When Cultures Collide: Even the Rain Film Review

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:

Forget Avatar: 10 Compelling Films of Real-Life Indigenous Struggles


Note: This review is based on my original review available here:

http://www.movieretriever.com/blog/1076/movie-review-even-the-rain



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!

<>

American Indians in the Civil War?

Who's ready for five years of politicized, polarized, misinterpreted, and misinformed Civil War sesquicentennial fun?  (No, well you better get ready cause it starts on Monday!)

(Source: www.soldierstudies.org)

December 20th, 2010 marks the start of six years of anniversary celebrations for the American Civil War.  Exactly 150 years ago, the state of South Carolina voted to secede from the Union.  Within two months, the Confederate States of America were formally established, eventually growing to eleven states.

Why did they secede?  I'll let Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens do the talking.  Here is the famous excerpt from the cornerstone speech which puts it pretty bluntly (hint: slavery):

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

I was reminded of this ensuing anniversary thanks to an article over at National Parks Traveler:


American Indians in the Civil War? Petersburg National Battlefield is Part of the Story


Here is a brief excerpt:

The 150th Anniversary of the Civil War is nearly here and a recent event at Petersburg National Battlefield underscored a bit of history that often escapes much notice—the role of American Indians in the conflict.

Estimates of the number of American Indians who fought for either the Union or the Confederacy vary widely; several sources cite numbers ranging from about 6,000 to over 20,000 men. One example occurred at Petersburg, Virginia, and that story has recently received some renewed attention.

The article goes on to describe Company K of the First Michigan Sharpshooters who fought at Petersburg.  Company K consisted entirely of American Indians from Michigan who enlisted in the Union Army.

According to information from the park, "The 1st Michigan Sharpshooters fought valiantly in every major battle in the Petersburg campaign. The American Indians were a memorable presence at the Battle of the Crater, where they were noticed for their composure under adversity. A Union officer described watching a group of them pull their jackets over their faces and sing their death chant when trapped in the crater under Confederate fire. 

The Park Service realized many of the dead from Company K were buried at the local cemetery and decided to contact the "the tribes to arrange a nation to nation consultation on how to move forward with the cemetery restoration project under the provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act."

Eric Hemenway, a tribal repatriation specialist who works with the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, was one of several Native representatives who traveled to Petersburg.  Hemenway noted:

“We want to have Company K’s story told from our perspective... It’s been a local legend passed down in our community but outside of our community, it’s like a secret.  No one really knows about Company K...

Their rights aren’t fully recognized, yet they voluntarily go and fight.  They weren’t drafted or forced.  That’s kind of amazing.  In 1820, the United States Army tried to push them out of Michigan, but 40 years later, the men of Company K joined that same Army.  They went above and beyond the normal call of duty."

Hemenway finished saying:

“We’re just happy the park is being proactive and asking input from the tribes to tell their story.  We’re still here and we have a story to tell.”

This is a great article for several reasons:

1. It shows just how far the National Park Service has come in its relations with Indian people.  What was once a relationship of mistrust and hostility is slowly transforming into one of cooperation and understanding.

2. It reminds us that Indian people in the 1860s were not all stuck on the plains playing charades with Kevin Costner but rather lived side by side (and fought side by side) with a diverse lot of Americans from all backgrounds.

3. And despite this interaction, Indian people maintained and lived out their own culture and traditions within the bloody battlefields of the Civil War.

4. Lastly, it's a great reminder that Indian people not only fought in the Civil War but fought on both sides.  Just as brother fought brother in the Civil War so did Native brother fight Native brother.

Stand Watie, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation (1862-1866)

Confederate Brigadier General
(Source: www.scv357.org)

For more on this topic check out the corresponding Wikipedia article which also contains a photo of Company K:

Native Americans in the American Civil War

<>

Portraying Pocahontas: or the Not-So-Modern Origins of the "Sexy Indian Princess"

One of the single most pervasive and harmful facets of the 500 year history of "drawing on Indians" remains the sexual objectification of Native women. It's an important issue that can often be lost in the sea of appropriation and faulty information that sadly marks the modern state of Native representation in the wider American culture. But it's an issue that rears its ugly head every October 31st.

"Sexy Indian Princess" anyone?

This issue is in fact part of a larger trend that extends beyond Native communities. Throughout American history, women of color have always been treated as the racialized sexual other for the white male majority.

As Whitney Teal writes in her article One Woman's Costume is another Woman's Nightmare at the Women's Rights section of Change.org:

Consider the "Chiquita Banana" stereotypes of Latinas, oversexed black Jezebels, or the seemingly pliant and sexually subversive Japanese geisha. All of those stereotypical costumes correlate with a tame, sexually pure image of white women, like the European colonist with her full-length skirt, the Scarlett O'Hara on the plantation. Of course, there are also sexy stereotypes for white women, but most aren't ethnicity-specific and most people don't routinely lump all white women into one category.

The fact that Native women are most commonly assaulted by non-Native men is not surprising to me, but does add a historical slant to the idea of how harmful cultural appropriation can be for women. Historically, men have used the implied "natural" sluttiness of women of color as justification for rampant rape or not-really-consensual relationships with women of color, particularly Native women who came into contact with colonists.

Many modern issues for American Indians have roots that run deep in American history. This issue is no different. Reading various articles and comments about this matter, I was reminded of a particular chapter in a particular book that shows just how far back this problem goes.

Camilla Townsend is a history professor at Rutgers University where she specializes in first contact interaction between Native people and Europeans. In 2004, she published Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma which discusses the earliest interaction between the English colonists and the Indians at Jamestown.

Before I even read the book, I fully expected to learn about this early interaction and see how it set the stage for Native-Western encounters in the ensuing 400 years of American history. What I did not realize was how important the previous 100 years were for the English colonists who left England that fateful December of 1606. Long before they set foot in the muddy tidal flats of the James River, these earliest “americans” already had an idea of Native women fixed fast in their minds.

The motley band of one hundred and forty four Englishmen who landed in Virginia in 1607 were far from uneducated. The history I learned growing up had me believe that these English gentlemen shunned hard work in favor of fruitless gold prospecting, all while stumbling about and starving in this "savage new land." While it is true they faced many obstacles, they at least had done the required reading before they left.

The Principall Navigations, Voiages, and Discoveries of the English Nation (1589)

Indeed, it is the overview on New World literature available to the English colonists that makes Professor Townsend's book so compelling. It is in her description of these sixteenth century works that the origins of the “sexualized Indian” becomes so abundantly clear.

She writes of lurid tales of an exotic land spreading throughout Europe within the first few years of Columbus' arrival in the Americas. From the earliest illustrations, America was routinely depicted as a naked Indian woman, a metaphor not lost on the Spanish conquistadors who conquered the “virgin” lands of the New World. Even the English described the Indians in and around the failed Roanoke colony as sweet and welcoming, “devoid of all guile and treason.” (p. 28)

These works inspired hundreds if not thousands of Englishmen to risk their lives and money to journey to this land of “opportunity.” Native women were portrayed as not only accessible but willing. It was seen as practically divine mandate that these Englishmen sow their seed in the new world both literally and figuratively.

As Townsend writes:

“There is no question that John Smith and his peers- those who wrote such books, and those who read them- embraced a notion of an explorer as a conqueror who strode with many steps through lands of admirers, particularly admiring young women... the colonizers of the imagination were men- men imbued with almost mystical powers. The foreign women and the foreign lands wanted, even needed, these men, for such men were more than desirable.” (p. 29)

European men fabricated the “New World” into a perfect masculine fantasy where savagery and sexuality mingled together in a myriad of tantalizing forms.

As the title of Townsend's book suggests, a certain young Indian girl entered the equation as soon as the Englishmen arrived. Today, she stands tall as the embodiment of the sexualized Indian princess who threw herself upon the white man John Smith in order to save his life. It is also a story that bleeds more fiction than fact.

Townsend brilliantly puts Pocahontas, the woman and the myth, in their historical context:

“Pocahontas, we must remember, was a real person. She was not always a myth. Long before she became an icon, she was a child who walked and played beneath the towering trees of the Virginia woods, and then an adult woman who learned to love-- and to hate-- English men. Myths can lend meaning to our days, and they can inspire wonderful movies. They are also deadly to our understanding.” (ix-x)

The tale of Pocahontas and John Smith came to prominence thanks to Smith's publications. He happily describes the young thirteen or fourteen year-old Pocahontas in alluring terms, “nubile and sexy” joined by other naked young women. (p. 74)

The Abduction of Pocahontas (c.1618)

In reality, she was a mere ten or eleven years old. A young girl who tried to live an ordinary life in extraordinary times.

All of the depictions of Pocahontas and Smith since their real-life encounter have only served to transform the historical reality of statutory rape into something not only palatable but pleasing for readers and movie audiences alike.

One only needs to look at the more modern depictions of Pocahontas to see this myth in action:

"Pocahontas" (c.1848)

"Pocahontas" (c.1883)

Pocahontas (1995)

The New World (2005)

A young attractive teenage girl tantalizing the white man.  Not the normal eleven year old girl of history.  In essence, the myth and not reality.  And sadly a myth with very real consequences even today.

Reading the various articles about sexual violence against Native women, the countless problems with sexy Indian costumes, and the historical insights on Pocahontas really made me sit up and think this Halloween.

I hope it does the same for you.



For more information:

Native American Women and Violence at NOW

Indian Women as Sex Objects at Blue Corn Comics

Pocahontas Bastardizes Real People at Blue Corn Comics

The Pocahontas Myth at Powhatan Renape Nation

<>

Stanton, North Dakota: The Home of Sakakawea

In the summer of 2009, I lived in a rather unremarkable small North Dakota town.  Situated just off the confluence of the Knife and Missouri Rivers, it features straight streets and tall trees.  It has a corner gas station and one bar.  It even has a small city park down by the river where on a good day the walleye are biting.

But Stanton, North Dakota is not just another prairie town.  Stanton, North Dakota is special.  Stanton, North Dakota is the Home of Sakakawea.

The signs are everywhere:
 

Her name welcomes you into town...

 ...as her image graces the map

They have a city park named after her...

...and a gas station too!

View Larger Map

She even follows you as you drive down the main highway!

The woman we know today as Sakakawea or Sacagawea or Sacajawea was not born in Stanton or even in North Dakota.  She was born a Lemhi Shoshone in present-day Idaho.

She was kidnapped by a group of Hidatsa in a raid when she was all of twelve years-old.  She was taken to the Hidatsa village located today at the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site just a mile north of town.  The now thirteen year-old Sakakawea was sold to the French trader Toussaint Charbonneau.  She spent four years living in a Hidatsa earthlodge toiling away for her "husband" until the storied Corps of Discovery arrived in 1804.  The rest as they say...

...is history.


Or is it?

We all know the story of Sakakawea.  She led Lewis and Clark across the plains, through the mountains, and down to the Pacific.  Her skills in finding food and translating foreign tongues proved invaluable.  Her fortuitous run-in with her Shoshone brother was practically destined.  And she did all this while carrying her infant son "Pomp".

This is the history we were all taught growing up.  It is the true story of a remarkable woman who accomplished remarkable things.  But it is so much more than just history.

The story of Sakakawea is part of our national cultural consciousness.  She is a mythic figure on par with the greats in American history.  How else could she get her own space in Statuary Hall in our nation's capitol:

Sakakawea stands second only to Pocahontas in our cultural obsession with a figure about whom we know so very little.  Not once do we hear her voice in the historical record.  Instead, we know this young woman through the writings of a select few white men, each with their own opinions, biases, and expectations.

Two hundred years after she returned to the villages of the Knife River, her image remains in that place but it is not an image she would recognize.  Two centuries worth of artists, writers, and politicians have worked together to create our common perception of this young woman.  From a handful of sources, they've carved her in stone, cast her in bronze, and painted her on canvas.  They made her physical, all while cementing her place in myth and memory.

I invite you all to stare into the eyes of Sakakawea and ask yourself one question...

...do we really know her?

This is not a pipe

<>

Lenawee, Tecumseh, Indians: Drawing Three Deep in Michigan

Q: What sports do Indians play?

A: Soccer, basketball, volleyball, and track!

Well, at least according to this driver:

(click image to enlarge)

I snapped this quick photo many weeks ago while cruising along the highway on my way to Metro Beach to see the voyageur encampment (read about that adventure here: Tim the Fur Trade Reenactment Indian)


The stickers support the young athletes at Tecumseh High School located in the small town of Tecumseh, Michigan.  A better look at the logo can be had at the Tecumseh Indian Fan Club website:

http://www.tps.k12.mi.us/web/our_schools/tms/fanclub/index.htm

Indian mascots remain today throughout our country as one of the most visible forms of drawing on Indians.  They range from the generic Indians to specific tribes like the Chippewas or Seminoles to more "descriptive" terms such as Warriors or Redskins.

They can also tie into much older examples of drawing on Indians.  Take this line from the Tecumseh Public Schools website about the history of the town:

"Tecumseh was one of the first settlements of the Michigan Territory, and the first in Lenawee County. It was first platted in 1824 by Musgrove Evans. Evans was deeply impressed with the culture and beliefs of the Native Americans of the area and named the settlement after the great Shawnee Chief, Tecumseh."

Thus a possible origin of the Indians mascot but the Indian borrowing goes back even further.  Tecumseh is located in Lenawee County which owes its name to the work of one Henry Schoolcraft, famed ethnographer of Michigan's Indian peoples.  According to the Michigan DNR website:

Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, author and Indian agent, mixed words and syllables from Native American, Arabian and Latin languages to make up Native American-sounding words for some of the 28 counties set off in 1840. They include Alcona, Allegan, Alpena, Arenac, Iosco, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Oscoda and Tuscola.

 and Lenawee specifically is...

From a Native American word meaning "man," either from the Delaware "leno or lenno" or the Shawnee "lenawai."

Here is a map of Michigan listing all the county names and a short list of other Michigan counties with "Native American-sounding" names:

(Click to enlarge and see all the counties)

Alcona:

Believed to have been made up by Henry R. Schoolcraft with "al" from the Arabic for "the," "co" the root of a word for "plain" or "prairie," and "na" for excellent; thus the word is interpreted as "excellent plain."

Arenac:

A name made up by Henry Schoolcraft, it is a combination of the Latin "arena" (sandy) and the Native American "ac" (earth). The combined words mean "sandy place."

Iosco:

This was a favorite name used by Henry Schoolcraft for Native American boys and men in his writings. He interpreted the word to mean "water of light."

Kalkaska:

This word was a Henry Schoolcraft creation, originally spelled Calcasca. One suggestion is that this is a play on words. Schoolcraft's family name formerly was Calcraft. The Ks may have been added to make the name appear more like a Native American word.

Leelanau:

Created by Henry Schoolcraft (Ottawas and Ojibwas did not use the letter L), who gave the name "Leelinau" to some Native American women in his stories.

Oscoda:

This Schoolcraft creation is believed to be a combination of two Ojibwa words, "ossin" (stone) and "muskoda" (prairie).

Wow!  Three layers of drawing on Indians all located in one small Michigan town.

Americans have always been obsessed with giving things Indian names.  At least twenty-one states draw their names from Indian origins and the list of counties, cities, and towns that do likewise goes on forever.

I believe that this process of Indian place-naming ties into broader issues of myth-making and identity in American history.  From the earliest days of our young Republic, Americans have used the Indian as a proxy to authenticate their claim to this landscape and define themselves as Americans.  Indian place names inherently bring with them all the popular notions and qualities of "Indianness"- the same qualities we want in ourselves and our land.

The same is true with mascots.  People choose Indian mascots not because they are "honoring Native Americans" but rather to invoke that very essence of Indianness (or at least one version of it).  That means strength, honor, pride, and a "savage" nature perfectly suited for the football field.  The problem with these mascots is that they perpetuate one-dimensional stereotypes and undermine the ability of American Indian Nations to portray accurate and respectful images of their culture, spirituality, and traditions.

For more on Indian place-names check out:

The Penobscot Building

For more on Indian names in consumer culture check out:

Pemmican Brand Beef Jerky: Part II

For more on Indian mascots check out:

Mascot Indians

Happy Indigenous Americans Day!

Well, it's that time of year again- Columbus Day

Time for people to celebrate the myth of Christopher Columbus.  The man who brought western civilization to America and initiated the divinely mandated conquest of a continent.  He sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and for that we say thank you?

Not everyone agrees of course.  The voices may be few and far between (in the mainstream media at least) but every second Monday in October more and more people are voicing their opinions.  More and more people are stopping to think about what this day supposedly celebrates.  More and more people are starting to reconsider:





And for those of you who think this will never happen anywhere big, here's a group of people who heeded the call back in 1990.  It's just a small little place that goes by the name of South Dakota:

Thune: Anniversary of Native Americans’ Day is cause for celebration and reflection

I encourage everyone to read a few news articles about the Columbus Day holiday with a skeptical eye.  Columbus is a sacred figure for many Americans so attacking him is tantamount to burning the flag or defacing Mount Rushmore.  But realize, history is rarely black and white.

500 years can hide a lot of dirt and Christopher Columbus is one figure whose popular image is suspiciously clean.
   

1930 Newsreel Mocks Indians

Check out this black and white newsreel from 1930.  The description from the website seems innocent enough...

"A 1930 newsreel of Calvin Coolidge at the dedication ceremony for the dam named after him and he smokes a peace pipe with a Pima chief and an Apache chief after a meal on top of the dam."

But go ahead and watch the video yourself:


http://thoughtequitymotion.com/video/clip/1617538_035.do?assetId=asset_9339994/clip_4171075


Here are the highlights from Patrick Bateman (I mean the narrator):

"by irrigating a million acres of land, it will save hundreds of Indians from poverty and suffering."

"See the Indians there.  They're from the Pima and Apache tribes who used to be fighting each other all the time."

"After dinner is always a good time for a puff so Mr. Coolidge smoked the pipe of peace and then handed it to the chief of the Pimas.  After he had a puff, he gave it to the Apache chief who came in his best Sunday feathers.  Looks like an old cigar store sign."

Anyone else want to strangle the narrator?

The narration effectively belittles the Indians into mere stereotypes.  It positions President Coolidge as the great leader of the American people, bringing civilization to those poor backward Indians.

And worst of all, despite the claims in the video, the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation on whose land the dam and reservoir now stand, remains one of the poorest in the country.

I imagine this newsreel was created as post-presidential propaganda for Mr. Coolidge.  It effectively draws on Indians to boost up his image and solidify his legacy as friend to the Indian.  But why it had to be so condescending is more a sign of the times than anything else.

Even more interesting is the keywords section on the website.  Click on "Search Related Keywords" and see how this video was classified.  Thankfully, Thought Equity Motion who hosts this video for educational and commercial purposes correctly chose these three keywords: sadness, propaganda, and spin.  Why sneaky is on there I will never know.

(source: Calvin Coolidge: A Patron Saint for the TEA Party)

Bonus Video:

Here's President Coolidge presiding over a Sioux powwow.  Coolidge claimed Indian heritage and was actually given the Indian title "Chief Leading Eagle."  Hence, the one line in the video:


http://thoughtequitymotion.com/video/clip/4932663342_169.do?assetId=asset_9340000/clip_15436424

And yes, he's wearing a headdress.  (which considering the context and the groups involved, actually makes sense for a change!)

Tim the Fur Trade Reenactment Indian

We all have our unique hobbies. Some people are bird watchers. Others collect stamps. Still others restore classic cars.

And some get dressed up and pretend they are living in the 1700s.

This past weekend I visited the annual Voyageur Encampment at Metro Beach Metropark in metropolitan Detroit, Michigan. I have attended these events before but this was the first one here in my home state of Michigan.

The Living History Encampment

For those of you who are not familiar with Fur Trade reenactors or even reenacting in general, I'll let Wikipedia do the talking:  “Historical reenactment is a type of roleplay in which participants attempt to recreate some aspects of a historical event or period.”  In this case, the Great Lakes Fur Trade of the 1700s.

There are as many reasons for participating in reenactments as there are reenactors. It is usually some combination of love of history, love of the reenactment community, and love of dressing up and getting away from it all. I met several fascinating individuals this weekend but there is one in particular who fits right in here at Drawing on Indians.

Tim is just your average midwestern blue collar worker pulling down his 40 hours and a steady paycheck as a pipefitter for General Motors. It's only on the occasional weekend during the summer that you realize Tim is somehow different.


Here's Tim:

(click to enlarge)

Tim immediately caught my attention because of the hair.  I jokingly asked him if he had cut it especially for the event or if this was a permanent style choice.  He told me this was a summer ritual where he would cut it into the Mohawk style when the reenactments started.

I then asked what type of individual he was portraying.  He told me he dressed to represent a Great Lakes Fur Trade era Indian.  He said he didn't know his history as well as others and was representing a more generic Great Lakes Indian and not a specific tribe.  I then of course had to ask politely if he was indeed Native himself.  The answer was both expected and unexpected.  (and I paraphrase)

"Yeah, well I'm French and Native, maybe like 1/32nd Indian but mostly French."

Tim explained how he first became interested in primitive living skills and Indian material culture back in the day which eventually led to his involvement in Fur Trade reenacting.  He actively participates in the group Great Lakes Primitives whose facebook page explains:

Primitive skills teachers and participants gather to share knowledge of our ancestors’ ancient art forms and survival technologies to preserve and pass on these traditions with new friends and renew old friendships.

The group sounds like many of the other survival schools I profiled in my post Cody Lundin and Surviving like an Indian.  These groups draw upon indigenous cultures including American Indians to teach primitive living skills.  Something new I spotted on the Great Lakes Primitives page which surprised me was the following line:

We respect all religious beliefs and practices. Due to the diversity of participants’ spiritual beliefs and the nature of this event, we ask that attendees be respectful of differences as we share our time together.

Between the line "our ancestors’ ancient art form" and the note on religious diversity, I'm wondering if there aren't active Indian members in this group.  Then again, the group could swing the other direction and simply idealize a primitive Indian lifestyle to which it makes false attachments.  All I know is that Tim did refer to some of its members as "those natural people" which made me chuckle.

Now, before anyone starts condemning Tim as a wannabe or shameless hack consider this.  One of the main goals of the Fur Trade reenactment community is to faithfully recreate the look, feel, sights, sounds, smells, and even tastes of the era.  Reenactors put hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars into their tents, gear, and clothing so that you the visitor can walk into the encampment and literally walk back in time.

From my experience, the Indian presence in the Fur Trade reenactment community is quite small and even non-existent in some places.  How then does one faithfully reenact and represent this era of exploration, trade, and cultural interaction without one half of the equation?

When talking to reenactors or listening to presentations a common phrase was "The Native Americans wore this" or "The Indians traded those" or "The Natives believed in that."  The combined effect was to reinforce the fact that there were no Indians at the event to answer these questions for themselves!

A Group of Reenactors

In an ideal world, every historic reenactment would have reenactors represent their own ethnicity or culture  (a group of French-Canadians as voyageurs, English and Scotsmen as traders, Métis as Métis, and Indians as Indians).  But such restrictions limit the openness and inclusivity of these groups.  After all, it's a hobby not a movie set!

Which brings me back to Tim.

After talking with him briefly, he seemed to have a well rounded view of historic and modern Native Americans.  He readily acknowledged the centuries of injustice against Indian people and expressed genuine concern for the loss of Indian culture, language, and traditions.  He even mentioned several acquaintances who actively work with native communities to preserve their language and culture.  Furthermore, he didn't assume a first person identity as an Indian or started lecturing me on native culture as if he'd just walked off the rez, which is always a good thing.

Then again, my conversation with him was rather short and I will never know the truth behind his claim of Indian heritage.  Therefore the question remains...


Can you or should you ever faithfully recreate the look and material culture of American Indians by dressing as an Indian?


My thoughts:

As with most issues of native appropriation, it all depends on the context.  In this particular case, I'm just not sure.

Is Tim's motivation for dressing as an Indian primarily educational to teach others about primitive skills and Indian material culture or is he simply dressing up to "be" an Indian, a human prop on display in the living history encampment.

He certainly has the authentic clothes and gear to represent a Great Lakes Indian of the 1700s (expect for the bow which he acknowledged was not quite period authentic).  Sure is a refreshing change from the stereotypical Plains Indian with full warbonnet and face paint!

I honestly see both sides on this...

What do you think?

Is this a harmless hobby or questionable cultural appropriation?

or something completely different altogether?

<Let me know!>

Digital Empires: Civilization Indians

I started this blog many months ago to continue the critical analysis that began during my college years.  I had the wonderful opportunity to work with some great professors who challenged every one of my preconceived notions about U.S. History and Native America.  In so many ways, this blog is an attempt to continue this process and come to terms with my own thoughts and feelings about Native America.

Here's why:

I grew up in the suburbs of Detroit, far from Indian Country but not from Indians.  Despite this, I didn't know a single Native person.  My exposure to Native America was limited to the usual things- history textbooks, films, television, and videogames.  In my mind, American Indians sort of were those historic exotic far off people who existed on paper and on celluloid but not in real life.

I was recently reminded of one item that had a huge impact on my upbringing and prominently featured American Indians.  It wasn't a movie or television show or book, it was that most modern of mediums- the videogame.

Civilization

As a prototypical pre-teen and teenage male, I played my share of videogames.  While I occasionally dabbled in racing simulations, first person shooters, and sports games, nothing could beat a good strategy game.  Among many great titles, nothing could compare to the critically acclaimed Civilization series.

The gameplay involves controlling a distinct civilization from the stone age through the atomic age.  It's like the board game Risk on steroids where you move your armies and expand your empire across the entire world.  You research technologies, conduct diplomacy, and build Wonders of the World.

The Civilization series is also a perfect example of "greatest hits" history.  Just as musicians release their greatest hits album, so have popular forces created a "greatest hits" list of history.  I'm talking the Pyramids of Giza, Roman armies, Alexander the Great, medieval knights, the Great Wall of China, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment etc. etc.   All the best-known names, ideas, and objects that just scream Civilization!

How many Wonders can you identify from this Civilization III screenshot?

The Civilization series has always included real civilizations in its format.  You can explore the world as the ancient Romans, sail the high seas as the English, or develop the atomic bomb as the Sioux!

Wait... what?

Huh?

The American Indian in Civilization

On one hand, I fault the Civilization series for essentially stereotyping every major civilization and history in general.  This became most apparent with Civilization III when each civilization was given two unique qualities and a unique unit which provided bonuses and affected gameplay.  Previous to this, each civilization was essentially equal with just superficial differences in naming and color.

So for example, the Egyptians are considered a "religious" and "industrious" civilization, (cause they built big pyramids and had big temples), the English are "expansionist" and "commercial" (cause they had a big empire and were good merchants), and the Germans are "scientific" and "militaristic" (cause they invented stuff and liked to invade countries).  Check out the full chart here to see what I mean: Civ III chart

Here are the Civilization III stats for the 4 Native civilizations:

Aztecs- militaristic and religious (later changed to agricultural and militaristic)
Iroquois- expansionist and religious (later changed to agricultural and commercial)

Hiawatha- leader of the Iroquois from Civilization III

Incans- expansionist and agricultural
Mayans- agricultural and industrious

(notice how they're all termed agricultural but otherwise follow the pattern seen above)


Here are the unique units for the 4 Native civilizations:


Aztecs- Jaguar warrior (OK)

Iroquois- mounted warrior (Really?  Apparently, the Iroquois stood in to represent all of Native America in Civ III.  So their "great leaders" include Tecumseh, Red Cloud, and Sitting Bull.  Click here)

"Iroquois mounted warrior"

Incans- chasqui scout (OK)

Mayans- javelin thrower (nothing more unique?)



On the other hand, despite being based on real history, the beauty of the Civilization series is your ability to write a new history.  It's every history buff's dream come true.  You can send the Spanish Armada to invade China, surprise Germany with a "blitzkrieg" of French tanks, or send your Iroquois musketeers to subject the native English population on some newly discovered continent!  Gotta love anachronisms!

Iroquois leader Hiawatha circa the European Renaissance

The series did hit a bump in the road with Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword which represents the 550+ distinct Native North American nations as one generic Native American Civilization.  As the official game website explains:

The "Native American" civilization in the game represents the empire that would have formed had these disparate people ever united.

Ouch!  But if you read the rest of the text it comes off a little better.  Click the link > civilizations > Native American Empire

http://www.2kgames.com/civ4/beyondthesword/

Still, this didn't stop some enterprising modders from correcting this wrong with their new mod:

Annoyed about the fact that Native America got bundled into one? Thought the Totem Pole was inappropriate? Then I give you: Native America Expanded for VD 6

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=12118

 The Apache Empire: a user-created civilization

In the latest reiteration, Civilization V the series has gotten better in expanding beyond the Western world.  You can play as India, Japan, China, Songhai, Siam, Aztecs, and Iroquois.  Despite the attempts to define each civilization with two distinct qualities, the series otherwise treats each civilization equally.  Everyone starts in the Stone Age and so has an equal chance of ruling the world.  It's a refreshing take on history that Iroquois and Aztec civilization is placed on the same level as Roman or American civilization.


Civilization IV: Colonization

The Civilization series has numerous expansion packs and spin offs that recreate distinct historical periods ranging from the Ancient World to World War II.  One recent stand-alone release was Civilization IV: Colonization.  Here's a description from the game's website:

Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization is a total conversion of the Civilization IV engine into a game experience in which players will lead a European nation on their quest to colonize and thrive in the New World. Players will be challenged to guide their people from the oppressive motherland, discover a New World, negotiate, trade and fight as they acquire great power and battle for their freedom and independence.

Essentially, this is the standard American historical narrative in video game form.  Europeans come to the Americas to flee oppression and strike it rich, all while engaging in the exciting activities of discovery, trading, and fighting.  You must:

Sustain peace and support your followers as you engage in advanced negotiations with natives, other colonists and the hostile homeland -- Trade resources, gold and land as you build the foundation for a self sufficient and powerful colony.

I have never played this specific game but am sad to see the Native civilizations treated as minor characters.  I remember one "New World" scenario for Civilization III where you could play as either a European power or one of several Native civilizations, each fighting for territory with a real chance of winning.  Now that's historically accurate!

"Chief of Teton - Sioux" from Civilization IV: Colonization

I played these games throughout my youth without giving them much thought.  I know they definitely spurred my interest in history but did they influence me in any other way?  Are my views and feelings toward real peoples and "civilizations" affected by years of building digital empires and waging artificial wars?  I can only wonder...

Links:

Here's a good take on Civilization IV: Colonization from the Newspaper Rock blog:

http://newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2010/01/natives-criticize-sid-meiers.htm

And one from Variety.com:

http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2008/06/civilization-iv.html

And for a more general look at American Indians in video games:

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/navidgam.htm