Going Native in Ireland Part I

I recently spent some time in Western Europe backpacking through several countries including that beautiful green emerald isle of the north known as Ireland.

If you have never been to Western Europe, and Ireland in particular, you must first understand that many of these places thrive on tourism.  Huge segments of the Irish, Spanish, French, and Italian economies depend on the billions of tourist dollars brought in every year.

And what vacation is complete without a few souvenirs!

Carroll's Irish Gift Stores is a huge chain of souvenir shops strung out along the main tourist thoroughfares in downtown Dublin.  They sell everything from Leprechaun key chains to Guinness slippers to "Kiss me, I'm Irish!" T-shirts.  If it can be made green, white, and orange, it will be sold at Carroll's.

I thought I had seen it all when my eyes fell upon the most mind-boggling souvenir imaginable!

The Irish Indian Chief Head Dress

"Everyone's an Indian on St. Patrick's Day!"

Oh, and if you can't make it to Ireland anytime soon, you can just pick one up online!

I suppose this is no worse than the typical Indian costumes you see around Halloween but when you take it out of the context of Halloween, it seems even weirder!  And when you consider that donning this headdress means you are appropriating one culture to celebrate another, that just blows my mind!

So does this finally prove that the Indian Headdress/War Bonnet has moved beyond mere Indian dress up and instead is a broader fad?  Do people don the Irish “Indian Chief Hat” not to become an Indian but rather show Irish pride in a unique and “fashionable” way?

Others may say yes, but I say no. You can never fully divulge the associations with American Indians. The thing is clearly supposed to be a send-up of Plains Indian War Bonnets.  (Look at the name!)

Decades of western media stereotypes have taught Americans and Irishmen alike that the headdress wearing Plains Indian is the ultimate Indian.  To wear any other Native head covering would simply be second rate!  Even when rooting on Irish teams, people want that universally recognized "fierce" look of the Plains warrior with headdress and war paint.

So who exactly would ever buy the headdress and why?  My money goes on those young hipster types such as the Glastonbury “Indians.”  The types who sport nostalgic clothing in an effort to look hip/ironic but instead look like they're stuck in some multi-dimensional multi-cultural time warp.

Just check out the grinning fools on the packaging!

 

...cause it just wouldn't be complete without side pieces.

In the end, this is just another fine example of drawing on Indians.  And if you think this Irish Headdress is silly, just wait till Part II!


For more info, check out these earlier posts:

Tribal Chic: Native Appropriation Appropriation?

Hipster Indians

<>

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

<>

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!>

Former WWE Superstar 'Tatanka' Talks about Being Professional Wrestling's "Real-Life Native American"

Chris Chavis is a professional wrestling superstar who is also descended from the Lumbee Native American tribe in North Carolina.  He began wrestling in 1990 and immediately made use of his Native heritage to create the wrestling persona "Tatanka."  More info can be found at his Wikipedia page and personal website.

Tatanka!!!

Here's a great interview with Chris on the Miami Herald website.  He was in town to wrestle at the Coastal Championship Wrestling indie show at the Miccosukee Resort & Gaming (a tribal casino outside Miami).  I've posted some of the highlights below but I recommend reading the full article to get his whole background.

Former WWE superstar Tatanka talks Native American

Q: What is the history of the Miccosukee, Seminole and Lumbee tribes getting along? Any battles?

A: No. No battles.  I have a contact list of all tribes throughout the U.S. (including Alaska) and Canada. People don't realize there are actually 1,838 tribes. Huge. There's approximately 600 in Canada, 425 in Alaska and and around 1,000 in the U.S. People don't realize that because TV has programmed people to see only the Apache, the Navajo, the Cherokee, and TV always depicted the Native Americans not in a proper way.

That's why it's good we finally have movies that came along -- like "Dances with Wolves" -- that really portrayed the Native Americans as they truly are. Not like the John Wayne movies.


Q: Did you have to overcome any stereotypes growing up?

We really didn't have to deal with that.  Thank God I came from an area where it was accepted. I went to high school and college in Virginia.

North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, those areas have a lot of native tribes. You got the Cherokees. You have the Lumbees, the Iroquois, a lot of different tribes. So it wasn't a thing people wanted to stereotype. It was more accepted.

The stereotyping, yea, you still have that, but I think it's more from some of the areas in the country where you have certain races of people who are very hypocritical or anti.



Q: Did promoters ever want to give you a different character than your real-life persona as a Native American?

A: ...They said, "There's not a lot of natives in the business, but the natives who have been in the business have done great. You can be who you are. You're the real deal. Let's just shoot with you." George Scott was a promoter who believed what you do has to be believable. He would call it a shoot.

So they loved that I was Native American.


...When I went to the WWF, [owner] Vince [McMahon] loved it. He's said, "I loved that you're truly native. We can go right to your tribe. We can do vignettes right at your tribe. They can check your name. We're going to start you as Chris Chavis because Chris Chavis is really Native American. They can find out Chris Chavis is a proud member of the Lumbee Tribe."

Chris Chavis posing with our troops

(image source: www.nativetatanka.com)

Comments:

Admittedly I don't know a whole lot about this "sporting theater" known as professional wrestling or even "Tatanka" the wrestling legend but I watched enough as a kid to know I don't much care for it.

Professional wrestling has never been known for its subtlety or nuance.  It's essentially a testosterone fueled sideshow with crazy characters and even crazier bodies.  (hairless, tanned, and oiled up like they should be...dammit!)  Then again as Chris Chavis demonstrates, it is also a forum for expressing your identity and heritage (albeit through an over-the-top wrestling persona).

Chris is also uniquely qualified to speak on this issue of Native representation in the media and popular culture since he literally was the face of Native America for countless young wrestling fans across America.  I don't know his character Tatanka or his routine to comment on specifics but I suspect it may be a mixture of his personal heritage and culture with some Hollywood thrown in.

Why you ask?

When the event promoters and managers say, "You can be who you are. You're the real deal." I can't help but wonder if they're thinking in the back of their heads "Wow, a real Indian!  We don't have to parade around those fake Indians anymore!"  From the promoters point of view, Chris brings the tantalizing qualities of his authentic native heritage to a public that time and time again has proven its insatiable thirst for the exotic Indian on display.

In my opinion, Tatanka looks like a Native American mascot brought to life.  He has donned the customary plains headdress, warpaint, and even dances.  Then again, all professional wrestlers are forced into a character niche, often stereotypical, to fulfill the demands of the business.

Well enough from me.  I'll let this video do the talking:




The article/interview also has some interesting language.  Whenever someone refers to a Native person as a "real-life Native American" I can't help but shake my head.  It's pretty sad that people have become so used to fake Indians that the "real deal" is so amazing!

The Icelandic Indian Wannabe: Ólöf the Eskimo Lady

There's a new book out about yet another Indian wannabe.

Introducing:

Ólöf the Eskimo Lady: A Biography of an Icelandic Dwarf in America

By: Inga Dóra Björnsdóttir

Here's a brief summary of the book:


UCSB Anthropologist Tells the Story of 20th-Century Con Artist

(Santa Barbara, Calif.) –– From the late 1880's to the early 1900's, Ólöf Krarer regaled listeners with incredible stories about her native Greenland and her own Eskimo heritage. She crossed the country, giving lectures and presentations –– more than 2,500 in all –– to audiences that included such luminaries as senator and presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.

There was one catch, however: Krarer was not an Eskimo, and she had never set foot in Greenland. She was, in fact, a dwarf from Iceland who had immigrated to the United States at the age of 18. Unable to find steady employment outside of circus sideshows, she decided to reinvent herself as the Eskimo people assumed her to be.

Eventually, she changed her country of origin to Greenland –– there were no Eskimos in Iceland –– and took to the lecture circuit, sharing everything she knew about Eskimo culture. But nearly everything she said to the tens of thousands of people who flocked to hear her speak was a lie.

In her new book, "Ólöf the Eskimo Lady –– A Biography of an Icelandic Dwarf in America" (The University of Michigan Press, 2010), Inga Dóra Björnsdóttir, a lecturer in the Department of Anthropology at UC Santa Barbara, tells Krarer's life story and explores how one woman was able to fool so many people, including experts of the day. She places Krarer's story against the backdrop of America's fascination with the wild north and the expansion of the railroad, both of which propelled Krarer and her lies around the country.

"America at that time was the country with the greatest number of ethnic groups," Björnsdóttir said. "It was –– and perhaps still is –– the place where immigrants could most easily reinvent themselves and lead a life that would have been impossible in their native countries. At the same time, Americans were very ignorant about life and cultures in foreign lands, and harbored great prejudice against minorities and foreigners, a fact that Ólöf certainly used to her advantage."

Comments:

Which came first: the "wannabe" or the public craving an up close look at the exotic Native?

Anyone with enough ignorance and guts can dress up as an Indian and claim to be 100% authentic.  It takes something else all together to make those people into full-fledged celebrities.  The throngs of adoring public that flocked to see Ólöf Krarer made her into that instant but short-lived celebrity.

I appreciate how the author, Inga Dóra Björnsdóttir, places Ólöf into the wider cultural context of the late nineteenth century with its fascination with foreign cultures, dramatic race to the North Pole, and transportation revolution which all factored into Ólöf's quick rise.

Her story also parallels other individuals who adopted Native identities.  She completely re-invented herself in America, from a disabled Icelandic dwarf into an accepted cultural icon.  While I appreciate this positive spin on the story, it doesn't change the underlying fact that she was a complete fraud.

"The Little Esquimaux Lady
Miss Olof Krarer
Age, 33 years. Height, 40 inches. Weight, 120 lbs."

...a great example of how NOT to go about drawing on Indians!


And lest you think this is only something that happened in the long ago days of the past, check out this July 30, 2010 article from Indian Country Today about a current hobbyist group dressing up and "playing Indian."


Playing Indian: Group presents native culture with fake fires and tipis, phony tribal ID


The highlight is an interview with Iowa Native leader Vicky Apala-Cuevas about the new Indian wannabes:

There have been many offenses to our peoples and cultures, and these are yet more. The desire to show us how to run a sweat lodge is an example of non-Natives feeling they can present Indian life better than the Indians. These people promulgate a mishmash of misinformation gleaned from Hollywood movies and similar sources. Believe me, being an Indian is the hardest thing anyone can do, and they are not up to it.

I’ve heard some claim descent from tribes or historic leaders, though the claims change – it’s Tecumseh, it’s his brother; one visited a Lakota reservation and, wouldn’t you know, he’s Lakota now. This is an insult and, simply put, fraud. Race is not the issue, though. There are those with good hearts who work for the People in a humble, respectful way, whether or not they have Native ancestry, whether or not they are enrolled in a federally recognized tribe.

Couldn't say it better myself.


For some more great analysis on the celebrity / Indian connection, check out this post from the Newspaper Rock blog:

Indian Wannabes = Celebrity Wannabes

Glastonbury "Indians"

The Glastonbury Festival of Contemporary Performing Arts (link) is the largest music festival in the world.  In 2010, over 130,000 people attended the yearly event to watch such varied acts as Radiohead, Gorillaz, Muse, and Stevie Wonder.

Such festivals always attract the weird and wacky and Glastonbury 2010 was no exception.  The Boston Globe's website Boston.com has a very popular section known as The Big Picture which features recent news events as seen through the work of photojournalists.  It was on this site that I stumbled upon the following entry on the 2010 Glastonbury Festival:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/glastonbury_festival_2010.html

and saw these two pictures with accompanying captions:

"The sun rises over tents at the 2010 40th Glastonbury Festival at Worthy Farm, Pilton on June 26, 2010 in Glastonbury, England. (Matt Cardy/Getty Images)"

"Festival attendees wear Native American head-dresses as the temperatures remain high at the Glastonbury Festival on June 26, 2010. (LEON NEAL/AFP/Getty Images)"

My thoughts:

The hipster headdress has officially made the leap across the pond.  This is no surprise considering how connected and global the hipster subculture has become.  Then again, those could be honest to goodness Yankees sporting the latest fashion trend on their weekend trip to the British Isles.  I wonder if they brought the headdresses with them or worse yet bought them at the Festival from a vendor?

The tepees are another thing altogether.  The fascination with the tepee goes way back to the Summer camps of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Affluent white American children were sent away to Summer camp to get back in touch with the Natural world including a healthy dose of appropriated Native culture.  They played Indian games, made Indian crafts, and slept in Indian tepees.  This trend then exploded in the 1960s with the hippie and New Age fascination with everything Native including once again the tepee.

Are we in for a third wave of tepee appropriation among America's and Britain's affluent white young populace?

In my earlier blog post about survival training schools titled Cody Lundin and Surviving like an Indian, I introduced you to two British survival schools- Woodsmoke: Bushcraft and Wilderness Survival and Bearclaw Bushcraft which make heavy use of Native imagery and symbolism including the tepee.

I imagine the case at Glastonbury is similar.  Essentially, you have a bunch of young, white British folk who look to Native Americans as the ultimate symbol of the Natural, harmonious, simple lives they want to live.  They put up a tepee not for the practicality of it but because it screams Indian!  It says, "I'm hip!"  "I'm cool!"  "I'm down with Mother Earth! (just like the Indians were)"

It also says, "I didn't spend even one second thinking about the real culture and people behind this beautiful, unique, and culturally significant architectural wonder!  Hey look at me, I gotta tepee!!!"

(But then again maybe I'm wrong and an entire community of Lakota simply uprooted and moved to a random farm in western England for a weekend.  You never know... )


For more on the hipster headdress, check out these entries at the Native Appropriations blog:

But Why Can't I Wear a Hipster Headdress?:
http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2010/04/but-why-cant-i-wear-hipster-headdress.html

Headdresses and Music Festivals go together like PB and...Racism?:
http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2010/06/headdresses-and-music-festivals-go.html

The Dudesons: A Retrospective

It was exactly two weeks ago today that I was innocently flipping through TV channels as I lay comfortable in bed.  I skipped the news, didn't find anything interesting on History or Discovery, and finally reached the 50s.  That is your music/entertainment section of the TV dial.

Let's see VH1 (some trashy "celebreality" show), Spike TV (extreme fighters punching each other senseless), and MTV (heavily-accented foreigners dressed like Indians escaping from jail).

My heart skips a beat as I scream out loud- "Whoa, Hipster headdresses!"
Then I learn they are fulfilling several native "rites of passage."
Then I see Saginaw Grant- "King of All Indians."
Then I wonder if anyone else in the world is seeing this.
Then I start typing.

I started this blog three months ago as a written record of the ever-increasing instances of Native culture, imagery, names, and themes in everyday life.  I never expected it would be so easy.

An Example of "Native Imagery in Everyday Life"

Before I knew it, my post had been picked up at the Newspaper Rock Blog.  Then the comments started pouring in everywhere ranging from "this is absolutely racist and horrible" to "it's only a joke/satire, get over it."  Then the AIM Santa Barbara chapter started asking people to call MTV and complain.

I have absolutely no regrets for writing about The Dudesons and bringing it to people's attention for one simple reason.  IT GOT PEOPLE THINKING!  So in my book, mission accomplished.

That being said, I'd like to add one more interesting element to the mix.  Aside from all the heated rhetoric about whether the Dudesons were racist or funny, rude or satire, there is the underlying question of why?

Why would a group of Finnish performance artists choose a Native American theme for their show about coming to America? 

Here's one theory:

Stereotypes beget Stereotypes:

To begin, I'd like to quote Dudeson Jukka himself:
 (Entertainment Weekly interview)

"The whole spirit of the show is that everything we do is something very themed, very American. On one of the episodes we tried to become the first Finnish Native Americans. So we got a 73-year-old Indian mentor, and we go through all these ridiculous rites of passages we could think of. We tried to prove we are worthy of becoming a member of his Indian tribe."

Jukka again:

"Yeah, we brainstorm and come up with all the stuff we do. It’s an ongoing process. You can see something funny on the street, and think, 'Oh, that would be fun to try. How can we make it even more silly?' Some of the things you see in movies or cartoons, you think of a way to recreate it or add a unique twist to it. Usually, it’s taking something to a totally wrong place."

But wait there's more:

"With the spirit of the show and how we are, we never make fun of anyone except ourselves. Doing the show in that spirit has been great. Americans have been laughing and saying, 'Oh my God, what are you guys doing?' They don’t really know what to think. 'These guys are nuts but I love them.' Being here in America and doing the show here, we try to do a lot of things with Americans, and there are a lot of local people involved as well."

An Example of a "Local Person Involved"

In my mind, these quotes reveal three things about the Dudesons:

1. They thought of American Indians as a fundamental theme of America.

2. Their "research" consisted of simply brainstorming, stuff "we could think of," and gleaning ideas from "movies or cartoons."

3. They didn't think there was anything wrong with what they were doing.

Together, these three elements reveal a group of young men who were exposed to simple stereotypes and caricatures while growing up.  They simply collected their thoughts, feelings, and childhood nostalgia for Indians, lumping them together into one hot mess known as "Cowboys and Findians."

Regardless of how you feel about the Dudesons or their honest intent, you have to agree that Indian stereotypes in popular culture played a fundamental role in the creation of this episode!

Cowboys and Findians is a perfect example of the pernicious nature of these stereotypes.  Growing up in Finland, the Dudesons must have learned about America and American culture through cultural imports- particularly film and television.  They probably received a steady stream of cowboy and Indian flicks (hence the stunt with the Findians trying to escape from jail).  They only ever utilize the most salient and camera-friendly elements of native culture (feathers, totem poles, canoes, etc).  And thanks to popular notions of noble savagery, the Dudesons' Indians are simultaneously savage and noble (catching fish with their mouths like wild beasts but also strong and brave with "balls of steel").

Lastly, they honestly didn't think they were ridiculing anyone because in their minds, the silly stunts and Indian motifs fit with what they learned growing up.  How can you find something offensive if it feels so right and you know no alternative?

Right or wrong, the Dudesons would never have created this episode if it were not for the stereotypes that came before...

...and the ones still to come.

"The Dudesons" Mark a New Low...

I thought the Hipster headdresses were weird enough and our new "Indian" friends at the Stanford Powwow equally awkward.  But ladies and gentlemen, there is a new winner.  And I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the floor.

Meet The Dudesons- four Finnish friends whose new MTV television show combines wild stunts and outrageous comedy...

...and the most unbelievable ignorant and disturbing take on Native culture seen in years!

Here's the full episode summary from the official website:

The Dudesons want to know if they can hack it like the original Americans once did, so they have found a Native Indian mentor named Saginaw who has agreed to lead them through seven painful rites of passage. Ranging from a canoe ride from hell to a game of ball busting dominoes with totem poles - even a 911 trip to the hospital won't stop the Dudesons from pursuing their goals of becoming honorary members of the tribe.

Not only do they dress in outrageous Indian headdresses and outfits but they make a complete mockery of Native spirituality and culture.  They rescue their "Indian" brothers in jail from the evil cowboys by being yanked off a horse.  They attempt to fly like the eagles by driving an SUV off a ramp and into a moving target.   And as "Saginaw" instructs them, they must only catch fish with their mouths like "real Indians" using a rotating fish slapping machine of course.

This episode entitled Cowboys and Findians includes a Native elder named "Saginaw- King of all Indians" who looks completely uncomfortable throughout the entire process.  He even welcomes them into the tribe at the end of the episode saying "you have earned the right to be one of our tribal members."  He then gives them four "golden eagle" feathers.

Here is your photo slideshow

...and finally the show:

Dudesons in America - MTV Shows

And in case you are wondering.  Former Jackass star Johnny Knoxville is the one to thank for not only bringing these four idiots to American shores but producing the television show as well.

Ladies and gentlemen- we have reached a new low.  God help us all!

Hipster Indians

Remember this photo?

It shows Dallas Cowboys cheerleader Whitney Isleib in black face pretending to be rapper Lil' Wayne at a Halloween party in 2009.  It made headlines across the nation as at best an ignorant Halloween costume choice, at worst a completely racist and insensitive one.

For many people, this photo stirs up strong emotions about our nation's history of discrimination towards African-Americans and the racism that still continues today.  People were rightly offended and it was a good thing that Ms. Isleib learned her lesson.

Now, look at this photo:

(click to super-size!)

What we have here are six young ladies from northern California decked out in their finest fringed leather, long braids adorned with feathers, and an occasional splotch of warpaint.  This could be anywhere in America come October 31st.  These young ladies clearly passed on the store bought sexy Indian costumes and instead went the do-it-yourself route to become just another sexy Sacajawea or provocative Pocahontas.

Except it's not...

This photo was taken just last week at the student Powwow at Stanford University.  I first discovered this little gem of a photo thanks to Adrienne at the Native Appropriations blog:

When Non-Native Participation at Powwows Goes Terribly Wrong

This trend is part of a wider trend of playing Indian that has sprouted up in recent years.  It is centered mostly on young, affluent, white Americans- or as they are sometimes known HIPSTERS!!!

The current fashion trend is the Hipster Headdress which you can read about here:

But Why Can't I Wear a Hipster Headdress?

And you just have to check out the site of one Mr. "Howling Wolf" (if that even is your real name [hint: it isn't]): I Am Howling Wolf

To all this I'd like to add another startling artifact to this growing collection.  I was watching some recorded shows on my DVR the other day when I fast forwarded through a commercial.  I immediately noticed the unique headwear of the participants.  That's right, the Hipster Headdress has gone commercial.  Check it out:




Analysis:
I could go into a long tirade about why wearing these headdresses and outfits is at best misguided, at worst racist and insensitive, but I feel I'd just be repeating Adrienne at the Native Appropriations blog.  Therefore, I will foolishly attempt to answer the larger question at work here...

Why do these seemingly well-educated, upper-middle class, mostly white, young people don this type of headgear and outfits?


Ignorance:
I'll admit that I didn't know a whole lot about Native Americans and Native American culture before I got to college.  Like most upper-middle class white suburbanites, I received a typical native education that ended at Wounded Knee and then I filled in the gaps with Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas.  "But aren't Indians all about feathers and Nature and hunting buffalo?"

Well, no.  But in many ways I am the exception.  I've been lucky to learn a lot through my teachers, friends, and co-workers but as someone who once wallowed in the darkness I also have that experience to draw upon.

I wonder if the six ladies at the Stanford Powwow had ever attended a powwow before or if this was their first one.  My experience has taught me that most Powwows do a decent job of educating the general public on at least the basics.  It's regalia not costumes, the different styles of dance/dress, and usually something about the significance of the Powwow as a religious/cultural/community event.

Clearly, somebody didn't get the message.  I was originally going to make a pithy comment reminding the ladies that, "It's all fun and games till the minorities show up" but then I realized it wouldn't work.  They were not at a music fest or hippie commune free from the prying eyes of "real Indians."  Instead, they chose to go to the Powwow dressed like that.

That takes ignorance and guts!

Indians = Freedom and Rebellion:
When you grow up in the lily-white suburbs, the people are just as cookie cutter as the houses.  Anything "ethnic" that breaks away from that white majority pumps those little teenagers full of excitement.  What better way to escape the suburban desert than to play Indian.

Dressing in Indian attire has so much allure because Indians are the ultimate symbols of freedom and rebellion.  Throughout American history, Native people were seen as perfectly exemplifying the American ideals of unlimited personal freedom and rebellion.  (I mean the original Tea Partiers did dress as Indians after all and we put their likeness on our currency)  It was only when they got in the way of our attempts to act out our freedom (by moving west and settling their land) that Indians suddenly became the vicious savages ready to be put down and neatly boxed into a reservation.

The history of Indian perceptions also shows another aspect to this conundrum.  It was exactly the places where Indians "no longer existed" (read: at least no longer in a primitive "Indian" state) that this idealized image of the Indian particularly took hold.  When you live on the frontier, you're not exactly going to glorify the guy who is trying every way possible to get his land back from you.  Historically, this began among well-educated, well-to-do white easterners who created societies and charities to help Indians.

Zoom forward to today and there are not any "Indians" left.  Since our media and culture insist on reminding us that Indians are those feather-wearing, war-drum beating, tree-hugging stoic figures, then clearly there aren't any left so we can wear all their stuff.  Well everyone, "it's all fun and games till the minorities show up."  But the thing is...

...they were here the whole damn time!

I believe that the MGMT music video for Time to Pretend perfectly exemplifies this Indian escapism run amok.  Notice the fine use of furs, body paint, bows and arrows, Mayan temple, and crazy "Dances with Wolves-esque" dance around the campfire:



Repetition:
Whoever has been to an awkward elementary school Thanksgiving pageant raise your hand!!!  I bet it didn't look like this one:




Go Wednesday Addams!

Seriously though, these pageants are commonplace throughout our American schools.  And if it isn't a full blown pageant, it's at least construction paper headdresses to go along with the plastic Pilgrim hats.

Oh, and it doesn't always have to be young people or white people either...

Then let's throw in Scouting (a whole topic on it's own):

And Summer Camp:

So, um when you think about it.  Isn't playing Indian kind of like mainstream?  No, wait, what am I saying.  The stereotypes are so powerful that Indians can never become mainstream.  They will always be that other, whose likenesses, clothing, and culture will forever be ripe for the picking.

Mascot Indians

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.”

I continue with some insightful comments from the Newspaper Rock blog:

"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.