"For a subject worked and reworked so often in novels, motion pictures, and television, American Indians remain probably the least understood and most misunderstood Americans of us all."
-John F. Kennedy in the introduction to The American Heritage Book of Indians
Reel Injun is a new documentary film that explores the phenomenon of the Hollywood Indian. For over 100 years, Indigenous North Americans have appeared in more than 4000 films. Cree filmmaker Neil Diamond explores the many depictions of Indians on celluloid and its impact on every filmgoer's understanding or misunderstanding of Native people.
I caught an abbreviated hour long version of Reel Injun on Independent Lens- the award-winning public television series that highlights new drama and documentary films. I was very impressed with the film and its humorous and poignant insights into the Hollywood Indian.
The most impressive part of the film is its portrayal of Native actors and filmmakers in the earliest days of cinema. From the silent era through the first talking films, Native people had a surprisingly active role in film production. It seems only when the studio system became dominant that real Native people took a backseat role (if not wholly disappeared).
Reel Injun proves that one of the most effective ways to examine and question Indigenous depictions in mass media is with mass media itself! And so long as there have been these Indigenous depictions, so have there been Indigenous people ready to counter them. Here are a few of those:
Eska Water's new ad campaign: "Eskan Warriors"
Mohawk activist Clifton Nicholas expresses his dismay over a new ad campaign for Eska Water. It depicts a fictional band of "Eskan Warriors." According to Nicholas, these ads depict a negative portrayal of Native people even if it is a fictional generic "Native" group.
Time for "THE INDIANS SHOWBAND" to retire!
The Irish showband "The Indians" who perform in stereotypical Indian garb and perform songs like Wigwam Wiggle and Squaws along the Yukon have met their match online. A protest group on facebook is calling for the group to retire saying they make a mockery of native culture through their stereotypical representation of Native Americans. https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=110714922354367
Here's Wigwam Wiggle:
AIM Santa Barbara takes on The Dudesons
Way back in May 2010, I broke the story about the new MTV show The Dudesons and their tasteless depiction of American Indian culture in the episode Cowboys and Findians. Here is part one of a three part series of young AIM activists discussing their concerns about The Dudesons.
Ask an Indian: Cultural Appropriation
Simon Moya-Smith is an Oglala Lakota Sioux journalist and activist who describes himself as a "rug lifter" trying to reveal the many American Indian issues swept under the rug. He blogs over at http://iamnotamascot.blogspot.com/ where his passionate commentary is always good for a hearty laugh and thoughtful reflection. Here he is decrying Native appropriation while window shopping.
The Stream - Don't Trend on My Culture - Adrienne Keene
Adrienne Keene is a Cherokee blogger and activist who analyzes a constant stream of Native cultural appropriation over at her blog http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/. Thanks to her prodigious efforts at tracking this phenomenon, she is making appearances in more mainstream media such as this interview on The Stream on Al Jazeera English.
Dr. Greene's AB-original Pain Reliever
And finally here is Oneida actor Graham Greene with a humorous take on Native appropriation in marketing. Enjoy!
I recently jumped at the opportunity to review the new Spanish film Even the Rain.
Review:
This film follows the fictional Spanish film director Sebastián (Gael García Bernal) as he struggles to shoot a controversial film about the Spanish conquest of the New World. Moved by the plight of the indigenous Taíno as expressed in the writings of 16th-century Spanish priest Bartolomé de las Casas, Sebastián pens a script that he feels will finally portray Columbus and his Spanish brethren for what they were... brutal, genocidal, conquerors who savagely subdued and forcibly converted the native Taíno population in the West Indies.
The only problem is that the Indians are actually Quechua and the Caribbean is the mountain highlands outside Cochabamba, Bolivia. Such inaccuracies are no mere oversights but rather the brilliant plan of director Sebastián and his film partner Costa (Luis Tosar) to recreate their version of the Spanish conquest on a shoe-string budget.
When a Bolivian government plan to privatize the local water supply leads to popular uprisings, life starts to imitate art. Will the director be able to finish his beloved project or will the very real indigenous uprising playing out before him cause it all to come crashing down?
As Spain's entry in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the 83rd annual Academy Awards, Even the Rain draws on an eclectic mix of talent. Perennial favorite Bernal is his usual high-strung self in the role of the obsessive director Sebastián, the perfect foil to Tosar's rough-edged yet sensitive Costa. Both of them are outshined by first time actor Juan Carlos Aduviri, whose breakout performance as two indigenous leaders, one fighting Columbus and the other the Bolivian government, really sets the film in motion.
The real star of the film however is the script penned by British screenwriter Paul Laverty. Drawing on his first-hand experience traveling through war torn Central America in the 1980s, Laverty creates a tale of filmmaking gone awry that dares to let it's characters waver in morally ambiguous territory right until the end. He injects just the right amount of flawed humanity into the characters to make them and their perilous decisions into a film drama of the highest caliber.
The final scene of the film within the film (Source: Examiner.com)
In the hands of less experienced filmmakers, Even the Rain could easily have turned into an overly preachy, hit-you-over-the-head metaphoric tale about the brutal legacy of colonialism. The film makes it absolutely clear that there was and still is great injustice in this "New World." What isn't clear is just what exactly are the protagonists going to do. Finish the film about the historic oppression to only turn a blind eye to the modern injustice or dare to get involved in a very real and deadly conflict? It is this ambiguity and the subtle and smart ways it goes about answering these questions where the film succeeds.
Few films dare to tackle both the egotistical, money-driven world of modern filmmaking and the high drama of humanity fighting for its most basic rights. Even the Rain does just that. The result is a work whose message is so abundantly clear yet it is so downright gripping to see it unfold.
Daniel (Aduviri) dressed as the character Hatuey shares a moment with the director Sebastián (Bernal) (Source: nytimes.com)
Comments:
Even the Rain does something unique. Most films about the indigenous people of the Americas are either costume dramas set in a clearly historic past (The Mission, Dances with Wolves) or they are modern pieces about the realities of indigenous life today (Smoke Signals, Frozen River).
Even the Rain deftly combines these two cinematic genres to create some of the most poignant commentary yet seen on film about the enduring tensions between Native and non-Native people.
The irony is not lost on the audience when the supposedly sympathetic Sebastián, so in love with the kind words of Bartolomé de las Casas, snaps at his indigenous actors, practically demanding they complete a critical scene for his film. In a sense, he becomes a modern Columbus, a man lording over these indigenous actors, using them to propel his own personal creative vision towards completion.
Sebastián (Bernal) surrounded by his actors (Source: Examiner.com)
On the flip side, Daniel (played by first time actor Juan Carlos Aduviri) is a man committed to his community who just happens to be cast as the historic indigenous leader Hatuey. Daniel also leads the real-life water riots that rock Cochabamba at the expense of his continued commitment to the film. Why would a man care about creating some cinematic masterpiece when he and his community are systematically being deprived of their most basic human rights?
This tension between a man obsessed with a film and a man committed to his community not only provides the main drama but the main lesson in the film.
As someone who actively writes and comments about indigenous issues, it was a lesson I took to heart. I have to be careful not to end up like Sebastián, so obsessed with some high-brow, philosophical, creative endeavour that I loose sight of the real humanity behind the issue.
I give Even the Rain 3.5 out of 4 stars and declare it required viewing for anyone interested in indigenous depictions in cinema or the history of Latin America.
For more on Native films check out this previous Top 10 list:
BLOG NOTE: Today marks the one year anniversary of Drawing on Indians and what a year it has been. From Findians to Hipsters, Western Sky to Tribal Chic, it's been a crazy year of cringe-worthy appropriation and thought-provoking activism.
I'm going to take some time off from the blog to focus on other things in my life (job, school, family, etc.) but I encourage you all to check out the other fine blogs featured in the right hand column. I have a thousand ideas just waiting to hit the page so see you in a few!
Question: How does an Indian tell which way is south?
Answer: He looks at his satellite dish.
Question: When do Indians know it is safe to go out on the ice.
Answer: When the white guys quit falling through.
Question: Why is America called the land of the free?
Answer: Because they never paid the original inhabitants for it.
-Jim Northrup
On Wednesday, September 29th I had the great pleasure to meet the award-winning Ojibwe author and poet Jim Northrup. He is the man behind the works Walking the Rez Roadand Rez Road Follies. He also writes the long-running syndicated column Fond du Lac Follies.
Jim is best known for his dry wit, warm humor, and hilarious insights into life on the Rez. His writing pokes fun at both Indians and American society at large. Jim also speaks openly about his experience fighting in Vietnam and his struggles to overcome post traumatic stress disorder. No matter the topic however, a evening with Jim Northrup is sure to be two things: hilarious and insightful.
Jim reciting his poem "weegwas"
While listening to Jim speak, I was reminded of my own experience with Native humor. It was the summer of 2008 and I was working at Grand Portage National Monument tucked away in the far northeast corner of Minnesota. I both lived and worked on the Grand Portage Chippewa Reservation giving me a crash course in life on the Rez.
It was maybe my third week on the job. I was fresh and new, still learning my way around the site. I was stationed in the historic kitchen inside the trading post. I had dressed in my usual period outfit of baggy front-flap pants, loose fitting shirt, sash, and moccasins. Visitors would walk in the back door, I'd explain how the kitchen worked, and they would depart through the front door. Standard operating procedure.
Kitchen (left) & Great Hall (right)
A few visitors had just left the kitchen when all of a sudden this young tall skinny Native guy comes strolling in the back door like he owns the place. He gives me a little flick of the head and with a big smirk on his face he asks me "Hey man, got any firewater?"
I freeze. My mind immediately fills with, "You're not supposed to say that." I check to see if there are any visitors around. There aren't any. The guy walks up to me. We're now face to face. I'm standing motionless. He exclaims, "Hey man, you gotta loosen up. Geez look at you!" He laughs.
Ha ha ha, I get it. It's pick on the new guy day. He was just having his fun and I don't blame him. We actually get to talking and he tells me he's on leave from the army. He was fighting in Afghanistan. He's spending his time off with the family on the Rez. Now I know why he's such a kidder. With a life like his, I don't blame him for laughing a little.
Every time I see this guy the whole rest of the summer, the same question comes out of his mouth. "Hey man, you loosened up yet?" He will never let me live it down.
So I learned my lesson that day. Sometimes you just gotta laugh. It's like what another one of my co-workers once told me, "you're laughin' to keep from cryin'." Humor is a very powerful force and if you can't laugh about life then life ain't truly worth living.
For more tales from Grand Portage check out my previous post:
I am going to write out the usual narrative about the evening to fill you in on the details. You will find my comments interspersed in italics.
The night overall was very peaceful and orderly and for that I congratulate the Clinton community and all the guests in attendance. Strong words and emotions were thrown about and I'm glad people kept their cool and conducted themselves properly.
The night began with many in the Clinton community, mostly students, demonstrating along the main road in front of the school. Essentially it was a large demonstration in favor of the school mascot. Typical pep rally fare- cheers, signs, etc.
I was grateful to see city, county, and state police were in attendance and that signs and banners were not allowed in the gymnasium. It quickly filled up as people filled the bleachers and the proceedings began. Those supporting a change in mascot sat together in the front three rows while all the others were mostly community members strongly in support of keeping the mascot
One interesting note- everyone was given a flier setting out the meeting agenda, it read as follows:
1. Call to order- Pledge of Allegiance
2. Native American Presentation
3. School Board Determination Regarding Mascot
4. Public Comment
I hope that order of events looks odd to you since the meeting was called for the community to express their opinions to the school board before a decision was made.
Regardless of your side on this issue you can't help but see the hypocrisy here. The school board set up this meeting so that all sides could voice their opinions in front of the school board and then a decision would be made. Their choice of voting before public comment is like them saying, “We don't care about your opinions, We've already made up your minds and you can't change them.” And these people are the public servants of Clinton, Michigan!
The majority of the Native American delegation came in as a group led by elders and at least two eagle staffs. The staffs remained near the entrance while everyone else sat down.
The Native American presentation:
The presentation was essentially a slide show presentation and three different speakers. Elspeth Geiger and her sister Kylista gave their account of the name Redskins being from bounties and mentioned all the resolutions passed against race-based mascots. They expressed their personal feelings as graduates of Clinton High School. They talked about their hesitation to express their own Native American heritage while attending Clinton High School due to the mascot which they found even then personally offensive. They also pointed out inconsistencies between the mascot and the Clinton High School student handbook. Then Jim gave an impassioned speech describing the bloody origin of the term redskins. His presentation included graphic details of cutting off genitals to demonstrate the gender of the bounty and photos of American soldiers posing with dead Native Americans.
I applaud all the speakers for their bravery that night. It is not an easy thing to get up in front of more than 2,000 people and say some very unpopular things. Their impassioned speeches and the accompanying photos pulled a pal of silence over the crowd. Everyone listened and learned- the goal of the meeting.
Concerning the evidence. The origin of the term redskins is still up for debate but the truth remains that even if it did not originate with bloody bounties, it did turn into a highly offensive and disparaging term. When all the Hollywood cowboys referred to the Redskins and Redmen, it was not a compliment. The truth is that the name and the accompanying images are very offensive for many people, many of whom expressed this exact sentiment at the meeting.
The Student Handbook: 1. The Clinton High School student handbook says that students must do the following: “respect the Civil Rights of others”
The United States Commission on Civil Rights issued the “Statement of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the Use of Native American Images and Nicknames as Sports Symbols” which:
“calls for an end to the use of Native American images and team names.... It is particularly disturbing that Native American references are still to be found in educational institutions, whether elementary, secondary or post-secondary.”
Furthermore, the American Psychological Association says:
“The continued use of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities presents stereotypical images of American Indian communities, that may be a violation of the civil rights of American Indian people.”
How then does the school board protect the Civil Rights of Native Students from their school who are saying to them they did not feel comfortable being in their own school?
2. The Clinton High School handbook also says that students must “work cooperatively with others... regardless of... race... or ethnic background.”
Once again the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights states:
“Schools are places where diverse groups of people come together to learn… but also how to interact respectfully with people from different cultures…. The stereotyping of any racial, ethnic, religious or other groups when promoted by our public educational institutions, teach all students that stereotyping of minority groups is acceptable, a dangerous lesson in a diverse society. Schools have a responsibility to educate their students; they should not use their influence to perpetuate misrepresentations of any culture of people...”
3. Finally, that same handbook says students must “help maintain a school environment that is safe, friendly and productive.”
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights continues:
“these Indian-based symbols and team names are not accurate representations of Native Americans. Even those that purport to be positive are romantic stereotypes that give a distorted view of the past. These false portrayals prevent non-Native American from understanding the true historical and cultural experiences of American Indians. Sadly, they also encourage biases and prejudices that have a negative effect on contemporary Indian people… they block genuine understanding of contemporary Native people as fellow Americans.”
In my opinion, the most damning indictment all night was this evidence. Not once did the school board try to refute this evidence. Why? Because you can't. When students from Clinton High School say they did not feel safe in their own hallways because of the pain this mascot caused, how can you say it is a “safe, friendly, and productive” environment?
The Clinton High School Mission Statement says it is their mission: “To provide individuals a variety of educational opportunities which enables them to become life long learners and productive members of a “CHANGING WORLD.” Tell me how providing such readily available ethnic stereotypes prepares anyone for the REAL WORLD!?
If not for the Native American activists, the school board should at least change the mascot so that their own students will become CULTURALLY COMPETENT to work in the real world that is our diverse nation.
Finally, Daniel Krichbaum, the interim director of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, got up and said three main things. One, he was there offering his services as a mediator to the community to help them get through this tough issue. Then he declared two truisms- 1. People in the community take pride in the redskins mascot and mean no disrespect and 2. Some people find the term and mascot imagery highly offensive. Essentially, it was a quite neutral speech in my opinion
The speech was not seen that way by Clinton schools superintendent David Pray. To quote the news article here: lenconnect.com
Prior to the vote, Superintendent David Pray took issue with Kirchbaum’s comments and appearance. He pointed out that a pair of complaints against Clinton schools are pending before the civil rights commission.
“It is clear you are taking sides seeking to become an advocate,” Pray said. “That role is inappropriate. The department is supposed to act as an impartial investigator. It is obvious that Clinton schools is not being treated fairly.”
I thought this was simply a whiny statement. It he believes so strongly in his mascot, why is he so worried? Because a court of law is different from a small town gymnasium. In a court of law, the case rests on the merits of the evidence presented and the word of the law. The fact remains that the school board did nothing to refute the overwhelming evidence from respected sources that demonstrate that these stereotypical images and mascot have a demonstrable negative impact on not only Native students but all young people- who are most susceptible to these negative images during their developmental years.
If anyone was not treated fairly, it was the community at large and the guests that evening who were denied an opportunity to speak to the school board and express their opinions before the vote.
The Vote:
Before the final vote, each school board member (except one) took their turn using 5-10 minutes to make their own comments. Their arguments included: Redskins per dictionary definitions is not always offensive. We chose this term to honor the Native Americans. We will not be "bullied" by a small minority. They made personal attacks against the Geiger family expressing doubt as to their sincerity since they did not bring this issue up previously. Several of the members admitted they used Wikipedia as a source for their research. And finally to directly quote Superintendent Pray, "I believe the people of Clinton respect our mascot and believe they are paying homage to Native American bravery and resourcefulness."
Can you trust your local school board when in their attempts to educate themselves, they use a resource that would not even be acceptable in the classrooms they themselves oversee? (no offense to Wikipedia). What this demonstrates in my mind is that they simply went to the easiest and most convenient source for their information. But the school board members are adults. They understand the idea of nuance and the difference between a stereotype and reality, right?
May I remind you that we're talking about a school. If the kids get no exposure to real Native Americans and Native American culture, they will simply have to educate themselves on the issue. And just like their own role models, the school board, I recommend they look to the most easy and convenient source of information for their answers. In fact, why they don't just look on the walls of their own gymnasium. Tell me is this a real Native American?
This is their Wikipedia. This is their source of easy information.
The last quote, “I believe the people of Clinton respect our mascot and believe they are paying homage to Native American bravery and resourcefulness,” also comes in near the top for silliest thing said all night. I'm glad I didn't bring my irony meter with me to the evening cause it literally would have exploded! Can somebody please explain to me how this mascot with its outright caricatures and demeaning nickname pays homage to anyone? With this quote, the school board director is directly linking these images and redskin name to real native people and culture? That is the same as saying these images and names are real Native Americans. Tell me once again is this a real Native American?
He must think it is since he directly linked these images and names to real Native people today! Funny, none of the Native Americans sitting around me that night looked like this.
But then again it is true Native Americans were very resourceful. Necessity is the mother of all invention. It's truly amazing how well they coped when they were being killed, rounded up, and stripped of their culture? I'm surprised they even lasted as long as they did. It's kind of like how all the Jews were very resourceful scratching together scraps of food and any semblance of culture in the ghettos of Europe and then the extermination camps? Should we proudly make them into a mascot? Of course, there was a horrible genocide against them, we're not disputing that. We just simply think that their actions are honorable and we only wish to honor them with this mascot. They were strong, brave businesspeople who knew how to get things done and make a little profit. (positive images, no?) Sure, when the name was chosen decades ago it may have meant one thing but today we don't have any problem with it. I don't understand what's the problem.
So ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Clinton High School fightin' Goldstars!
The argument of the school board in a nutshell was, "Our community feels strongly in favor of the mascot, it is a positive symbol, your arguments are weak, we will not acknowledge your feelings, we will not be bullied, majority rules."
To no one's surprise they voted 7-0 in favor of keeping the mascot.
The Public Comment:
The most electric moment of the night came when Jeanette Henagan who is the President of the Lenawee county NAACP and long time supporter of this movement decided to speak. Earlier in the evening, she had spoken to the school board in regards to the order of the events: voting before public comment. Jeanette was one of the first people to speak during public comment. She spoke about 10 words when a school board member stopped her to allow people in the bleachers, who had already started to depart, to get up and leave. Jeanette was not happy at all when this happened because it was in her opinion adding insult to injury that the school board would take part of the public comment period to let people leave. So she started speaking, despite having the microphone cut off, and continued when her alloted 3 minutes officially began. This is where this comment came out- ABC local
While I do not condone her outburst, I can certainly understand her strong emotion.
Otherwise, all the whole debate between the Native American presentation, the school board members, and the public commentators came down to two phrases...
1. The definition of Redskins is...
2. I feel that...
I was so upset that the debate collapsed into bickering over polling data and whose dictionary has the more accurate (read convenient) definition. It literally was dueling dictionaries!
Keep the mascot comments:
People arguing against the name change made a big issue out of the Geiger family saying “why wasn't this brought up ever before?” They also accused Elspeth of "bullying" and "harrasing" the school board. (apparently dealing with any strong, out-spoken, self-confident woman goes so against "their ways" it will feel like "bullying")People attacked the Geiger sisters saying they aren't "real" Native Americans. Others said, "I think it's wrong to bring kids into the issue like this."
I found this comment particularly misguided. In my opinion, this whole issue is all about the kids! People argued that the activists were wasting their time and should go after bigger targets like the Washington Redskins. To that I say this... the Redskins of Washington DC are a professional football team and private company. While I am not comfortable with their mascot, they are after all a private company. Clinton High School is a school!!! A school should be a place where you go to learn about the world. It should also be a safe refuge. How is Clinton High School either of those things when its own students did not feel comfortable inside its walls and all the students are fed a constant stream of stereotyped images! Adults (hopefully) have the maturity to understand the nuance of stereotypes- children do not. It's a struggle already with the Indian stereotypes in our media, how then do we change people's minds when they are taught these things in school!
One high school aged girl got up and said more or less this, "How can these people talk about this mascot issue when there are bigger issues in the world. Every day hundreds of woman are sold into slavery." She spent three minutes talking about sex slavery during a discussion of Indian mascots. Another woman said the Geiger sisters would be better off spending their time reading to kids at the hospital.
This prompted me to say to myself, "but how can they read to those kids in the hospital when all those women are being sold into slavery!" Don't get me wrong, all these issues are important, but to bring up such petty arguments shows the weakness of their arguments.
The absolute scariest thing all night was when a community member went to the mic and decided to take this debate to the next level.
A local man while speaking invoked the Sports Illustrated poll that says 75% of Native Americans support these mascots and 25% are against them to say the following and this is a direct quote: We need "to instruct the other 25% why this word is good." He didn't just say I disagree or I believe this word means this. He came right out and in a very strong way said that it is the Native Americans who need to be educated on this issue.
I found this be an equally ironic and hostile statement. The audacity for someone to say we should instruct them that the word Redskins is okay. My mind honestly thought back to the worst days of the boarding schools. This comment more than anything else all night made me angry. And to top it all off, a second community member got up and said essentially the same thing, "we should try and change the 25%." To learn why I think using this polling data is a weak argument, read this post.
Change the mascot comments:
Many varied arguments were made in support of changing the mascot.
14-year old Native American student Angel Cooper talked about how at her school she'd been bullied for being Native and she literally was in tears by the end of her three minutes. We had a non-native veteran tell a story about how he had a Native soldier in his squad who taught him the hurt he felt from Indian mascots. People argued that the symbols were sacred and they displayed real emotion when they said how the redskins name and mascot made them feel. People did invoke the school handbook to show the contradictions with the mascot (but not as much as I'd hoped). One of the more thought provoking lines which really helped diffuse some of the "us vs. them" tension was when one woman got up and said "I am not a Native American but I am a person."
I was frustrated in some ways with the tactics used by many arguing to change the mascot. In my opinion, (and this is truly my opinion) the overemphasis on the words "racist," the emphasis on the word redskins (as opposed to imagery!), the parallels made to the word Nigger, all seemed to hit brick ways pretty quickly. I personally found that when people said, "I think this is an offensive and racist term and it should be changed" it was not the best tactic. Why? Because always with the I... I think this, I think that. I am of the opinion that it's better to argue not "this offends me" but rather "this is bad for the community and young people and here's why..." Maybe it's because I'm not Native myself and I struggle to truly understand this issue from a Native perspective. I simply approach this issue from my own perspective and my own personal belief in the welfare of everyone.
My comments:
When I spoke, I surprised even myself with my passion
I began by saying, "this issue is not about political correctness as some say but in my opinion is about correctness." I pointed to the Indian caricature on the wall in the gym, literally of a brown skinned, arms crossed, war painted, head bonneted, loin clothed, "Indian" and said to the school board while pointing, "Can you honestly tell me that that image is okay, that that image is correct?"
I continued saying how the community feels this is a positive mascot and image that they honor, but I went on to argue that "even the positive stereotype of a brave, honorable Indian is still a stereotype and prevents Native people from defining themselves."
I continued with an even more compelling question, "Can you honestly tell me that all the good aspects of this mascot on one side, truly outweigh the personal trauma that people here tonight have experienced because of this same name and image." I went on to invoke my own history of being bullied and made it clear that these traumas stay with you for the rest of your life (while most leave the mascot post-12th grade).
Finally, I made one last impassioned plea. I mentioned how so many words and different definitions had been thrown around that night. I finally said, "but there is one word that has not been said tonight and I think it is a very important word... that word is EMPATHY." How could the school board members or people in the crowd not honestly be affected by these impassioned pleas and personal tragedies? (my theories: comfort in the majority, peer pressure, insecurity, and the big one for the seven folks at the folding tables- job security).
The public comment time ended, the meeting adjourned, and everyone started to leave. I was exhausted but was surprised when several people came up to me and said how impressed they were with my comments. (And I thought I was just sharing my opinion!)
Final Thoughts:
1. I felt the organization and argument strategy for changing the mascot could use some tweaking.
2. The arguments made on that side were otherwise really, really good.
3. Not once did the school board or community refute the hard evidence of negative psychological effects, stereotyping, and demonstrable damage done to members of their very own community (whether native or not)!
4. The mascot isn't changing anytime soon but the fight continues.
I would like to end with one final comment from President Obama when he gave the commencement addresss at my alma mater, the University of Michigan this past weekend:
“I look out at this class and I realize for four years at Michigan you have been exposed to diverse thinkers and scholars, professors and students. Don’t narrow that broad intellectual exposure just because you’re leaving here. Instead, seek to expand it. If you grew up in a big city, spend some time with somebody who grew up in a rural town. If you find yourself only hanging around with people of your own race or ethnicity or religion, include people in your circle who have different backgrounds and life experiences. You’ll learn what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes, and in the process, you will help to make this democracy work.”
I say simply to the people of Clinton, Michigan- take a walk in someone else's shoes... you may surprise even yourself.
In order to delve into this complicated issue I first have to answer two fundamental questions-
1. How and why do we choose mascots?
2. How and why were Indians chosen as mascots?
As with so many issues, it is good to start with working definitions. The following is the definition of mascot from the American Heritage dictionary:
mascot n. A person, animal, or object believed to bring good luck, especially one kept as the symbol of an organization such as a sports team.
It also includes a word history that I will quote in full:
“A giant strutting bird leading a cheer at the homecoming game may seem a far cry from a witch fashioning a charm or spell, but these two figures are related historically in the development of the word mascot. Mascot came into English as a borrowing of the French word mascotte, meaning "mascot, charm...” The French word in turn came from the Provençal word mascoto, "piece of witchcraft, charm, amulet," a feminine diminutive of masco, "witch." This word can probably be traced back to Medieval Latin masca, "witch, specter." Thus for all their apparent differences, yesterday's witches and today's cuddly mascots can be seen in the same light, as agents working their respective magic to bring about a desired outcome.”
In a lot of ways, this origin makes sense. We choose mascots because we want part of this power or magic for ourselves. We fixate on the desirable qualities of the symbol. We the athletes on the field or the fans in the stands want to impart in ourselves its enchanted elements. We wish to be as quick as a cougar, as fierce as a lion, as strong as a bull. It has an almost spiritual element to it.
How then do Indians fit into this picture? Throughout American history, Native Americans have been seen as an otherworldly, spiritual other. From the moment Columbus set foot in the Caribbean, the indigenous people of this continent have fascinated Europeans. Their Christian Bibles included a Europe, an Africa, and an Asia but what then was this America? And who were these people who lived with such strange customs, languages, and practices? They were exotic, they were bizarre, they did not fit. And at a time when these former Europeans were busy burning each other as witches, these strange new people, in this strange new land, certainly held their own magic. Where the lines on the map ended, the magic began.
When the colonists stormed three ships in Boston Harbor in the year 1773, why were they dressed like Indians? They were not disguising themselves but rather making a point. As the ensuing two decades saw a radical transformation in America from British colony to independent nation, non-native Americans suffered a crisis. How could these former subjects of the King emphasize that they were no longer British but instead something new.
The United States has been called the greatest experiment in human history- a nation based not on divine right but on the high ideals of democracy, liberty, and freedom. Such high ideals and abstract concepts provided little solace to the war-weary Americans. They demanded something tangible, more concrete. There existed a huge void in their identity. “If we are no longer British,” they thought, “What are we? Americans, but what does that even mean? How can we lay claim to this new land we just shed our blood for? How do we become true, authentic 'Americans'?”
The resourceful and ingenious Americans did not have to look far for their answer. From the Boston Tea Party to the present day, Americans have had a continual history of “playing Indian.” We dress up like wild Indians in our social fraternities. We put stoic Indians on our currency. We write tall tales of noble savages. We dress in buckskin and sing Indian songs at Summer camp. We dress like Pocahontas and Squanto at Halloween. We put up our tepee at Woodstock and tell everyone to be one with the earth. Like so many generations past when choosing their mascots, we choose Indians as our “agents working their respective magic to bring about our desired outcome.” We want to be that exotic, wild other. We want to live out our fantasies of a more primitive life. We want to be true, authentic Americans. We want that connection to the land that is so uniquely, mysteriously, even magically Indian.
And yet all these things are simply that, Indian. Not Chippewa, Ottawa, Iroquois, Lakota, Abenaki, Seminole, Muscogee, Ute, Mandan, Paiute, Diné, Inuit or even Native American. Just Indian.
This is this idea of the Indian or “indianness,” separate from real Native American people and cultures but the truth is these two things can never truly be separated. The former is simply an attempt to re-envision, to remake the latter so it can be conveniently used by non-native people. Native Americans and their cultures, past and present, were simply too diverse, too complicated, too complex, too inconvenient to make a good stand in for this utter insecurity on the part of the Americans. Therefore, we pick and choose certain elements of Native Americans, building up some aspects while burying others. We create one-dimensional stereotypes that fill the void in our own lives, our own identities. American insecurities of all varieties stripped down Native Americans into an idealized, magical native creature, the Indian. It became our hero, our inspiration, our charm, our mascot.
But haven't we moved beyond all this? This is the year 2010. Sure, when the redskins name and logo were chosen decades ago, people didn't know better. People do know better today and certainly can make the distinction between a crude stereotype and a real, diverse culture. Plus, all cultures borrow elements from other cultures so why single out this example? We've all seen people with tribal symbols, celtic designs, and chinese characters tattooed on their own skin who are not even Native American, Irish, or Chinese. We all borrow clothing fashions, music styles, and slang words from people who look, speak, and act differently than us. Even look at the back of our currency and you will see symbols ranging from pyramids, to eagles, to the neo-pagan goddess herself Lady Liberty.
And yet it is different.
Whenever I think about the issue of Indian mascots, my mind always returns to this unique historical trend, this obsession with everything Indian in all its myriad forms. But it is also more than that. This is only half the story. Native Americans were continually marginalized, persecuted, and killed in the name of Manifest Destiny. A wide group of real people were demonized as savages, pushed of their land, and then carved down into a stock character, only to be used by the very people who did the demonizing and pushing. Americans glorified Indians as noble warriors and spiritual beings, while wiping these same so-called savages from the face of the earth. It is the definition of cruel irony.
And I don't think that people have moved beyond race in this country. I wince whenever someone says we live in a post-racial environment and that we all should be color-blind. Yes, I believe that today is the most racially tolerant and understanding day in American history and tomorrow will be even better. But how can we expect this trend to continue when such clear visual and meaningful stereotypes exist as the Clinton High School Redskins. It is simply wishful thinking that people will differentiate between a stereotype and reality. Images have real impact, even if the message is not on the surface.
Take this study that demonstrates how race is something even young children see:
“For decades, it was assumed that children see race only when society points it out to them. However, child-development researchers have increasingly begun to question that presumption. They argue that children see racial differences as much as they see the difference between pink and blue—but we tell kids that "pink" means for girls and "blue" is for boys. "White" and "black" are mysteries we leave them to figure out on their own.”
"As the article states, parents, teachers, and society as a whole should be talking about race. And not with such namby-pamby clichés as "We're all the same." The article demonstrates how a child reacts to such vague generalities:
'To be effective, researchers have found, conversations about race have to be explicit, in unmistakable terms that children understand. A friend of mine repeatedly told her 5-year-old son, "Remember, everybody's equal." She thought she was getting the message across. Finally, after seven months of this, her boy asked, "Mommy, what's 'equal' mean?"'
This article explains why we look for the racial messages beneath the surface. It's because people can perceive a message even if it's not overt. For instance, if Indiana Jones is the gun-wielding hero and Indians are the spear-wielding villains, it's not hard to conclude that white = noble and civilized and brown = primitive and savage. A child can see the difference even if adults try to deny it."
And take this recent study about racial attitudes. To quote the author of the study:
“Simply telling people to celebrate diversity or multiculturalism or saying, generically, that we believe in tolerance isn’t sufficient. We need to teach people about structural racism, about the ways that race still shapes people’s life chances and how the media informs our attitudes toward race.”
I honestly believe the students of Clinton High School when they say the Redskins mascot and logo are sources of pride and inspiration. But a supposedly positive stereotype is still a stereotype nonetheless. And when you look at the historical trend of the Indian image and it's use as a mascot, you cannot help but feel a bit unsettled. How can this cultural creation, whose origins are rooted in at best ironic admiration at worst genocide, continue to serve in that role today. In doing so, it only conditions the students into believing that real Native Americans are nothing more than the proud, one-dimensional warriors they lionize every Friday night. Provided few if any alternatives, (and being hounded by legions of native stereotypes in the rest of our popular culture) how can we expect these young students at a learning institution to come to an accurate and nuanced portrait of real Native Americans and real Native culture in the year 2010.
Indian mascots have real consequences for real people today. They perpetuate a constructed stereotype that was born in a process of awkward cultural appropriation over the past 500 years. They simply prevent Native Americans from defining their own culture and their own identity.
Now, one of the most common arguments used to support Indian mascots is the fact that they have real Native American support. They show polling data which clearly shows a large majority of Native Americans in support of keeping Indian mascots. I have a theory about this and I'm going to take a chance and throw it out there.
Growing up Native American in this country means being exposed to the same stereotypes, the same images, the same feelings about Indians as everyone else. You see all these things and know them to not be true. Yet they still have their impact. You wonder why the people like you in the movies, on television, in American culture are both simultaneously glorified and vilified. Such conflicting messages can do a number on your psychology and your self-esteem. You feel dispossessed. You feel utterly insecure.
So you look for any way to set the record straight, even if it means selling out a little of yourself. You're willing to put up with a positive Indian stereotype because you too want to take pride in that image and have others do the same. Like the students at Clinton High School, you look at the Redskins mascot and want some of that magic to rub off on yourself. It's the comfort in seeing something with which you identify being celebrated.
Thanks to the Indian stereotypes in our popular culture and the reality of two centuries worth of boarding schools that systematically shamed Native identity and culture right out of the hearts and minds of generations, many Native Americans were left in an emotional and cultural no-man's land. For this reason, I understand the logic and the emotion behind this current native support for Indian mascots. I just feel there has to be a better way.
In 2005, the American Psychological Association called for the immediate retirement of all American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams, and organizations. They released a point by point analysis of the negative aspects of Indian mascots. They concluded Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities...
“undermine the educational experiences of members of all communities-especially those who have had little or no contact with Indigenous peoples.”
“undermine the ability of American Indian Nations to portray accurate and respectful images of their culture, spirituality, and traditions”
“establish an unwelcome and often times hostile learning environment for American Indian students that affirm negative images/stereotypes that are promoted in mainstream society”
“have a negative impact on the self-esteem of American Indian children”
A big part of the solution is education to teach people of all backgrounds, native and not, to better understand the reality and the complexities of the cultures around us. But this education will only go so far if the simplistic images and stereotypes it's preaching against are plastered on the very walls where this learning takes place, our own schools.
In conclusion, I fully expect people of all backgrounds to go on borrowing from other cultures. I expect people will continue to take pieces of other cultures to fill the holes in their own. I fully expect sports teams everywhere will be in need of rallying symbols, mascots, to propel their team to victory. But when that mascot has such a troubled history and the consequences are so very real for so many people, things simply must change.
On Monday, April 19th I drove to Clinton, Michigan to experience first hand our constitutional rights in action. I attended a demonstration and school board meeting to address the issue of the Clinton High School mascot, the Redskins. In the course of a few hours, I learned a lot.
When I arrived, I saw a group of peaceful demonstrators holding signs and expressing their opinions. They held signs saying “teach respect, not racism,” “stop identity theft,” and “Native Americans are not mascots.” The crowded included people of all races and backgrounds. I was surprised to learn that many of the people were there not to demonstrate but rather for protection. This thought was quite unsettling as I later learned about previous actions directed against the demonstrators- dead animals left on doorsteps, people saying racial epithets under their breath, and car break lines being cut.
The evening changed when an opposing demonstration started to grow across the school entrance. It consisted of high schoolers from Clinton High proudly wearing their “Redskins forever” T-shirts. They said their “Go Redskins!” cheers with all their youthful exuberance and received “Go Redskins!” responses from many honking cars driving by. It was quite a striking image hearing these chants and seeing a giant cardboard Indian head thrust into the air when just 20 feet away stood a group of Native Americans. Somehow calling this situation ironic felt a little like an understatement. This went on until it was time for the school board meeting.
The school board meeting was inside the High School library, local residents on one side and the school board on the other. As they finished their business, it finally came time for public comment when Elspeth, who together with sister Kylista has spearheaded this movement for more than a year and a half now, spoke first. She argued the merits of her case: the history of the term Redskins, it's attachment to the murder of Native people, how mascots steal the identity from real Native Americans.
By this time the students from outside came inside and lined one entire wall of the library. They were well-behaved and some spoke in defense of the Redskins mascot. Essentially, it was thirty minutes of back and forth between supporters of keeping the mascot and supporters of changing the mascot.
Some of the arguments went as follows:
Keep the mascot:
"I don't see anything wrong with the name."
"This name was chosen to honor and respect the native people"
"I'm a card carrying member (while holding the card) of the (fill in the blank) tribe and I am ashamed of these two women bringing this up. I'm proud of my Redskins."
Change the mascot:
"I find the name truly abhorrent and it does not honor my people."
"The name Redskins is directly attached to the bounties put on native people and the murder of innocent people."
"Using Native American as mascots not only harms the self-esteem and well-being of native people, but also teaches all young people in this place of learning that it is somehow okay to stereotype an entire group of people."
One of the most striking arguments was from Jeanette Henagan, a local resident and president of the Lenawee county NAACP. When you watch this video I want you to watch not only Jeanette but the people sitting around her.
After 30 minutes had elapsed, the school board called an end to public comment (a surprise to some people) and the crowd slowly dispersed. I talked with many of the demonstrators after and learned some interesting things. The most surprising was how one person had been approached by some of the students after he left. They asked him about his position, unsure of which side he supported. This person then went ahead and challenged the students to do their own research and come to their own conclusions, even giving them copies of a paper he had written on this topic. Otherwise, the evening ended peacefully and people went their own ways.
I'm currently putting together my thoughts about the evening and the issue. They will be posted as soon as I can think it all through and write it down.
Well, it was only a matter of time before the Avatar-Indian connection went mainstream. In Brazil, there is a plan to build a dam in the Amazon river basin that would flood hundreds of square miles and displace thousands of indigenous people. In many ways, this situation perfectly parallels the construction of numerous dams in the American west including the ambitious 1944 Pick-Sloan plan for the Missouri River basin. A series of dams were built to control flooding, provide irrigation, create hydroelectric power, and regulate water levels for river traffic along the Missouri. In the process, millions of acres of prime river bottom farmland were flooded. Working at the Knife River Indian Villages in North Dakota, I always included the story of Garrison Dam as part of my centuries long narrative of the Three Affiliated Tribes. That dam flooded millions of acres of their homeland and destroyed several towns including the largest city Sanish. The wounds of this latest injustice are still fresh today and the impact of Garrison Dam is still felt in today's generations. Need a visual? This photo pretty much sums up the fight 70 years ago as well as the current fight in the Amazon today.
I applaud the efforts of James Cameron to bring attention to this issue, it sure is going to be a tough fight. Be sure to check out the audio slideshow as it provides even more insight into this Amazon case.
On Saturday April 10th, I attended the 38th annual Dance for Mother Earth Powwow in Saline, Michigan. This was the fourth Powwow I have attended in the past few years. As soon as I walked into the Saline Middle School gym, the sights, the sounds, and the smells brought back fond memories of powwow past. I remember living in Grand Portage, Minnesota and laying in bed at night as the distant beat of the drums echoed across the open bay from the powwow grounds many miles away. I remember the beautiful colors and the intricate designs of the regalia at the United Tribes International Powwow I attended in North Dakota. I remember smelling the sage, the leather, and the sweat of dancing human beings mixing in the atmosphere. I remember the strong sense of community that is the hallmark of every powwow I have attended. It's truly a unique and uplifting experience that everyone should experience at least once in their life.
For me the most fulfilling aspect of the Powwow (outside of the dancing of course) was meeting the fine folks from the Michigan Coalition Against Racism in Sports and Media (MCARSM). This group is a grassroots coalition formed to fight against racist Native American imagery and mascots. Through activism and information campaigns at area Powwows as well as in the wider community, they are fighting to put an end to some of the more offensive and egregious Native American references in sports and media. In particular, I would like to bring to your attention one local example.
In the lovely little town of Clinton, Michigan there is a problem. You might never know it driving through town or talking with the locals, but on a Friday night in the Fall you probably couldn't miss it. As the Clinton High School football team runs onto the field to play the local rivals, the fans in the bleachers aren't hollering go bears, or go hawks, or even go warriors. Instead, they shout at the top of their lungs, "Go Redskins!" If this thought sends shivers down your back, good. If it does not, let me do a little explaining.
The term "redskins" has a history dating back hundreds of years. While no one is sure of the exact origin of the word, one of the common etymologies is that the term comes from the practice of scalping or "skinning" Native American peoples. Thanks to centuries of misinformation and outright lies in art, literature, film, and television, most Americans define scalping as an exclusively Indian practice. The reality could not be more different. The practice of scalping exploded with the arrival of Europeans on the shores of North America. Bounties were placed on the heads of native men, women, and children. What had been an infrequent practice confined to conflicts became a bloody wave that spread across North America. Spurred on by the lure of hard currency, Native Americans were hunted down and murdered for their bloody trophies. Even worse, colonizing Europeans used money to spur on their Native allies to scalp rival Native Americans and Europeans. Native cultures were warped and destroyed in this process as human being were treated no better than animals.
To use this term today as a team name and mascot imagery is unacceptable. Perpetuating these stereotypes through their continual use demeans native communities today, undermines their efforts to define their own culture, and warps everyone's perspective on our fellow human beings. Don't believe me? Ask the experts.
On Monday, April 19th the Clinton School Board will be holding a regular meeting at 7:30 PM. An hour before the meeting, MCARSM will be protesting outside the meeting place. They will then be speaking at the school board meeting to convince the board to change the team name. While this effort is not as high profile as the movement against professional or college sports teams, it is simply a small step in the right direction that if taken enough times can move mountains.
I am a graduate student at the University of British Columbia where I study modern U.S. and Canadian social and cultural history. I specialize in issues of myth, memory, and representation concerning indigenous peoples and the North American fur trade. In an effort to bring attention to these topics and put my thoughts into writing, I have started blogging. I hope you appreciate the results.
You are free to distribute and reuse this work so long as full and clear credit is given to the blog's author and direct and clear direction is given to the original content.
