-horror, but clearly I was so wrong. This movie has a budget of like $215 million. That big of a budget, and you couldn't have hired a Native consultant, or shoot--even asked a Native person from the community you're purporting to represent (Tonto's Apache, right?) what the character should look like?

Yeah, I know this is *fiction* I know it's not supposed to be *real*--but 99% of audiences aren't able to separate images like this on the screen from real, live, Native peoples. History and every other stereotypical hollywood portrayal has taught us that.

But if the movie comes out and I am totally, totally wrong. I'm prepared to eat crow. Starting with that hideous one on Johnny's head.

Entertainment Weekly: Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer as Tonto and The Lone Ranger -- FIRST LOOK
Entertainment Weekly: Johnny Depp wants 'The Lone Ranger' to back off Tonto: 'Why is the f–––ing Lone Ranger telling Tonto what to do?'

(Thanks @deluxvivens!)

Update on ANTM: Mariah's gone, but Nigel might have learned something

2012-03-08T12:12:00.000-05:00

Mariah Watchman got voted off American's Next Top Model last night. Sadface, right? We didn't even have a chance to see how many racial microaggressions she would have to endure over the course of the season! I haven't watched the episode, but Indian Country Today did a quick recap here, if you're interested. But I have something more interesting to share.

Last night I was perusing twitter as the show was on, and truly just by chance caught this convo between a reader of Native Approps and Nigel Barker himself:

Her next tweet was a link to my ANTM post from a few days ago:

I decided to screenshot the whole thing so I could share on Facebook, and I'm glad I did, because magically this morning, all of Nigel's tweets had been deleted. Does that mean Nigel *read* my post? And maybe learned something about how his behavior and the choices of the show were incredibly insensitive? I really, really hope so. Or he could have acted out of embarrassment.

Either way, kinda interesting, right? I'll tweet this post to him and see if he responds--though I'm not holding my breath.

Oh, and Nigel, if you read this, I'm a little sorry I said I wanted to throw my remote at your face in the other post. I'm usually a pacifist.

If you missed the original break down of ANTM:
Oh ANTM, where do I even start?: Mariah Watchman and the Pocahontas controversy

Indian Country Today: Mariah Watchmen makes early exit from America's Next Top Model

Nigel's Twitter: @NigelBarker

(Thanks Kelly!)

Ishi: the Last of the Yahi: A UC Berkeley Production that Perpetuates Gross Violences Against Native Peoples

2012-03-07T12:43:00.000-05:00

(Program and ticket from the play "Ishi: The Last of the Yahi. Above the ticket, notice the word "Squaw." Also, note the pins thrust into Ishi's body as if he were in an insect collection.)

AK Note: Please welcome guest blogger Tria Andrews. Tria is a mixed race Cherokee, Irish, and Filipina writer who has published critical essays, fiction, poetry, and photography. She is a graduate of the MFA program in Fiction from San Diego State University, a Shinnyo Fellow, and a PhD student in Ethnic Studies at UC Berkeley, where she teaches Asian American and Native American Studies. Her current research examines culturally relevant forms of rehabilitation for Native American youth in juvenile detention centers located on tribal grounds. This research is informed by over five years of tutoring and teaching yoga to incarcerated adolescents.

This past weekend marked two events held at UC Berkeley which presented conflicting representations of the violences that have occurred against Native peoples in the U.S. In her keynote address for the Empowering Women of Color Conference, “On Revolution: A Conversation Between Grace Lee Boggs and Angela Davis,” Davis foregrounded her talk by emphasizing, “I would like to begin by acknowledging the indigenous people, who are the original inhabitants of the land on which we meet. . . . And let us never forget that our presence here is very much related to the genocidal violence inflicted on this area’s Native people, and if we believe in justice, we must stand for justice for Native people in the 21st century.”

In contrast, the play, Ishi: The Last of the Yahi, which opened March 2, attempts to justify the gross violences committed against Native peoples through its portrayal of Ishi as a batterer, murderer, and rapist. While arguably the production evidences some meager attempts to provide a more nuanced version of history, ultimately, the play endeavors to erase not only Ishi, but also all Native peoples, who through the production’s monolithic representation of Native Americans are conflated with the Yahi. When the play is not depicting Native peoples as extinct, it suggests that Native Americans are not “survivors” or “victims,” but instead, were asking for it: “Maybe Manifest Destiny was a two-way street.”

Manifest Destiny was certainly not a two-way street; it was a colonial policy aimed at annihilating Native peoples, traditions, and cultures and usurping Native Americans of their lands in the name of “progress.” The attempts of dominant discourses to render Native peoples extinct to justify the continued occupation of Native lands is unfortunately one reason that Ishi may be a compelling story for non-Native audiences. The dominant and Non-native archive, which was utilized for the production, “a work of fiction based on fact,” perpetuates a tiresome story told from the point of view of the aggressor. Despite the fact that Native peoples associated with UC Berkeley have been addressing the complexities of Ishi's story, it appears that no Native Americans were consulted for the play. Given the exploitative and dehumanizing relationship of UC Berkeley with Native populations in the past, the university has been working hard to repair the relationship that the institution has with Native peoples. However, the play seems completely oblivious to these activities and the important work that Native activists have been doing to seek restitution and reconciliation. Instead, the play causes further violences to Ishi and Native communities.

While the play pretends to present disparate and diverse versions of history—to speak from Ishi’s perspective—in truth, the production is about the European-American characters going native. Going native, as defined by Native scholar and UC Berkeley Professor, Shari Huhndorf, is a trope aimed at alleviating White guilt regarding the violent founding of the nation while simultaneously reinforcing White supremacy. While constructed around the character of Ishi, whose image is exploited on the production’s brochure, the protagonist of the play is in fact Dr. Alfred Kroeber, the primary anthropologist who studied Ishi. By purporting to be a play about the last of the Yahi (underscored by the play’s title), the production diminishes White guilt by representing Native peoples as extinct and Whites as the rightful owners of the land. In the falling action of the play, Ishi’s ghost—after his body is dismembered and dispersed throughout numerous institutions in the U.S. against his wishes—rises from the dead and assumes the third person plural, “we.” Here, Ishi’s adoption of “we” endeavors to downplay the violences against Native peoples, which the play in fact fetishizes. In other words, after his death, Ishi supposedly becomes a White man and in doing so, attempts to warrant the dispossession of Native peoples from their land.

While the play’s concluding characterization of Ishi as a European-American commits yet another horrific act of violence against Ishi, unfortunately, the play also fetishizes violence to Native characters’ bodies—or the bodies or non-Native actors playing Indian. The opening scene reveals a Native man in a loincloth who is chased by a White man wielding a gun. The White man is starving and intends to murder and eat the Indian. This action takes place both center stage and off stage as the actors circle the audience and whoop. One character warns another not to “pollute the [Indian’s] flesh with bullets.” These scenes of gruesome violence are staged as spectacle and rationalized in the narrative. Three White men brutally murder an Indian man, whose death the audience witnesses in scene. The Indian is beaten, tied to a stake, knifed, and finally, set on fire. This dramatization of violence, like others throughout the play, is accompanied by the bloodcurdling screams of the Indian characters. At one point in the play, while European-American characters are brutally beating an Indian, an image of a White woman wrested by two Native men is projected center stage to seemingly justify the violence committed against the Indian. As the play makes clear, the violences against Native peoples continue postmortem as Native remains are stored in museums and universities, such as UC Berkeley, which currently houses 12,000 human skeletons. However, the production commits even further violences. Through Ishi’s perspective, Native remains are labeled “evil," and the housing of these bodies in museums and institutions is presented as an unavoidable and resolved circumstance, which is certainly not the case given the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Ishi in 1914

Considering the immense violences that Native peoples—and in particular Native women—continue to endure from non-Natives, violent scenes, which are unsparingly utilized in the performance, reveal disgusting and insulting displays of ignorance. European-American men and Ishi himself beat and threaten Native women or “squaw[s]” as the cast list derogatorily refers to one of the female characters. In the play, Native women, unlike their European-American counterparts (with the exception of Dr. Saxton Pope, M.D. who goes native, donning a two piece buckskin ensemble while simulating masturbation), are not only sexualized, but also beaten and raped. The depiction of Native American women as promiscuous, their bodies, like the land, seducing European-Americans, is yet another racist trope that the production cannot resist. Ishi’s narrative, which the main characters expend most of the play attempting to extract from Ishi, is presented in two versions, both of which render a Yahi woman, Ishi’s sister, as incestuous, murderous, and inherently rapeable. Rape, as Cherokee activist and writer Andrea Smith highlights, is a tool of conquest. Yet, the production portrays Native men as rapists and Native women as enjoying their violability because of their cultural upbringing: “Copulate and rape are not different words in Yahi.” This Western, patriarchal portrayal of violence against Yahi’s sister, who revels in her own rape so much so that she seeks out her rapist—also her parents’ murderer—as a lover and father for her child, is absolutely inexcusable. Yet another irresponsible scene conflates violence with sexuality as Ishi is positioned behind his sister in a manner that suggests intercourse while the two work together to commit infanticide. To add insult to injury, the production completely misrepresents Native conceptions of “balance” or harmony, insisting, “There’s balance in all [Ishi’s] stories.”

But in Ishi: The Last of the Yahi, Ishi’s so-called stories are not his own. They are stories of Ishi narrated through a Western lens. I could continue by citing the multiple violences against Ishi and Native peoples that the play commits and which I have not yet specified: unproblematizing privilege and power dynamics; portraying Ishi as childlike, savage, and subordinate; reinforcing racial and gender binaries, etc., but I want to conclude in a way that is more useful.

As a mixed race (Cherokee, Irish, and Filipina) woman, who identifies as indigenous and who was required to watch this production for a class, I want the director, cast, and crew to try to understand what it was like to be a Native person in the audience. The jolt sent up my spine when I read word “squaw” in the cast list, the knot that took root in my stomach and held while I witnessed the gunning down of an Indian in the opening scene, the stiffening of my shoulders when I was surrounded by staged violence accompanied by the villainous laughter and whoops of European-American characters in a play that professes to treat the history of our nation and the mass murdering of Native peoples as “gray matter.” It would have been impossible for me to sit through the play without writing back to it. Within the first few minutes, I began taking notes on my checkbook—the only paper I had. Although I wanted to leave the theater almost immediately, was determined to leave at intermission, a friend and former journalist convinced me a review would have more credibility if I watched the entire production.

Recommendations:

All that I have written here, I write without hesitation. I write what I witnessed and what I feel and know with all my being to be true. I understand that long hours and hard work were required to make a production such as Ishi: The Last of the Yahi, but because of the gross violences that this production perpetuates against Native peoples, I recommend that all further performances be canceled in order to create the time and space necessary for a dialog among Native peoples, the play's director and writer, John Fisher, his cast, crew, and the campus community. If at an institution such as UC Berkeley we are truly committed to diversity and learning, I see no other alternative.

Please sign the petition to cancel the remaining performances here.

You can also email the Director, John Fisher at jofish94117@yahoo.com.

(Thanks Kayla and Tria!)

Thunderbird Energetica: When good intentions go wrong

2012-03-06T00:59:00.002-05:00

I almost feel a little bad writing this post. Because in doing so, I know everything I'm saying is going to come as a big shock to the owners of this company. I know that they think their intentions are pure and their heart is in the right place, and that they think through their own brand of hipster hippy humor they're immune to criticism. I'm pretty sure we've got another Yay Life Tribe or Spirit Hoods on our hands--This is a company that is clearly the heart and soul of the founders, that strives to do good in the world, and is just so earnest in doing so--that they've been blinded to how hurtful their imagery and representations of Native culture are. So Thunderbird Energetica, I'm sorry, but I'm about to tear apart everything you hold dear. And I do feel bad about it. I do.

So what is Thunderbird Energetica? It's a small "artisan energy bar company committed to producing powerful sources of human fuel." Every bar is handmade, they use "real" ingredients, and even the wrappers are biodegradable. Cool. I'm on board with that. They also are super into supporting athletes--runners, bikers, triathalon-ers, etc. Also fine. So, if that's where the story stopped, I'd be happy to hop on by my local natural foods store and buy a few bars.

But as you can tell from the image at the top of this post, the entire company is imbued with Native cultural appropriation--running so deep that several Native Approps FB readers thought the entire site was a work of satire. Ready? Here's the "origin" of the company:

As night fell, a lightning storm looming on the horizon provided the fireworks that further sparked our imaginations. We interpreted this moment as a sign, a metaphor, for what we captured in our energy bar. Raw, organic power and a simple, yet finely balanced force; an entire energy system designed to bring life and romance to an otherwise harsh and punishing environment. We had been touched by the Thunderbird and everything that it represents.

Um, right.

There's truly too much for me to unpack every layer in one post, so I'm going to send you off to various parts of their website.

The profiles of the founders each include a section on their "Spirit Animal"--Catamount, Jaguar, and White-Tail, respectively. You can find these profiles by clicking on "Tribe" at the top of the page, and then "Creators" (not kidding). "Jaguar", also known as Taylor Thunder, the founder listed (until tonight--more on that later) "Native Americans" among his "Inspirations." It now reads something about his dog. Who is named "Lakota," btw.

Then I took a little time to explore their blog. A few things. They love their Moms and Dads. Cute. They support a lot of races. cool. They hired a designer named "Sprinting White Horse". Wait, what?

Yeah. "Sprinting White Horse"--"Jed Rogers (christian name)" found his spirit animal through an "intense sweat lodge experience". Read the whole thing here, it gets even more ridiculous. I get it. It's a joke (oh please jeebus let it be a joke), but the trivializing of Native spiritual practices and sacred naming ceremonies does not strike me as funny. Here you go:

In order to design the perfect Thunderbird logo, Jed Rogers (christian name) left his native land of Austin, TX to partake in a month long sweat lodge experience in the remote desert plains of New Mexico. While exposing his sculpted body to temperatures above 140 degrees, Jed partook in intense week long meditation sessions while fasting. After 2 weeks of deprivation and searching deep into his soul, Jed experienced his first hallucination. He saw himself as a hawk soaring high into the stratosphere looking down at the meek earth. Miles beneath his feathered quads, Jed saw a wild stallion. Of course this stallion was sprinting and Jed was intrigued. He flew down to take a closer look at the magnificent beast and he quickly realized that he shared many of the same stunning physical characteristics. Huge vein filled legs, beautiful white teeth, and an affinity for traveling faster than most terrestrial animals. Jed had discovered his spirit animal!

Next, their racing kits. They sell a package where you can "join the tribe" and wear their company branded outfits. It comes with a contract, seen below (click to make it bigger):

Some choice phrases: "Congratulations on your admittance into the Thunderbird Tribe. Your life is going to improve exponentially after donning the sacred colors of the Thunderbird Nation. Be prepared to transcend time and space as you begin a magical journey into manhood/womanhood/tribeshood." They call it a "sacred treaty", but it's supposed to be "funny". Rules include saluting to buffalo and looking for your spirit animal.

There's plenty more. They have a whole post about "spirit animals":

Thunderbird Energetica is the only energy bar company to harvest the mystical powers of spirit animals during the fabrication and design of our product. Not only do the owners of our company have intimate relationships with their respective spirit animals, but each one of our bars has its own power animal.

They recommend this book on "spirit animals":

Looks totes legit! Real Native, right there.

They also had (again, until tonight) a blog post about how all their bars were "shaman blessed," but the url (http://thunderbirdenergetica.com/thunderbird-is-shaman-blessed) now leads to an error page. I can only vaguely remember what it said--but they had some dude who came to the offices to bless the packages before they went out.

So, as you can tell by the subtle changes currently going on on the website, I posted this on the Native Appropriations facebook page earlier today, and readers had some less-than-nice words for the company. I commend Thunderbird for taking action to try and make their stuff less offensive, and clearly by editing it shows they've been made aware. But not totally aware, because a few readers sent them emails, and got variations on this response:

Im sorry you interpreted what we are doing as offensive. That is unfortunate. We have nothing but respect and honor for all indigenous tribes and cultures globally. I myself have deep Lakota Sioux roots that I am very proud of! So proud that I chose to start an energy bar company that would reflect that. The way I select to express my freedom of expression and speech is my conscious choice and perhaps it is too light hearted for your taste. Once again, never meant to offend you. Obviously you don't understand my positioning and that is ok... We are all different and due to that diversity we express ourselves differently. You still have to respect that idea and the freedom of creativity.

Taylor
Sent from double rainbow machine

Ok. So now that we've established just what is so offensive, and how the company is choosing to respond, I'm going to structure my critique in an open letter format, cause I like doing it that way, ok?

Dear Taylor and the staff of Thunderbird Energetica,

I think you may have gotten more than a few angry emails from readers of Native Appropriations today, so I wanted to take some time to tell you why exactly it is we're so upset by the way that you've chosen to market your company. First of all, so you know about me, I write a blog where I examine representations of Native peoples. Day in and day out, readers and I look at egregious examples of cultural theft, misrepresentations, and stereotypes, and I break down how these images are hurtful and contribute to the continued oppression of contemporary Native peoples. Unfortunately, your company and your language falls right in line with these examples of cultural appropriation.

I get that most of your website is tongue-in-cheek, that it's supposed to be funny, poking fun at a culture of hippy-dippy health food nuts. I understand what you're attempting with your writing, because that hyperbole and exaggeration are rhetorical devices I employ all the time on the blog as well. But the examples I've pulled out above, like the "spirit animals," the fake-Indian-naming, the use of the term "tribe," and the overall co-opting of Native American spirituality are upsetting and hurtful to me and other Native people.

First of all, your images and language collapse hundreds and hundreds of distinct tribes and traditions into a generic new-age Native stereotype. We don't all participate in sweat lodge ceremonies, we don't have "spirit animals," very few of us have names that follow the extremely stereotypical "adjective+animal" format. The website perpetuates stereotypes that you may see as "positive"--Native peoples as stewards of the land, connected to nature, mystical, magical, special--but even these stereotypes are harmful because they relegate us to a mystical, fictional creature that exists in the past, not allowing Native people to exist as a modern, heterogeneous population that lives in the same world you do.

Taylor, you say that you have "Lakota Sioux roots," and that's great. But if you explored those roots a little more, you would learn that until 1978, American Indians couldn't even legally practice our spirituality that you so openly appropriate--sweat lodges, naming ceremonies, "vision quests"--all illegal. That is why it hurts many of us so deeply when we see these practices being appropriated or mocked. If you wanted to form a company that "reflects" your roots, I'm pretty sure your Lakota elders would not have told you to rely on stereotypes.

I also struggle with your use of the term "Thunderbird tribe" and "Thunderbird nation." Our American Indian tribes are sovereign nations within the United States. We have tribal governments that deal with the US government on a Nation-to-Nation basis. Our nations are strong and proud, and have existed long before the United States. They are not something that can be created from wearing a spandex outfit and signing a joke contract (don't even get me started on calling it a "sacred treaty"). To call yourself a "tribe" and a "nation" trivializes the 500+ years that we have been fighting against colonization and fighting to keep our tribal rights.

Finally, Taylor, your apology, or lack thereof. I totally get that this was all a big shock, and you've put a lot into this company to have some angry-Native-people-who-can't-take-a-joke try and take that away. But your apology is pretty much a text book response to this type of thing, so much so that I almost laughed. Read this, if you don't believe me. We're not interpreting this as offensive, it is offensive. It's not honoring to have someone make a mockery of your culture, traditions, and spirituality. I don't find it respectful when someone makes light of the insurmountable loss of land and life from broken treaties, or basically tells me that I can't take a joke, when the joke is at the expense of my culture.

You have "freedom of speech and expression," yes. But for those who identify with the majority culture, you have most of those freedoms because of a system of privileges afforded to you simply because of the color of your skin and your position in society. You can turn on a tv, open a magazine, walk down the street, and see millions of images that reflect and affirm your life, your culture, and others like you. Native people don't have such a privilege. The only images and representations we see are those created by outside forces, most of which, like your company, are stereotypes that don't reflect or affirm the true nature of our cultures at all.

So your company is not "too light hearted for [our] taste," and we can take a joke. But I'm sorry, I don't find this funny. While on the surface, you may feel that your company has been unfairly targeted, or there are worse things that I should be going after, or that I should get a life and go fix something important--can I ask you one question? Did you even ask one Native person if your approach was ok? You know, the people you're trying to honor?

This is all actually a surprisingly easy fix. Your company could be awesome. You're a small, family-run, sustainable, organic-gluten-wheat-free-biodegradable-all-that-fun-stuff energy bar company. I support that mission. Just remove the Native imagery, get rid of the cultural appropriation. Change your website, re-brand, and you'll be way more successful without 2% of the US population mad at you. Really.

Overwhelmed? Upset? I know how you feel.

Thanks for listening,

Adrienne K.

Thunderbird Energetica Homepage
Thunderbird Energetica Facebook
Thunderbirt Energetica Twitter

Earlier Posts (You may want to read these to see how others have dealt with this--though I wouldn't say they're shining examples):

The Privilege of the Yay Life Tribe
Oh Spirit Hoods

EDIT 3/6: I clarified the language in the "white privilege" paragraph and took down the owner's picture. Definitely want to make clear this is not about identity politics--it's about images and representation.

(Thanks Anita!)

Oh ANTM, where do I even start?: Mariah Watchman and the Pocahontas controversy

2012-03-02T16:59:00.000-05:00

This is not a post hating on Mariah Watchman, America's Next Top Model's very first Native contestant. At all. I'm so excited she's on the show, and proud that she's representing for all of Indian Country. Mariah is from the Umatilla rez in Oregon, but is also Ojibwe, Modoc, and Mandan, and seems pretty down-to-earth and awesome. This is much more about the show itself, and the messages it sends us about society at large.

The premise of this season of ANTM is a competition between British models and American models (they're scraping the bottom of the barrel after 18 seasons to keep it interesting, I guess), and on the first episode, the models were paired in what was termed a "Culture Clash"--one model from the US and one from the UK, each representing an "iconic figure from [their] individual country." Ok, fair enough.

So here were the pairings:

George Washington vs. Queen Elizabeth
Janet Jackson vs. Scary Spice
Madonna vs. Elton John
Michelle Obama vs. Margaret Thatcher
Andy Warhol vs. Amy Winehouse
Jackie O vs. Princess Diana

and, finally...

Pocahontas vs. John Lennon

Any guesses as to who they made portray Pocahontas? Yeah. Mariah. Her response (on the show) to the choice:

"Me representing Native Americans, I mean who else better for me to get than Pocahontas? But I'm also nervous, because she's Pocahontas, and that's a lot to live up to."

She went on the record with an interview with her hometown newspaper discussing the choice as well (which was a choice of the producers, not her own), saying:

“As soon as I heard what the competition was, I knew that’s who I would be. I was completely fine with it. There’s no one else I’d want more to portray. It’s someone everybody knows.”

I think this is completely a reflection of the sad, sad state of our society if a proud Native woman feels the only "iconic figure" that "everyone knows" of her race is a 12 year old who was famous for "saving" and marrying an old white dude, and then becoming a Disney character. Awesome.

The choice of the producers to have her portray "Pocahontas" is straight up offensive too. Let's pigeonhole the only Native contestant by forcing her to don an extremely stereotypical outfit and be an Indian. The thing that stood out to me was that Mariah was cast into a race-based role, while the other pairings had plenty of (relatively progressive) race-bending. George Washington, Elton John, Jackie O, and John Lennon (all white) were portrayed by models of color, which I thought was kinda cool. But, because Mariah's heritage is her "exotic" selling point for the show, the producers felt the need to exploit it.

Then the outfit they put on her. Oh the outfit. It looks like they bought it straight off the pocahottie halloween page--fake buckskin, primary colored feathers, plains-style beading and designs, braids in her hair. And, the kicker, a tomahawk. Yes, a tomahawk. History lesson, ANTM: Pocahontas was from Virginia, and none of those stereotypes apply to her people. So basically they did what everyone seems to do when they want to "honor" Indians--drew upon every Hollywood Indian stereotype without any regard for historical accuracy, regionality, or how effing racist it is to make the only Native girl basically dress up in blackface. (I'm ready for the angry comments about that last part)

But during the judging I wanted to throw my remote at Nigel Barker's face. Here's the final picture:

It's fine. There were others that were much worse (it's the first episode!). But Nigel, with all his infinite wisdom, said this:

"First of all Mariah, I think you had a very easy thing to do. You're Native American? (She nods) But I don't feel that you've committed. I just don't see the angst, I don't see the feeling, I don't see the passion. I just see you looking pretty."

Dear Nigel, I'm sorry that Mariah did not live up to your stereotyped images of what a Native person should be, I'm pretty sure she was doing her best while dressed in a fake-ass outfit that trivializes and stereotypes her culture. So Native people/a 12 year old Powhatan girl are supposed to portray "angst", and "passion"? Do you realize how ludicrous your statements are? She's somehow supposed to be "better" at playing a fictionalized historic figure because she happens to be the same race? None of the other critiques mentioned anything about the model's race. They didn't tell the girl playing Michelle Obama that she could have done better because she happens to be black, and Michelle Obama is black, so why didn't you channel your inner sassy black first lady?

It's just so frustrating. The only lens that millions of viewers of ANTM have to view us (Natives) through is that of stereotypes and false representations--even when faced with a, living, breathing counter-narrative to those stereotypes in Mariah. An educated, reservation-raised, Sahaptin language-speaking Native woman who doesn't walk around in buckskin and braids, but is still Native (and proud!).

I sure hope this start doesn't reflect how the rest of the season will go. To her credit, Mariah is taking it all in stride, and wants to use her new celebrity to give back to Indian Country, and tried to represent Native peoples in a positive light on the show:

"I felt I couldn't be crazy or nonchalant about things because I had a whole people on my shoulders," she said. "I had higher expectations for myself. I wasn't going to go and be crazy and disrespect people because for Native Americans one of the hugest things is respect."

and

"Native Americans haven't had anybody in the celebrity industry," she said. "There have been a few native actors – Adam Beach, Irene Bedard – but there's never been a native so high up in the fashion industry who's looked at on a celebrity level. People don't want to listen to you unless you come from a place of power. There are a lot of improvements across Indian country that can be made. I want to start helping out and being a factor."

Finally, one image that did make me proud, here she is rockin her medallion during the panel judging:

So, thanks ANTM for showing us, once again, how deeply stereotypes and erasure of Native people run in our national narrative.

Bon Iver's "Towers": A "Tribute to Native American Preservation Land"?

2012-02-29T01:19:00.000-05:00

It's been a while since we've had an all-out Native Approps Adrienne K. rant against something on the blog. Actually, it's been a while since we've had anything on the blog. So I hope you're ready, cause it's well after midnight, and I'm ready to rail on some stupid language choices, powers of representation, and claims of "honoring."

Bon Iver released his third video today for his song "Towers." Now, I don't claim to have any knowledge of Bon Iver before Justin Timberlake's awesome impression on SNL--so please, Bon Iver fans, if I'm somehow "missing the point," bring it on.

To start, here's the video. It has a high production value, some beautiful, beautiful scenery and camera angles, and a lovely soundtrack of mumbling falsetto, if you're into that.

Bon Iver - Towers (Official Music Video) from Bon Iver on Vimeo.

Nothing inherently wrong with the video itself. An old white dude with a beard drives around in his truck, wanders through the woods, across a beach, and rows out in the ocean where we see some massive wooden towers. Then one falls, and SPOILER ALERT the old man dies. or something. It is so magical and mystical! We don't know what it means!

But don't worry, this randomness is a "tribute" to "Native American preservation lands"! Yeah, "preservation." Not reservation. Preservation. A new term, invented special by the editors of Huffington Post and the director of the music video:

The story and aesthetic is very similar to "Holocene," shot and directed by Nabil Elderkin, of the production house NABIL. Like Iceland in "Holocene," "Towers" is a true tribute to the Native American preservation land in Washington state where the video was shot.

At first I thought HuffPo just mis-used a quote from the Paste Magazine article (linked in the last sentence of the quote above), which reads:

Elderkin also noted that “Towers” was shot mostly on Native American-preserved land in Washington state, and the video features the moving work of an actor named Mystic.

"Native American-preserved land" is super loaded and problematic too, but could have been a mistake. So I tracked down the actual quote from the director, which doesn't necessarily make anything any better:

Nabil Elderkin, director: "The video was shot in Washington State, mostly on Native American preservation land. The idea came from when Justin sent me a breakdown of what certain parts/lines of the song meant to him, so I did my best to decode it and curate into something simple, and hopefully the viewer can take from it their own feeling of what the towers represent. It was very run and gun with Larkin my DP, Mystic my actor, Kathleen my producer and Nature, who is the best low budget art director ON THE PLANET!"

Then there's this Hollywood reporter article that twists the language even more:

"Towers," which features an old, heavily-bearded man venturing from the forest and into tumultuous sea, was shot mostly in preserved Native American land in Washington State.

"...preserved Native American land"? Really?

Ready to unpack this? First of all, the term "preservation land" or "preserved land" or "Native-preserved land" doesn't exist. Is this all stemming from a possible mis-quote when Nambil actually said "reservation"? Quite possibly. But here are the things that bother me.

In these quotes, the Native land becomes a novelty, an unnamed backdrop for the "art" of the video. Why mention it was on Native land at all? Because it adds to the mysticism. It gives it a hipster-edge. "We didn't just shoot a video in nature! we shot it in NATIVE AMERICAN NATURE!"

The unnaming of the land bothers me too. If they shot on tribal lands, I sure hope they got tribal permission, and therefore, you know, had to know who's land they were on. There are 30 or so tribes in WA state. They're all different. They're not generic "Native American." By just calling it "Native American...land" they're contributing to that whole Native-American-culture-is-a-monolith myth that I bring up again and again.

So then the whole evolution of reservation-->preservation-->Native preserved-->preserved Native-land is fascinating. Let's assume the original slip was a typo/mis-quote, but I think how quick the other media sources were to pick up on it says something about the imperialist nostalgia hidden right under the surface in the US. "Reservation" sounds sad, a reminder of how "we" (dominant culture) subjugated "them" (Natives). But "preservation" sounds nice. Like "we" saved it for them. Set it aside. Cause we're thoughtful like that. And "preserved" sounds even better! Like "they" held onto those traditional old ways that we tried to get rid of, remained stewards of the land, and kept it pristine and beautiful so "we" could come shoot our music videos on it. How wonderful for everyone involved.

Icing on the cake is how HuffPo calls this a "true tribute to Native American (p)reservation lands." A "true tribute" to Native land is a white actor named "Mystic" wandering around and then dying on unnamed tribal lands? Um, notsomuch. But thanks for trying. I'm really, really tired of the rhetoric of "honoring" or "tributes" being drawn upon to somehow erase Native peoples anger at the way we're being represented by outside forces. Mascots? Hipster headdresses? YMCA Indian Guides? Quotes about Bon Iver music videos? Don't get mad, we're honoring you with our gross mis-representations of your culture!

Please don't tell me that I should be "glad" that Native people are being "recognized at all" and throw out the "Would you rather that Native people were just forgotten completely and never mentioned or shown again?" I'm sorry, we've been somehow "disappearing" for over 500 years, yet we're still here. Our cultures are still strong. We're not going anywhere. So your ridiculous "honors" and "tributes" that do nothing to truly represent our peoples and our cultures aren't "saving" us from extinction. They're continuing to oppress, erase, and marginalize our living, breathing existence.

So much loaded in one mis-quote, huh?

/endrant

Here's the original HuffPo article: Bon Iver's new video is a tribute to Native American preservation land

UPDATE: Thanks to some amazing detective work by @NativeApprops twitter follower Jac (@java9lives), it appears the mysterious preservation lands we're talking about are those of the Hoh Tribe. How'd she figure it out? By matching the picture on their homepage to the shot at about 3:15 in the video, the one I happened to screenshot above. Incredible. So in her honor, I'd like to end with an alternate post title from her brilliant mind:

"From Typo to Tribute: The Birth of Native American Preservation Land"

I think it's quite fitting.

Chelsea Handler in a headdress shirt: Do we care?

2012-02-15T10:48:00.001-05:00

Last night on Chelsea Lately, Chelsea Handler sported what appears to be a shirt with a big ol' warbonnet on it. Chances are, it's not from a Native designer--if it is, by all means correct me, and this becomes a very different post--but in the grand scheme of things, it's not the worst, and she's not wearing the headdress, unlike some of our other celebrity friends, but of course, it still makes me sigh.

I'm wondering if this stuff is becoming so mainstream that I'm losing sensitivity to it--cause two years ago I probably would have been livid over this. Or maybe I'm just becoming a crotchety, jaded old who can't get as riled up anymore (ok, who am I kidding?).

I guess this would be categorized as a "Random Appropriation of the Day" (I haven't done one of those in forever!)...

Thoughts?

Earlier:
Drew Barrymore Sports a Hipster Headdress and a Budwiser Apron. Really.

Hey Kardashians: why you so obsessed with me?

(Thanks Lanova!)

Have a little Native love this Valentines Day

2012-02-14T11:41:00.000-05:00

We've been dealing with a lot of heavy stuff lately, and since this is my third Valentines Day I'm commemorating on Native Approps, I decided to stay in the positive, love-filled zone, rather than delving into the world of racist vintage valentines or stereotype-filled "Native American Love" art like years past. I've given and received a lot of love this year, so I want to send some out to you in the internet world too.

The image above comes from an amazing project by Cherokee artist America Meredith called "Cherokee Spokespeople". She illustrated a bunch of these cards with Cherokee words and images, and then laminated them and distributed them all over the world. They're made for bikers to attach to the spokes of their bikes, spreading the Cherokee language wherever they roam. It reminds me of Tibetan prayer flags or wheels--when they are stirred by the wind or water, they spread blessings, good will, and compassion to the surrounding area. I always have pictured these cards as spreading Cherokee language and culture in much the same way. I have a few of the cards from meeting America in the Bay Area, but my adanhdo ("heart") card is my favorite, and lives on my bookshelf where I see it all the time. My Cherokee culture is definitely something I love, and am grateful for everyday.

Next, I wanted to share a video that Dallas Goldtooth (of the 1491s) made back in 2010, but of course still is relevant today. Always makes me smile (and maybe even tear up a little bit) every time I watch it. Without further ado, here's his tribute to Native Women:

Of course, our Native men deserve lots of love too--as well as all our LGBTQ Natives who get marginalized in the hetero-normative, cis-normative western narrative of what constitutes "love" on valentines day. So I send some major love your way.

So yeah, Valentines Day may be an over-commericalized, commodified, silly, non-holiday that marginalizes single folks (I'm just saying...), but, I do think it's a great excuse to share some gratitude and love. Thanks for all the support, readers, friends, and family--the world of Native Appropriations would be nothing without you!

How are you celebrating #NativeLove today? Listening to some awesome round dance songs? Tipi Creepin'? Hanging out with family and friends? Whatever way you choose to share the love today, I wish you all the best.

<3,
Adrienne K.

Fighting Sioux Part 2: The Science

2012-02-13T14:45:00.000-05:00

Part II:
So, still unconvinced after my Part I emotional plea? You can refute my "feelings" all you want. But how about a real, peer-reviewed scientific study? You can't mess with a one-two punch of emotions AND science, right?

In a 2008 study published in the Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology, Dr. Stephanie Fryburg (Stanford Almuna and one of my professor idols) took the mascot issue head-on. The paper can be read, in full, here.

Her article, "Of Warrior Chiefs and Indian Princesses: The Psychological Consequences of American Indian Mascots", consisted of 4 studies, using Native youth from an Arizona reservation as her subjects.

Study 1: Students are given images of Pocahontas, Chief Wahoo, and a list of negative stereotypes. Afterward, they are asked to generate a list of word associations. For Pocahontas and Chief Wahoo, ~80% of their word associations were positive. (I know, that's backwards, right?) for the negative stereotype list, only ~8% were positive (about what you'd expect). But before you get on my case about proving mascots aren't bad...

Study 2: Students are primed with the same images or stereotypes list, but instead of word association, their self-esteem is measured. Students show depressed self-esteem in all 3 conditions, and their self-esteem was lower in the image conditions, versus the list. This means that even when the students are saying the mascots aren't bothering them, or they are associating positive things with them, they are still exhibiting depressed self-esteem. Whoa.

Study 3: The same procedure as 1&2 was followed, but students were asked about community worth at the end of the conditions ("I respect people in my community"). Students primed with the images and the stereotypes exhibited decreased feelings of community worth, following the same pattern as above. So looking at a mascot makes students de-value their community.

Then, the kicker:

Study 4: College students were shown images of Chief Wahoo ("bad image"), Chief Illiniwek, and the Haskell Indian Nations University Indian ("good" images), as well as an image from AIGC's campaign (an actual good image), and then asked to generate "possible selves"--looking forward to the future and how they see themselves. Those primed with the mascot images (even the good ones), generated far less acheivement-related possible selves than those with the control or AIGC image. Basically, looking at a mascot limits the way Native students see themselves succeeding.

...and a horrible follow-up, Fryburg did another study that compared white students, and in all the areas where Native students' self esteem, community worth, and possible selves went down, white students went up. No active oppression in American society, right? White students directly benefit from racism against Native students.

In sum: Scientific research shows that mascots and Indian stereotypes, regardless of if they are "good" images (Pocahontas, The Fighting Sioux) or "bad" images (Chief Wahoo), they cause depressed self esteem, decreased community worth, and decreased possible selves--even when students say the images don't bother them. And images are worse than words.

So still want to tell me how the Fighting Sioux are no big deal and I should get over it?

The Fighting Sioux are back: My passionate plea against Indian mascots

2012-02-13T14:43:00.001-05:00

As of last Wednesday, University of North Dakota (UND) has reinstated their use of the "Fighting Sioux" mascot, which was banned last year. Residents of the state gathered over 17,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot in the upcoming elections, and the UND administration says that they wanted to show that they "honor the refrendum process" by reinstating the mascot.

I, of course, think this is messed up beyond belief. Not only does this put UND in risk of violating NCAA rules that won't allow post-season games at schools with Indian mascots, it sends a huge "eff you" to everyone in the Native (and ally) community who worked their butts off to get the mascot removed in the first place.

So, because my mascot posts tend to draw mascot defenders from the dregs of the internets, let me refute your claims right off the bat (excuse me as I plagiarize my own hipster headdress manifesto):

But mascots are HONORING the bravery and fierceness of Indians!
No. They're not. Honoring someone does not consist of taking their culture, reducing it to a one-dimensional racist stereotype, and representing them however you see fit. It's about power and who has the right to represent whom. Also, this cartoon helps. I don't consider a dude in warpaint and feathers making a mockery of my culture honoring. At all. Also, not all Indians are "fierce" and "brave," just like not all white (or Black or Latino) people are "<insert stereotype here>".

I'm Irish (Norwegian, Catholic) and don't get offended by the Fighting Irish (Vikings, Padres)!
That's because there is not an active system of colonialism and oppression marginalizing the Irish, "Vikings", or Catholics in our country. Native peoples are still living under colonial rule--take a look at stats from any area of society, and you'll see Native people at the bottom. I'm sorry if you feel "oppressed" as a catholic or a viking--but you still have a helluva lot of white privilege that kinda negates it. Sorry.

What's next, animal rights activists telling us we can't use ANIMALS as mascots?! Where does it end?!
Yeah, cause Native people (PEOPLE) are on the same level as animals? Thanks buddy. Thanks a lot.

What about the Wizards? Pirates? Cowboys?
Um, mythical beings or occupations are not the same as an entire race of people.

But tribal members support the mascot! So it's ok!
No. It isn't. Hitler was a white guy. Can I then deduce that all white men think it's ok to murder millions of people? And don't cite that stupid Sports Illustrated poll that says 90% of Indians support mascots. That thing has so many issues with sampling and validity it's not even funny. Yeah, a few tribal members might support the mascot. But it's a sad commentary on how invisible we are in society, because most of them cite the fact that they feel "proud" to be "recognized" and "remembered". If the only way Native peoples are viewed in the US are as racist stereotypical mascots, (or in movies, tv, and advertising) is it better to be invisible, or seen as a stereotype?

Don't you have BIGGER issues to worry about? Like poverty and alcoholism?!
Yeah, we do. But most people, because they're so inundated with these images all. the. time. don't have the wherewithal to realize that Native peoples exist in contemporary society. The collective American consciousness has reduced us to a easily-digestible stereotype, and in that act, erased our ongoing struggles. In order for us to move forward as a people, we need to acknowledge and interrogate these stereotypes, so we can move past them. The two go hand-in-hand.

But the Fighting Sioux image is a "good" image. It's not blatantly racist like the Cleveland Indians!
Well thank you for that transition, it's almost like you planned it! Get ready for some science (SCIENCE!).

It got too long, so read Part 2 (the scientific proof) here: Fighting Sioux Part II: The Science

Earlier:
Thanks for the severed head, you proved my point

A Reminder of why this blog exists: One reader's story

Stilwell High School's New Mascot: Tommy Tomahawk

OMG so much to talk about!

2012-02-10T16:23:00.000-05:00

Hey Guys,
I have been so impressed (saddened? angered?) by all of your "Week in the Life of a Stereotypical Indian" submissions, that I've been culling through them all for the last week or so. I promise a post next week breaking it all down--but in order to do that, I'd love some of your reflections about what the experience was like for you. Send me an email, or comment below. Here are some vague guiding questions, but feel free to just tell me how it went, how it felt, etc:

What was it like mentally (or otherwise) cataloging all these daily micro-aggressions? Did you talk to anyone about what you were doing? Did it feel empowering? Disheartening? What surprised you about the images you saw? or did you find what you expected?

Moving on, here are some of the other Native stories I've been following around the internetz/things I've been up to:

A 7th grade girl in Wisconsin was suspended for using Menominee language in the classroom. Flashback to government-run boarding schools, anyone? So upsetting. They said she had an "attitude problem" for saying "hello" and "I love you" in her language. Ketapanen, Miranda--we support you!

Looks like the "Fighting Sioux" are back--at least temporarily. Expect a longer post about this soon. Residents of ND gathered enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot for the upcoming elections, and that act reversed the law that had forced UND to remove the mascot in the first place. Newsflash: We are not mascots. Mascots are dehumanizing, racist, and wrong. When will it end??

Beyond Buckskin wins the award for best blog post title of 2012: "Your Elder's Name is Google". Jessica breaks down the blatant cultural appropriation and Indian wannabees on Etsy--see her earlier posts as well for more background.

I found this blog post from last January that is so bad it reads like a parody. Really. Head over for a whole slew of white women in hipster headdresses. Here's an excerpt:

Indians (…which i’m sure is not the politically correct thing to call them…but sounds WAY cooler than Native Americans…lol) are the TRUE Americans! Thanksgiving is one of my least favorite holidays b/c for me it’s a celebration of us basically robbing the Indians blind! I don’t want to be a negative Nancy…so what I can say is that Indians and their wardrobes are SUPER CHIC! I want to be a high chief…and have the BIGGEST feather head piece…I would be a GREAT head chief…lol!
ps. I think living in a Tee Pee would be fun!!! Mine would be hot pink : )

Samantha Crain came to Boston, and I convinced a bunch of my friends to go to her show. It was super awesome, especially since the venue held only 20-30 people, which was great. If you haven't listened to her stuff, definitely check it out. She's also happens to be Choctaw from Shawnee, OK (if you were wondering about the Native connection). Here we are in an awkward picture after the show (I'm 5'10 and in heels, she's probably 5'0(?), so I'm bent in half):

Here are some "Navajo" band-aids with "3 Aztec Designs." From Australia. You're welcome.

Last, but not least, I'm thinking of making some shirts for the blog (omg, I know, right?). We've had a hearty convo over on Facebook and Twitter about ideas, but I wanted to open up the thread here as well. If we were to make some Native Appropriations shirts, what would they look like? What would you want on them?

Thanks, as always, for your support, tips, and "likes", I am grateful everyday for the amazingness that is the Native Approps community. If you are ever feeling lonely in between posts, I post a lot over on Facebook and Twitter, and would love to have you join the conversation.

Much Love,

Adrienne K.

Drew Barrymore Sports a Headdress and a Budweiser Apron. Really.

2012-01-31T17:38:00.000-05:00

Dear Drew Barrymore,

You know what? You're a pretty cool chick. You were in ET back when you were little and adorable, and I respect that movie for scarring me for life when I was young and impressionable. You're a female producer, which is bad-ass. You donate lots of money to good causes, and you seem kinda nice in your interviews and stuff. Despite your coolness, you did something totally uncool. And that something totally uncool was posting a picture of yourself in an "Indian headdress"--which is bad enough--but then you went even further and paired it with a Budweiser apron. An apron that has. to. do. with. alcohol.

So some of us are doing this thing where this week we document all the instances of "Stereotypical Indians" we come across in our daily lives, and I think yours might take the cake. For the whole week. And it's only Tuesday. Cause not only do you give us the stereotypical war bonnet, you give us an association of Indians with alcohol, which is probably right up there with the worst possible stereotypes of Native people in the world ever. Nice work.

I know you probably didn't think about it at all, in fact, I really hope you didn't think about it, cause if it was intentional? That's a whole other barrel of monkeys. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and think there was some context here we aren't privileged to know about (like maybe you were shooting a PSA against Native stereotyping? Right?). But the fact that you (or your people, let's be real) not only took this picture, but made it your PROFILE picture on The Facebook Dot Com, and have left it up ALL DAY despite a sh*t-ton of comments telling you it's wrong? That's more than uncool. That ish is straight up oppressive.

I've written a post that tells you exactly why wearing a headdress is wrong, so you should read it. You can read it here: But why can't I wear a hipster headdress? My stats tell me that a whole lot of people have read that post, but apparently not you or your publicist. I guess I'm less cool than I thought. Shoot.

Yeah, I don't really know what else to say, except that I am just tired of dealing with pretty white women in headdresses. Just tired. Just cause you're all famous and stuff and donate lots of money to help hungry people doesn't mean you can stomp all over Native cultures like that. WE ARE PEOPLE TOO.

So yeah. Thanks.

-Adrienne K.

Oh, and Facebook commenters? It's not an effing "hat". She is not wearing a cool "hat". She is wearing a bastardized version of a sacred cultural object. Train conductors wear hats. Baseball players wear hats. That's worse than calling powwow regalia a "costume". Geez.

Drew Barrymore's FB fan page: https://www.facebook.com/DrewBarrymore

(Thanks Rob and Monica!)

Week in the life of a Stereotypical Indian: Native Approps Style

2012-01-30T13:48:00.000-05:00

Today on Indian Country Today, columnist Vincent Schilling wrote a column detailing his numerous encounters with the "stereotypical Indian" over the course of one week, demonstrating how inundated we are with these images on a daily basis (the purpose of my blog!). I absolutely LOVE the idea, and I want to get a bunch of us to do it as well!

So, this week, I want you to document every instance of Indian stereotyping you come across. Include the things you would normally dismiss as "not a big deal"--The girl wearing a shirt with a stereotypical Indian design, the use of terms like "sitting Indian style" or "Let's have a powwow about this", the man wearing a Redskins jersey on the bus, the newspaper article that characterizes Indians as extinct, a bumper sticker, an old western on TV, etc. Write it all down, email it to me at the end of the week, and I'll share the experiences on the blog. When possible, snap a picture! You can email me, or if you're on Twitter, you can tweet things to me as they happen, use the hashtag #n8vStereotype (kinda long, any better ideas?).

I'll document my own encounters as well, though admittedly mine are way more prevalent than normal because I have google alerts and reader emails sending me constant images--but I'll hone in on the everyday experiences to share with you.

In summary:

This week (January 30th-Feb 3rd)--"Week in the life of a Stereotypical Indian"

Document every instance of Indian/Native stereotyping

Email me

Tweet me (#n8vstereotype)

...and I'll share it all next week!

For background, here's Vincent's experience:

So over the course of one week – I decide to pay very close attention to the stimulus that entered my brain regarding the definition of an American Indian person. I don’t know if it was coincidence – much like if you have ever ridden in a VW bug and you suddenly notice all of the other VW Bugs on the freeway – but I was absolutely amazed at what I experienced from all visceral fronts.

It started with television, of course. I was watching an episode of Storage Wars, when the auctioneer is talking with the other guy that has purchased a unit of Native American artifacts. I was frustrated that ancestral property was being sold for a few hundred bucks but then fuel was added to the fire; unsurprisingly within 30 seconds the comments about scalping started. And so began a telling week.

In my car driving all over Hampton Roads in Virginia, the NFL team adopted by the region is the Washington Redskins. Bumper stickers, T-shirts, jackets, sweatpants, window decals all made their way into my brain for what seemed a hundred times a day. I have been tempted many times to hire a graphic artist to create a giant decal of other “skin-color”-Skins characters alongside the Redskins logo – but then I fear coming across as racist. Truth be told I don’t want to offend another ethnicity – but why is it okay that we are still portrayed this way?

The week continued, I went to a local thrift store – admittedly a guilty pleasure of my wife Delores and myself – and once again I was surprised at the amount of American Indian “education.” In the first glass case sat a large plastic Indian chief next to Mickey Mouse and Santa Claus and a few aisles over was a cheap dream catcher in a plastic bag with a 99 cent tag. I also saw a lunch bag with Indian markings and found in a stack of comic books daffy duck with an Indian headdress standing next to a tipi on the front cover.

I'm excited--I think this could be really cool. I think it's important (on a personal level, as well as a public level) to start to be aware of just how prevalent these images are. It really is incredible, when you start to open your eyes to it all.

Indian Country Today: A Week in the life of a stereotypical Indian

Share any questions/concerns in the comments below!

Complicating the 2010 US Census Native Data

2012-01-27T12:25:00.000-05:00

Back in 2010 when the census came in the mail, I remember sitting with my roommate at the kitchen table filling out our forms together, laughing and joking about our "household." When we got to the race category listed above, my roommate quickly checked the "Black, African Am, or Negro" box, with a snide comment about how it still says "Negro" in 2010, and moved on. I sat, contemplating the boxes for a bit, wondering how to identify to best capture "me".

I knew, from my prior work in admissions, that checking Native "alone" would mean something very different than checking Native "in combination," in terms of statistics and reporting, but I also am Native "in combination," so it felt disingenuous to check only Indian. I thought about it for a bit, checked American Indian/Alaska Native, and wrote in "Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma"--then checked the White box too. My roommate thought I was weird for thinking so deeply about it. But it mattered to me, because I was already anticipating the statistics that the US Census released yesterday. I am Native. Period. But when you try and fit a political/citizenship category into a racialized one, the results get complicated, as you'll see.

The lead headline for the census press release is "2010 Census Shows Nearly Half of American Indians and Alaska Natives Report Multiple Races." I already, right there, see that as problematic, wrought with assumptions, and loaded with colonial underpinnings. But we all know I think that about most things. ha.

To "over-sensitive" and "easily offended" me, the headline is a commentary on the "realness" of the American Indian population, loaded with western/colonial conceptions of blood quantum and racial purity as markers for belonging and identity. This, to me, screams "Real Indians are disappearing!!!". But since we have been "disappearing" for 500 years, despite our growing population numbers, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The real number is 44% identify as more than one race, which is different to me than "nearly half". They could have just as easily said "56% of AI/AN population identifies solely as Native!" which tells a very different story. The majority of our peeps still identify as only AI or AN. We are not disappearing.

Reading the report (which is available in PDF and I highly recommend flipping through), there are many, many things they could have focused on, like the fact the Native population has increased at a rate much greater than the overall population, or that the ability to self-designate tribal group for the first time created new tribal categories (like "Hopi" being counted outside of "Pueblo"), but they instead focused in on the racial categories. Speaking of that population increase, here's a handy graphic:

So this shows us that the total US population increased 9.7% from 2000-2010, but the AI/AN population (alone) increased at nearly twice that rate, and AI/AN (in combo) increased almost 40%! You go, Natives--keep on making those ndn babies (I joke, I joke). But interesting, right?

The other thing this data made me think about is how ingrained the myth of an Indian ancestor is in our national narrative. Cause according to this data, there are HELLA Natives out there!

Ok, let's break down this chart (click to make it bigger). This shows the "largest tribal groupings" in the US. Personally, I also have some problems with the groupings erasing individual tribal identities--"Chippewa" is both an antiquated term as well as not a tribe, same with "Iroquois" or "Sioux"--but that's an aside.

I think the fascinating part of this chart is to compare the number of enrolled members of any of these tribes to the number of people who identified on the census. Cherokees (I'm assuming that's CN, UKB, and EBC together?) at 819,105? That's about 400,000 more than are enrolled (based on my really vague and loose mental math). The Blackfeet one cracks me up too--I'm sure the Blackfeet Nation is stunned to know they've got 90,000 relatives they didn't know about! (Their reservation in MT is home to about 8,500 enrolled members, and I assume there are some more not living on the rez, but not nearly that many).

I chose Cherokee and Blackfeet, because based on my personal experience, those are the two tribes that everyone seems to have an ancestor from--"Cherokee" is big for both white and Black folks, and "Blackfeet" seems to be big in the Black/African American community. While many people may actually have some Native blood in there, chances are it's probably not Cherokee or Blackfeet. Sorry to burst your bubble. This appropriation of Indian identity is a whole other blog post, which I'll get to at some point.

But that brings us back to the "alone" versus "in combination" conversation. What does it mean for these people who are checking the box based on some long lost ancestor to be counted in the numbers of AI/AN in the US? Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Chances are, that person is not dedicated to Indian causes or has any cultural ties whatsoever, but we can't discount those numbers completely, because in those "in combination" numbers are plenty of mixed Natives who have cultural connections and are enrolled.

The way the question is phrased on the census is interesting too. It asks for "Enrolled or Principle tribe"--I think a better measure of these numbers would just say "enrolled tribe" with a line, and then "other tribal affiliations" with another.

These are just some things I've been thinking about as I've been reading through the data--what are your thoughts?

US Census: 2010 Census Shows Nearly Half of American Indians and Alaska Natives Report Multiple Races

US Census: The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010

The Stanford "Indian": Then and Now

2012-01-26T15:29:00.000-05:00

I just came back from an amazing long weekend in the Bay Area, where I was at a training to be on my reunion homecoming committee (5th year reunion! I'm either really old or really young, depending on your perspective). I seriously love my alma mater more than is probably healthy. But this is a place that I credit with the development of my activist and social-justice oriented frame of mind, and also credit my work in admissions after graduation with opening my eyes to the disparities in higher ed for Native students--which is now my research in grad school. In many ways, it could be seen as ironic that the place that supported and nurtured my Native identity and allowed me to major in Native American Studies/Critical Studies of Race and Ethnicity has a past that includes that image above.

That shirt in the picture came from a thrift store in San Diego years ago, where I paid $15 for it. Fifteen dollars. For an old tshirt. But I bought it because I couldn't bear the thought of someone else picking it up, finding it "cool" and "vintage" and strutting around town in it. So I bought it, and then gave it to the Assistant Director of the Native program at Stanford, because I didn't want it lying around my house. I imagined it like the Tell-Tale Heart...beating in my drawer...::shudder::

This past weekend when I was on campus, I stopped by her office and saw it sticking out of a drawer. I pulled it out, we laughed about it, and talked about ways it could be used in an educational exhibit of some sort, and how it's important to remember the mascot's history.

The quick version of that history, from the Stanford Native Center website:

In February of 1972, 55 Native American students and staff at Stanford presented a petition to the University Ombudsperson who, in turn, presented it to President Lyman. The 1972 petition urged that "the use of the Indian symbol be permanently discontinued"--and further urged that the University "fulfill its promise to the students of its Native American Program by improving and supporting the program and thereby making its promise to improve Native American education a reality." The petition further stated that the Stanford community was not sensitive to the humanity of Native Americans, that the lack of understanding displayed by the name of a race being placed on its entertainment, and that a race of humans cannot be entertainment. The mascot in all its manifestations was, the Indian group maintained, stereotypical, offensive, and a mockery of Indian cultures. The group suggested that the "University would be renouncing a grotesque ignorance that it has previously condoned" by removing the Indian as Stanford's symbol, and by "retracting its misuse of the Indian symbol" Stanford would be displaying a "readily progressive concern for the American Indians of the United States."

Later that year, the University removed the mascot. I love that the mascot issue was born out of Native student activism on campus. Read the rest of the history here on the NACC website.

So after I left the Native program offices, I walked over to the Alumni Center for my training. As I was flipping through the packet they gave us, I found this, The "Policy Regarding American Indian Images":

Apologies for the cell phone picture. But basically it sends a big stfu to any old alums who want to pull out their feathers and face paint for their reunion homecoming publicity or mailings. From the policy:

"We acknowledge that such imagery was not meant to be offensive when adopted. However, these images perpetuate stereotypes, are hurtful and offensive to American Indians and others, and are particularly inappropriate and insensitive in light of the history of forced assimilation that American Indian people have endured in this country."

lululu's to that. I was so happy to see this in the packet--and I as I sat there at the table in the alumni center, it made me think about all the Native students who had come before me and who worked so hard to get rid of the mascot. As the only Native on any of the reunion committees this year, I hope I'm making them proud.

Stanford still has a LONG way to go in making the campus climate a completely safe and supportive environment for Native students, and definitely needs work in supporting the ethnic community centers and staff, but personally I find it awesome that there is at least some explicit institutional support around the contentious mascot issue, especially when sending out those mailings with the Indian on them to old alums would probably bring in some more donations to the university.

I'm the first to admit that I've completely and totally drank the Stanford kool-aid (but it's so tasty and full of palm trees!), so if anyone has differing opinions on how the administration has dealt with the mascot issue over the years (and it continues to be an issue, believe me)--definitely send me an email.

I'm also curious how other institutions with an Indian mascot past deal with their alums and images, if you've got stories, share them in the comments!

(Thanks Miss Denni!)

PS--Also, a while back I shared one Stanford Alum's story about how reading Native Approps changed his mind about Indian Mascots. It's worth a read if you're somehow still on the fence.

Gawker uses "Mail of Tears" for a cheap pun

2012-01-17T23:33:00.001-05:00

This, my friends, is a post about how the internet is a slow learner. A few days ago Gawker writer Leah Beckmann posted a round-up of crappy reader mail, and in a clear lapse of judgment and lack of awareness of American history, or a blog in her own network's history, entitled it "Mail of Tears"--complete with a picture of Iron Eyes Cody (the Italian actor who played the "crying Indian" in that famous PSA).

Longtime readers of the blog might think this sounds eerily familiar...and that's because in 2010, Jezebel (Gawker's "sister site") wrote about Meghan McCain crying and gave it the hashtag #trailoftears. I was, clearly and similarly, enraged. So why recreate the wheel? I'll just quote directly from that post here:

Yes, that says Trail of Tears. Trail of Tears. The forced relocation of my ancestors, where they were unlawfully and forcibly removed from their homelands in the Southeast and marched over 1000 miles, in the dead of winter, to what is now modern day Oklahoma. Over 4,000 of the 15,000 Cherokees who began the journey died along the way from exposure, hunger, and disease.

The Trail of Tears was also unlawful in the truest sense of the word. Chief John Ross of the Cherokee Nation took the case to court, fighting for the right for his people to remain in their homelands, where they had been for thousands of years. The Cherokees argued that as a sovereign nation, the state of Georgia had no right to enforce a removal within Cherokee territory. The case worked it's way up through the court system, ended up in the supreme court. In a series of decisions, Justice John Marshall and his court sided with the Cherokees, stating that only the national government had the right to intervene in Indian Affairs. To which President Andrew Jackson reportedly stated: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

With the signing of the Indian Removal Act in 1830, Jackson took matters into his own hands, authorizing the removal of thousands of Native people from throughout North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, and Alabama.

To put this in perspective, this is the mid 1800's. The Cherokee Nation was a successful and prosperous community, with large plantations, farms, schools, printing presses that produced books and a newspaper in the written Cherokee language, a literacy rate exponentially higher than the local white community, and a system of colleges that educated members of the "Five Civilized Tribes" (I hate that term) in a way that incorporated both mainstream and tribal education traditions.

The federal government sent in troops to enforce the removal, and without warning, they swooped into these communities, burning homes, killing livestock, and removing families without even time for them to gather belongings. They were then rounded up into concentration camps where conditions were squalid and supplies limited, and then forced to begin their journey.

My great-great-great grandparents came over on that journey, a time that is called Nunna daul Isunyi in the Cherokee Language--The Trail Where They Cried.

And I'll just change up the ending a bit to make it work...

So, ~~Jezebel~~ Gawker, calling ~~Megan McCain crying over her dad picking Sarah Palin as his running mate a #trailoftears~~ a post that begins with the words "Choke on Shit and Die" a "Mail of Tears"? You are dismissing the pain and legacy of my community's genocide--and that's not something I take lightly.

I know it's embarrassing to get called out when you eff up, but, I'm sorry ~~Jezebel~~ Gawker, ignoring the issue isn't gonna fix it. This may seem small and inconsequential to you, but these are my ancestors and my community, and the way this was handled does nothing to restore my faith in how people of color are treated on your site.

Bottom line, I know you think Native people are a big ol' joke, Leah Beckmann, but don't dismiss Native people telling you that this is hurtful, wrong, and in incredibly poor taste. It's an easy fix. Fix it. Now.

Post on Gawker:

Choke On Shit and Die Asshole’ and Other Things You Said to Us This Week

My post about Meghan McCain (Jezebel did end up changing the tag, eventually):
Jezebel uses #trailoftears to describe Meghan McCain

Leah Beckmann's twitter is here, and you can email her at leah@gawker.com if you'd like to tell her what you think.

(Thanks Allison!)