No I don’t know Jon Stewart. When Jon Stewart reads this (cause you know he’s sitting at his desk waiting for his Google Alerts to bleep like “OOOO who is writing about me now!”) I hope he goes “man I should listen to her, she has her own blog!” I have been thinking for a while about representation of Native people on TV. In my academic life I analyze the rare appearances of Native people who pop in and out of television shows as acceptable ways of “othering” Native people, as if they are only cameos in our society and culture. Also, these character tend to be male and do not have Native female counterparts. Native women are rarely mentioned as being part of a modern Native American culture and community. The same goes for something like The Daily Show where we get a spectrum of “correspondents” (who, yes, tend to be comedians in disguise/character) who speak about various issues but we have not had a Native voice as part of this discussion. (*Look, I know we haven’t had a lot of different representative voices. It’s not like The Daily Show has put together a perfect melting pot of voices. But I want a Native correspondent on The Daily Show so that’s where I’m putting my energy.) Sometimes Native people enter the realm of the show (see this episode about the Washington *RACIAL SLUR* team) but again… as cameos, people who can speak only about a particular issue almost like we have no stake in these other, very important issues that are a part of The Daily Show discourse. Also, when you have a non-Native filing this report, some of the things that get left out are the racism experienced by Native people from Washington fans, or the continued degradation of Native people who dare to go to the game. I have also been thinking about the many important issues that affect Native peoples and set global conversations, policies, ideas, directions for development, education, economy, cultural revitalization… etc. And yet, when I ask students, or audience members at presentations how many federally recognized tribes there are in the US I get answers that range from 2 – 10,000. (Right now there are 566, write it down, memorize it, there will be a quiz later). That’s right, people just don’t know. They don’t know because we don’t teach them and that’s why I teach Native American Studies, because they need to know. Native peoples are a significant part of our culture and society. We represent a past, present and future and our issues, news stories and events are not divorced from the rest of this space we now call the United States. Our representation has been decided for us on more than one occasion. People close their eyes and imagine an outdated Hollywood stereotype or a cameo. Natives become fictionalized so that their issues are treated as fiction. But we are fighting for water, fighting for fish, fighting to keep the environment safe for everyone, fighting to help Native parents keep their children, fighting to heal, fighting to represent ourselves. That’s a lot to take on for a correspondent, but I think it’s time. One of my students wrote this when I asked them to reflect on what they learned in my Native Studies course and for me it summed up exactly the reason why everyone should take a Native Studies course and why The Daily Show needs a Native correspondent: "It's almost as if we are trying to classify Native Americans as fictional beings other than people that were here long before the settlers were. If we view them in a fictional sense then it's easier for people to not take them seriously and to shrug off the oppression that occurred to them. It would be nice to see a shift in schools to teach the true history of the Native American people instead of just the fairy-tale parts. Which isn't even fair to the Native Americans because in a sense we are regarding their religious beliefs and culture as just whimsical stories instead of delving behind the true meanings of that too." So here goes… first blog post of the year. In Which I Write An Open Letter To Jon Stewart After I Promised Myself I Wouldn’t Do Open Letters Because They Are So Last Year or It’s Time for The Daily Show to have a Native CorrespondentDear Jon Stewart It’s time for The Daily Show to have a Native American correspondent. Heck, why not two? Why you ask? I made you a list: 5 Reasons Why The Daily Show should have a Native American Correspondent 5. People can’t remember the last time they saw a Native on TV talking about news issues that are important to our country, our society, our communities and who we are as a civilization (all of us) like The Daily Show tends to do... That’s right Jon Stewart. I said it. The Daily Show, despite its claim to be nothing more than a comedy show that makes fun of the news, becomes an important part of the conversation. It’s comedy, but not in the sad way Fox News is comedy, instead in the happy way where people learn something, laugh, and (perhaps) have anecdotes for later that can help them to put in to words, gifs, clips, Facebook posts something they have been trying to say. Also, people look to The Daily Show as an illustration of what shows SHOULD look like. For instance, SHOULDN’T women of color be allowed to make reports about issues that face women of color? Yes (thank you Jessica Williams for being awesome). What happens when you put a woman of color on TV? (She drops the mic). What about a cool as a cucumber African American man? (He gets his own show). What about an arrogant white guy reporter (he gets his own show and then his own late show). So often Native voices are left out of this cultural response. Native people aren’t even invited to comment on Native issues and there is an assumption that Native issues don’t have a lot to do with what is going on in the rest of the world. And this representation (or non-representation) matters. Because it is here that we become stereotypes, mascots, fashion but not cultural lexicon and commentary. One of the exercises I do in my class is to ask students to tell me (1) the last time they saw a Native American on TV and (2) the last time they heard about a news story or issue that Native people are involved in. Here are some highlights for you from the past three years that I’ve been teaching:
I nominate that character to be your new correspondent! (PS. I’m sure your new Native correspondent will find many ways to make white people feel guilty, so I’m not that worried about filling that requirement actually.) 4. There are a lot of really important issues that are being led by, informed by, set by, made possible because of Native peoples Legal scholars call Native tribes the “miners canary.” It’s not just because the Supreme Court and Federal Government (and State and local governments and agencies) have historically made horrible decisions in regards to Native people, their sovereignty, their rights and their self-determination which then become the law of the land and (eventually) affect everyone else who suddenly discovers things like
But it is also because Native peoples are leading the way in a number of very important issues like:
Native people can speak to these, among many other issues that deserve an Indigenous analysis. For instance, lets say you want to do a report about how people are leading national/international protests against police violence. Well ask a Native. We are the group most likely to be killed by the police after all. 3. Representation combats mis-appropriation and encourages education. WHA! DROP…THE…MIC That’s right, representation matters. Help me, help you Jon Stewart. Help me, help you, to help all of us, better know a Native so that people will say “yeah I saw a Native on TV telling me about how awesome it is that Obama is vetoing the Keystone XL Pipeline because it is only going to be another environment polluting danger to our planet” instead of “Well, I did see Khloe Kardashian wearing a headdress on a re-run the other day…” 2. Native people are funny In 1969 Vine Deloria, Jr. wrote a chapter for his book Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto called “Indian Humor” where he noted that we are damn funny. Actually, he said this: “It has always been a great disappointment to Indian people that the humorous side of Indian life has not been mentioned by professed experts on Indian Affairs. Rather the image of the granite-faced grunting redskin has been perpetuated by American mythology. That’s right, we are experts on cutting edge humor and satire that educates and informs. We are the original Daily Show. If you didn’t know this, it’s because our cameos, our representations, were and are stripped of humor because of the “tragedy” of the American Indian. That narrative was created to dehumanize us and to forward the American Dream - that American Indians were tragic people, who were slowly riding into the sunset of tragedy and would eventually disappear. And the new Americans would become the “Natives” of the future. Plus, Natives are supposed to be mean, rough and tough people, because that makes it easier to kill them. Despite all of this… genocide and tragedy… we are a funny people. You know that group of people in the restaurant laughing very loudly and telling stories, that’s us. It will not be hard to find a funny Native person to correspond on your show, I promise. Bonus List: Here are some people that would make good Native correspondents… Jim Ruel (I know him!)
Actually any of the comedians from this special. (RIP Charlie Hill!) Or this group. The 1491s.
Natalie Diaz Tiffany Midge Don't worry, I can go on if you need more.
Thank you Jon Stewart for all that you do, for your time, and because I know you will immediately compose an email to your producers saying "I had this great idea. We need to get a Native correspondent on the show." You're welcome. Sincerely with all sincerity, -Me
1 Comment
Stop Dressing Up Like a "Native American" on Halloween (a poem) It’s Halloween time, so let’s all gather near. For a story you’ve heard; one we hear every year. It is all hallows eve, you know what that means candy, more candy and sexy versions of things. One year I (for reals) saw sexy Pepsi. She was with sexy Coke, what else have I seen? How about sexy Cheerios and sexy Frosted Flakes? I’ve even seen sexy toothbrush, but not sexy toothpaste? And every single year, doesn’t matter the day… I’ll be out with my daughter when some white girl heads our way. She bought a fake headdress, a tiny felt dress, a headband, a tomahawk, she looks a hot mess. I don’t look her up and down; just look her in the eye, stare, don’t glare then let out a big sigh. I stand firm on the sidewalk, wait for her to pass. Maybe she notices. Maybe she laughs. “Listen here,” I begin. “There is so much to say. I know for a fact no Native would dress this way. Second point, to be clear is simple and true just because racism is for sale doesn’t mean it looks good on you.” “Third point, to the point a point for you to consider, when you treat us like objects nobody’s the winner.” “And last, but not least one more thing you should know #RedFaceIsDisgrace. Now I guess you can go.” And before I go on one last thing that I'll say… “You may be a sexy Indian now but I’m a sexy Indian every day.” Happy Halloween! #NoPocaHotties2014 Cutcha Risling Baldy is a Native American woman who has never dressed up like a "Native American" for Halloween because that would be redundant and also because "Native American" costumes are actually just costumes of Hollywood stereotypes that have nothing to do with Native people. If you'd like to know more you should read her blog, or this blog, or this blog, or take a Native American Studies class. Also #NotYourMascot and #NotYourTonto and #ChangeTheName and #StopTryingToJustifyRedFaceAndAppropriation #NoJustification and #FindAnotherCostume #ImQuitePartialToSexyZombie #FlirtsALittleAndThenEatsYourBrains
I got a really great message from a college student just the other day. She was very gracious and asked me if I could offer her some feedback on certain issues that she has faced navigating her way through college as a Native American student. Because I’m deep into writing my dissertation, my blogging is few and far between as I try to finish something that resembles coherent thought in an academic way. (If only I could write a series of blogs and call it a dissertation! Someday!) It is because of her letter that I am starting a three part series inspired by some things that she asked me in the hopes of providing her (and other Native peoples) with a response to what (IMHO) are some pretty salient and important issues that come up CONSTANTLY and just go to show that everyone, who has ever existed, anywhere, should take a Native American Studies class. This entry is about the “99 questions.” That’s how she referred to it. “…what advice would you give Native college students who endure the dreaded 99 questions of what it’s like being Indian (you know the stereotypical: “Do you live in a teepee? Can I touch our hair? Do you get free stuff? Why are you guys so lazy?” etc. etc.)” As I was nodding away it got me to thinking, what are those 99 questions? How have they (or haven’t they) changed since, oh I don’t know, 1492, when this one guy jumped off a boat and went “So, this is India. Can I touch your hair?” (And take you prisoner and make you slaves and generally bring about massive destruction and genocide upon your people. #SuckItColumbus) Because I am someone who is constantly reading all the heavy duty stuff that comes out of academics trying to put in to words the feelings we all have and make it theory (so for instance instead of saying “that dude is a butt head” they have to write “that individual person is affected by patriarchal standards of masculinity.”) my immediate instinct when someone asks me one of the “99 questions” is to over analyze why that is the question they are asking. What is the historical context for that question? What makes them think that is the proper question to ask? Where does that question come from? Why do the questions focus on certain stereotypes of Native people but don’t focus on modern issues of self-determination or sovereignty? What’s so great about my hair? (Answer: I bought this new kind of expensive celebrity endorsed conditioner which I have to hoard because both my husband and daughter are constantly trying to use it.) In this first attempt at a real response to this young woman I offer the following lists in a blog entry I am calling: I Got 99 Questions and “How can I honor the treaties and support self-determination for Native peoples” ain’t one. Five "usual suspects" questions that I have been asked Do you live in a tee pee? No. One of my white hippie friends lived in a teepee when he was a kid. I did not. Do you have an Indian name? It’s Cutcha. No seriously. It means Blue Jay. I think I’m part Indian too. Is there a test for that? Where can I get that test? I should make that test and give it out to people. “Are you a real Indian Quiz.” It will be a multiple choice test. There will be no right answers. (Ba Dum Dum… wait… that’s kind of deep…) I’m Native too. What am I entitled too? (Alternative question: you are Native? Don’t you get a lot of stuff from the Government?) *Actual Answer that I just gave to someone the other day because I was asked this question* You know a year ago the Supreme Court allowed for the legal kidnapping of a Native girl from her loving father. He is Cherokee, and she is Cherokee but she was adopted by a non-Native family who felt entitled to her. They sued to keep her after she was taken away from them so she could live with her father who had been fighting for her for years. It was because of the Indian Child Welfare Act that he was able to gain custody. You see, they had adopted her illegally and without following this federal law that protects Indian children by setting up a system that encourages these children to be cared for by an Indian parent, relative or tribal member. Why? Because for a number of years the foster system and adoption system was biased against Indian families. In fact you had instances in which there were more Indian children in foster care than other groups, even though Native people are often less than 1% of the population. This bias was engrained. It was a part of a system that was designed to break apart Indian families. It comes from a long historical record of trying to solve the “Indian problem” by assimilating children so they will be less “Native.” This causes years upon years of trauma. There are still tribal peoples who reel from the impacts of being taken from their families. There are communities, who are still re-learning what it means to feel safe enough that they can parent and not fear losing their children to a system set up against them. In the end, even though the law supported him being a father to his daughter, and the tribe supported him and basic human decency supported him, his daughter was seized from him by government agents because the Supreme Court had decided that this non-Native couple deserved this child. And it was heartbreaking. And to this day when I talk about this case, I have to pause… sometimes for a few long moments… to breathe… because the night they seized her even though I was miles and miles away from Oklahoma I felt it. I stood in the doorway of my daughter’s room and I watched her sleep and I thought “I would never let her go.” All that is to say, as a Native, the things we “get” from the government, the things we are “entitled to” include getting our children taken away from us. How come you can’t just get over it? I answered this one before (check it out!). But I have to include it because… it happens. Also alternative question: The (insert other racial group here) people suffered too. They suffered more than Natives. How come they got over it? And you can’t? This question came up a lot after I wrote the blog about the Walking Dead and why Natives can’t just “get over it.” And I started doing an exploration of this idea that Tony Platt called “competitive suffering.” He said something to me like “as if we want to enter in to competitive suffering.” And immediately I pictured an Olympic Games type situation with a “competitive suffering” tournament. You know who wins that tournament – Danny Snyder probably. He’s so good at suffering. (In South Park. The South Park version of him is a great competitive suffer-er.) My answer to this question about “how come everybody else gets over it and you haven’t” is “read… more.” Your erasure of the ways that many of these peoples are still engaging with their own historical trauma is everywhere. The fact that you are erasing it because you want to see the world as devoid of the trauma of genocide, slavery, removal (of not just Indian people, but several groups who were removed in various situations) and confinement does not mean that it doesn’t exist. Also – why do you think you are over it? Because you don’t know about it? Because you think it doesn’t affect who you are today? You’re not “over it.” (Freud would say you’re in denial. Jung would say “Shut up Freud, you don’t know nothing about nothing.” Freud would jump up and say “stop being jealous of me! And your mom! You just love your mom!” Man, you can’t get nothing done once Freud starts talking about your mom.) Also, what I’ve said before. “Actually, I am over it” which is why… it’s time to really talk about it. P.S. These “usual suspects” questions come from very particular places but mostly they are about the continued erasure of Indian people from a modern discussion of the Indian experience. It is a testament and clear example of how much people don’t learn about the place they live (as in the United States, or Canada, or Mexico, or South America or any country really). Three questions I have been asked in the past two weeks Did you see the ("disgraced, soon-to-be former") Navajo President sitting in the box with the owner of the Washington (RACIAL SLUR *BEEEEP*) team? Yes. Follow up question: What did you think? Well. I thought it looked desperate and transparent. Does anybody really think that having a Native person sitting with you means that somehow using a racial slur as a team name is okay and we should all just go home? No. Because I have a lot of non-Native Football fans who are my friends. Sometimes they sit next to me too (granted not in a stadium box, but on my futon). They think the team name is racist and being complacent to that racism because “it doesn’t affect me” or because you want to sell stuff at football stadiums is just contributing to a continued degradation of all of our society. WE ALL DESERVE BETTER than having a racial slur as a team name. Which is my way of saying that for every person you get to sit in your box with your merchandise I can find another person who KNOWS that the name has got to go. Getting Indians on your side is not the issue any way. The team name is a *racial slur* -- There is #NoJustification for it. I know you say a lot of stuff about appropriation and stuff. Is this shirt okay? (Is this bag okay? Are these earrings okay? I have a dream catcher in my room, is that okay?) I wrote a blog about this too before, if you want to read it. What did you think about that episode of South Park? (What did you think about the Daily Show? What did you think about this one episode of the Family Guy I saw once? What do you think about John Redcorn?) Short answers: Liked it. Liked it. Depends on the episode. He’s cool. Longer answer: Representation of Native People on TV is… still lacking in my opinion. I call it the “Native Cameo.” We don’t (yet) have a series that features a Native character as a major player. Native characters (mostly) get treated as cameos. Quick mentions, then they go away and we get back to our regular programming. I see what it means for people to be exposed to Native people in this way, whether it be young Native children who really do acknowledge and hold on to each and every portrayal, or non-Native people who might not ever have an experience of understanding that there are “modern” Native American people. Our TV watching experiences do shape us, even though they probably shouldn’t. We laugh at certain things, which tells us about who we are, we learn from certain things, which tells us about who we are, we hold on to certain ideas… which informs for us how the world should function. So the Native cameo… matters. How we see each other becomes important to how we treat each other. When Native peoples are invisible, we are often treated as invisible. We are not invited to participate in government discussions, we are treated as less than “stakeholders,” we are told that the destruction of our sacred spaces is of little consequence to anything, we become invisible to the public who says “but wait, no Native Americans really care about this issue because…” So when people see us on TV and they hear what we have to say… it matters. Actual Questions I was asked by a group of 6 year olds at a presentation:
I love going to present to kids mostly because they are pretty much the most attentive and awed audience you’re ever going to get. Everything I say they go “wow! Ooo! Awesome!” and the moment that I bring out some baskets that they can touch and hold their eyes light up. I have let some of them try on my hat, and they are the most respectful group of people. They ask millions of questions about the proper way to wear something. They are very gentle. And they look for clues from me as to what is okay or not okay, never assuming that they know better. I include their questions because they illustrate to me what happens when you are able to interact with Native people from a young age, where Native people become real and not exotic museum relics. To them I am “so and so’s Mom” or “so and so’s Auntie” or “so and so’s friend.” They start to see Native people as being real (which is a first step) and then as being authorities on who they are. Instead of thinking “you aren’t like what the books say or what the movies say” they take you at your word. So Native experiences and ideas and people can be varied, they are people first and foremost. The curiosity of children that I have presented to is never about “how do I challenge your authenticity while also making you and exotic specimen while also dehumanizing you while also re-establishing my beliefs about who you should be.” Instead, they want to learn. This might be part of the problem with the 99 questions. I like to think that most people are asking these questions because they are genuinely trying to learn something about Native people that they don’t get in their classrooms, on their TVs, in their books, or on the You Tubes. They also don’t know how to access this information because it is not made readily available to them (not yet, there are many of us working on that). Native American Studies is not (yet) a requirement course for all people, but they want to know. They genuinely are still like those six year olds with rapt attentions. The problem is this can get tiring and exhausting and sometimes you just want to be an Indian at Whole Foods, or sometimes you just want to be an Indian in economics class who talks about the economics of development on Native reservations (pitfalls and benefits) but who doesn’t want to have explain that this does not in anyway involve hearing the wolf cry to the blue corn moon (or painting with all the colors of the wind). My advice then becomes this. Answer as many questions to as many people as you can stand. And when you can’t stand it anymore, smile, take a deep breath and say “My Ask a Native office hours are over for today. You should really take a Native American Studies class.” Addendum Question: Can I touch your hair? (Can I touch your hat? Can I touch your "costume?" Can I touch your necklace?)
No. Before we begin today’s pop quiz (good thing you came to class today!) we have to start with some background information. Here is an article you can read if you want to know more about Indigenous Hawaiians protest against building the TMT (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle-scope) (OR Thirty Meter Telescope) on top of Mauna Kea, a sacred mountain to the Hawaiian people. While certain agencies were ready to break ground on this telescope Indigenous Hawaiian people led a protest that “blocked access near the mountain’s summit” which led to the cancellation of the groundbreaking event. Indigenous Hawaiians note that there are several other telescopes already built, that this would only add to the already overdeveloped land, that it further desecrates one of their most sacred mountains, and that the TMT doesn’t HAVE to be built in this location. This is an ongoing issue. Then today this guy writes an article for the New York Times called “Seeking Stars, Finding Creationism” and I laughed and laughed (I also guffawed and then rolled my eyes, snorted a little bit and went back to laughing). He somehow turns this protest against desecration of a sacred site into an indictment of the Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act and argues that this federal law, which supports the repatriation of Indigenous remains and cultural objects to Indigenous peoples, somehow brings us back to the dark ages and is an attack on science. He is not the first old science guy to make this argument. He for sure (sadly) will not be the last. But (and I do this a lot) there is an important opportunity here to see how certain ideologies continue to be perpetrated by “scholars” and “scientists” with very little understanding about how their ideologies are informed by settler colonialism meant to claim, conquer and erase Indigenous peoples (so as to claim, conquer and own the land by claiming, conquering and owning “intellectualism” and “civilization” and “science.”) As if Native people can either be “creationists” or “scientists” but never both at the same time. As if “spirituality” must be separated from the scientific. As if Indigenous people fighting for the rights to protect their land is somehow “anti-science” simply because scientists feel entitled to use this land for what they want to do with it. As if “astronomy” is a science that begins with Galileo and only belongs to western scholars. As if having to re-think and re-tool and re-configure this one telescope will set back astronomy to the DARK AGES. As if Indian people want to go back to dark ages. We weren’t even IN the dark ages. That’s a western thing. When Rome fell, Native people went “#ByeFelicia” and then went back to their complex egalitarian societies. (I am being flippant. Native people may or may not have cared about Rome falling. Maybe they heard about it. We are still learning the extent to which they exchanged information with other parts of the world. Maybe they went “that’s too bad for Rome. If only they had let women also be a contributing part of their political society. And why they gotta do Caesar like that?” or maybe they didn’t care cause it’s just Rome. Rome was not the entire world. The world is quite large. The dark ages happened but… (They didn’t happen here). What’s the point? The point is that today is a quiz day! Bust out your papers and write down your answer. This quiz is worth 1 billion points in my class where everyone gets an A. First read the dude’s article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/science/seeking-stars-finding-creationism.html?_r=0 FYI: The numbers after each answer selection reference your teacher's (mine) study notes included below! Quiz Question #1: What is the most infuriating (disappointing yet hilarious) assertion in this article? A. That the author refers to the TMTelescope as "a triumph in astronomy’s quest to understand the origin of everything." and then refers to the Native Hawaiians protests against building that telescope on their sacred land as "the latest insult to their gods." (1) B. That he calls criticism of the development of this area for a telescope by both environmentalists and Indigenous people a "marriage of convenience" that "might undermine the credibility of what may be perfectly sound scientific arguments about the effects of a mammoth construction project on vulnerable mountain terrain." And then states that the "state’s Board of Land and Natural Resources agreed with astronomers that the trade-off is worthwhile, and plans are proceeding." (2) C. That he compares Indigenous protesters to "biblical creationists opposing the teaching of evolution." (3) D. That he then says "American Indian tribes have succeeded in using their own religious beliefs and a federal law called the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to *empty* archaeological museums of ancestral bones." *Emphasis Mine*(4) E. That he then goes on to point out that these bones (which have been EMPTIED from the poor museums) include "ones so ancient that they have no demonstrable connection to the tribe demanding their reburial." (5) F. He then compares the repatriation of Indigenous human remains to tribal peoples as a "turn back toward the dark ages" because "it's not just skeletal remains that are being surrendered." (6) G. AND THEN he decides that this repatriation of remains and cultural objects (that didn't belong to the museum in the first place) is just a toleration of "Indian creationism" and "guilt over past wrong doings." (7) H. The fact that this article is published on the NEW YORK TIMES website while my (super duper) blog is NOT part of the New York Times?! http://cutchabaldy.weebly.com/blog (8) I. All of the above. Turn in your papers (or don’t, everyone gets an A) and enjoy your day. Study Notes (for your amusement) (1) Stop insulting our Gods. They hate that. Why do you think the Cubs never win the World Series?! HOO-AH! (2) And as we all know state agencies have NEVER made a bad decision when it comes to environmental impacts and that they NEVER err on the side of development over environmental degradation. (See Lyng V. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association) (3) So I read this and then thought of this story -- Vine Deloria, Jr. used to say that whenever he started talking about Indigenous issues and Indigenous world views where we didn't separate spirituality from the rest of our lives and that science is, in itself, its own religion… that people would yell at him “you’re just a creationist!” And he would say “okay…and?” There is a much longer conversation about what it means to ask *scientists* to be responsible to things other than their *science*or to think about how their *science* is informed by cultural positioning. Or, as Sandra Harding once said at a presentation I went to (I paraphrase) “how science is really just a white Protestant science of the world”…sooo… also informed by a religion even if they don’t want to acknowledge or understand this fact. (4) Ha ha ha! The poor desolate museums are *empty.* Now when we go to museums we just have to stare at tiny cards that say “well, we would be able to teach you something but now we can’t because the American Indians took all of our stuff. So now you will learn NOTHING. Today you came to this museum and you learned NOTHING. Thank an American Indian.” #You’reWelcome BTDubbs. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990. It was as a result of several years of negotiation between Native peoples and other agencies. Basically, it says that museums which are federally funded should make every effort to return Indigenous remains back to their ancestral homelands. This is because there are thousands upon thousands of remains in museums, most of them are not studied for anything, and most of those in museums that are not studied for anything are Native American. Since 1990 there have been approximately 40,000 remains repatriated. There still remain (reported) 179,000 remains in museum collections. (This does not include those which are not reported). Don’t worry museums, you are still the majority share holder even though there is a LAW that says you shouldn’t be. (5) Oh man is this something scientists seem to hate. They seem to hate giving “too ancient” remains back to “modern” Native peoples. There is so much going on in this statement I could write a book (some people have. Check it out.) Part of this comes from the belief that modern Native people are not the same people who were Native people thousands of years ago. This belief is perpetuated (by science, and their red-headed step child anthropology and anthropology’s cousin history) as a cultural mythology that the last “real” Native American person died in 1491 (or if you’re in California 1848, unless you are a Southern California Native then it’s more like 1768). It always has to be the year BEFORE contact with western settlers because the moment that a Native person meets a white person they stop being Native and start being “colonized” which means their Nativeness disintegrates and finally disappears. The reason this happens… science. (I kid. I kid.) This happens because according to western scholars as Native people become more assimilated they give up their Nativeness- or they can’t be Native in a modern world. (Not true) If there were “real” Native Americans they would still look like, act like, speak like, think like, and be like the Native peoples from 1491 (1848, 1768). The assumption is that Native people had always been the same from Year 1 to 1491. They were more like animals or what some scientists call Primitive, Hunter-Gatherer, Pre-historic, Nomadic. Once they were introduced to “civilization” and “culture” they lost their Indianness and were no longer Primitive, Hunter-Gatherer, Pre-Historic, Nomadic. I teach 10 week long classes on this stuff so to put it in to a few sentences is difficult for me. But here goes. We existed, here, in this space, at bare minimum (if you are going by anthropological/archaeological studies) 10,000 years. If you ask Native people, it is much longer (since the beginning of time). But at only 10,000 years that’s a lot of years to remain exactly the same and never change or adapt or try new stuff or change our minds. And that probably wasn’t the case. People change. Cultures adapt. Things happen. We all know this. Consider how our cultures have changed in very short amounts of time. 10 years ago none of us were posting pictures of our appetizers on Instagram. 20 years ago we were calling people to check and make sure they got our emails. 25 years ago we were paging people. That’s just what we’ve done in a quarter of a century. We tend to be different than our ancestors. Nobody would say “you’re not English because you don’t speak old English and you don’t wear tights and wigs and have wooden teeth and say ‘alo govna.’” All beside my real point which is, sorry Felicia, we are related to those ancient ancestors. I can give you all the reasons why but instead I will just suggest you take my class. Or invite me to come and give you a class. #PayMeMoney (6) Not true. (7) I kind of like how the guy he interviews in the piece says something like “we should feel bad and maybe this is what we have to deal with.” But that’s beside the point. It’s not that people “feel bad” or as this guy says “guilt” it’s because many of these rights to remains are extended to people from the same periods of time while for Indian people they are fought against like it will bring about *the end of thought* or *the end of education.* For instance, when someone finds remains that are not Indigenous their first thought is not “can I study these for my research” but “who do these belong to?” You can get a grant to study the bones of Indigenous peoples, but not a grant to study the bones of non-Indigenous white settlers and pioneers from the same time period. Natives don’t argue creationism, they talk about responsibility. Others talk about fundamental human rights. Others talk about how the possession of human bones is counterintuitive, how do you own a human? Are their bones just objects? And even if your answer is “yes” does that mean they feel the same way? The way in which Indigenous people’s buried and then cared for their dead is evidence that they had already had these conversations and their conclusion was “we are responsible for these remains, we will care for them, and they will return to the earth.” Your differing worldview does not negate their worldview and the answer isn’t about who is “right” and who is “wrong” but instead is about “what can we learn from these Indigenous viewpoints and how will that give us a better, more informed, deeper understanding of our world?” What if building the telescope in a different place actually proves to be more fruitful? What if in consideration of Indigenous rights to land it opens up possibilities to work with land in other areas? What if your science actually worked with people instead of against them? What if you gave back all the bones? What really happens when you start to have these conversations? WHAT IF ALL THAT LEADS TO SOMETHING GREATER? (8) The answer is H of course. (9) Okay, I guess it can be “all of the above.” So this happened yesterday while I was at a concert with A Tribe Called Red. They are an awesome group and if you don't know them you should KNOW THEM. I danced like a mad woman. In the meantime, @almonds tweeted me. I was a bit shocked. First, California Almonds is THE @almonds on Twitter. Second, they found the time to tweet me and third wow something I said merited their response. I suppose we could take it a few ways. We could think "wow, they really do care about talking to the every day person. Look at how Twitter breaks down barriers." Or we could say "Man, they must really care what people are saying about them." Or even "Wow, they must know that the grumbles of WTH almonds might actually have something to them. Time to get mobilized!" Social media... I love it. So I decided to write them back. In Which I reply back to @almonds or #NoMoreAlmondsCA or #AlmondsYouCanStillBePartOfTheSolutionIfYouTry Dear @almonds: I really do appreciate the time you took to write me back on Twitter and send me Almonds and Water: By The Numbers. This may be surprising, but Twitter is still "new and interesting" to me (I was never a regular Tweeter until I was) and when THE @almonds account tweeted little old me I felt like this Twitter thing could really catch on. Because yes, we SHOULD be talking to each other. If @almonds wants to join the conversation, and really talk about these issues of agricultural use and the actual sustainability of agriculture big business in California... well good. It's hard to do in 140 characters. But I'm game. Also, I'm a cheater and plan to just tweet you this blog entry. It is entirely impossible for me to Tweet a response to you that will in will address any meaningful issues I may have with the continued abuse of our water in California. This is mostly because I am a wordy person and also because I can't see myself writing things like Almonds use 2 much water 4 the State in this drought YFM?* I find myself squirming around uncomfortably when I have to do that. And I think my facts should be easily available for access and use as well, like yours, if we're gonna talk about *Facts.* @almonds says (and @cutchabaldy responds) @ almonds says: Over the past two decades, almond growers have reduced the amount of water they use per pound of almonds by 33%. Key strategies, for example, have included the wide adaptation of micro-drip irrigation instead of traditional sprinklers, soil maps, and soil monitoring systems that allow for demand-based irrigation instead of scheduled irrigation. Good job @almonds. But that doesn't mean growing almonds in a state that is constantly plagued by water use issues is smart for our state's environment or our state's water supply. Consider this: it takes 1 gallon of water to grow one single almond. They say it takes more water to grow one walnut (4. 9 gallons) or one head of broccoli (5.4 gallons) but those crops are not currently one of the fastest growing crops in California. From this article: ...growing almonds in an arid climate requires lots of water. In fact, Westlands' almond orchards suck up nearly 100 billion gallons of water a year. Cotton, by contrast, needs 40 percent less water per acre, and tomatoes require about half as much water as almonds. You may be doing better on water conservation than you were before but it's not enough. Look at where we are at now. It's not enough. Do better. You decided to grow a bunch of water intensive crops in an area that does not get a lot of natural water. It's not sustainable in a state that also has a growing population and a commitment to the environment and environmental diversity. Also, just because you planted it here doesn't mean it was a good idea. Maybe, instead of trying to dominate and corner the market of almonds worldwide, go to those places and help them to grow a sustainable number of almonds for their county/state/region. Show us that your bottom line isn't "as much money at the expense of everybody and everything around us until we are forced to find another plan because we have drained the water sources dry." @almonds says: While it’s true that more acres of California farmland are being used to grow almonds, that doesn’t tell the full story. That shift toward almonds – and other perennial crops like other nuts and olives – has not led to an increase in water used for farming overall in the state. In fact, from 2000 to 2010, the state’s agricultural water use held steady. By the way, so did urban and environmental use. And that's part of the problem, because we should have been increasing "environmental" use of our water during that period of time. That's what gets left out of this conversation. In fact, most of the policies passed by the state of California supported increase in water use for environmental protection of species and habitats. And you know why? Because we (as in the grand we, not the "we" as in me and other tribal peoples who had been TRYING to tell you this was a big issue for quite a few years before that) were finally seeing the lasting results of water policy that valued big business over environmental use. In 2002, we (as in all of us) experienced a mass fish kill of approx. 68-70,000 salmon in the Klamath River. What does a fish kill look like? It looks like thousands upon thousands of dead, rotting, Salmon lining the side of the river. It looks like elders standing on the river bank crying. It looks like the end of the world. But that's so dramatic? What does the end of the world look like to you then? Cause to me, it looks like dry rivers, dead fish, toxic water and big business controlled green fields kept green at the expense of communities who have no access to water. Knowing all that, Agricultural water use held steady. Why? California said that it needed to send more water to protect the very place we live and agricultural businesses threw fits, filed retraining orders, and demanded that their needs be met. Even if it's not sustainable. Even if reports showed that it was actually more economically beneficial to take care of the rivers and natural environment. Even if we were protecting endangered species (and not an over abundance of non-Native crops for shipping overseas) -- agriculture demanded the same use of water and maintained the same use of water from 2000-2010. This is not a statistic I would brag about. @almonds says: Some reports have overstated agriculture’s share of water use in California. Agriculture accounts for about 40 percent of the state’s developed water usage in an average year. Fifty percent is comprised by environmental water use, including water in rivers, streams, wetlands and water needed to maintain water quality for agricultural and urban use, and 10 percent is used in urban areas.6 All these types of usage are important for California. A lot of people have asked me about this statistic. Is it true? What we hear in the news is that 80% of California's water goes to agriculture. This is a staggering amount. Agriculture accounts for 43% of the land use in California but uses 80% of the water? Except @almonds says it only uses 40% of the water. That's better, right? It's just that the fact was wrong the first time. And this is the funny thing about "facts." Because all are true... *Mind Blown* It just depends on the measurement you are using. But the simple response -- it's 80%. According to the California Department of Water Resources: In average year California agriculture irrigates 9.6 million acres using roughly 34 million acre-feet of water of the 43 million acre-feet diverted from surface waters or pumped from groundwater. Or 80%. I will now spend a significant amount of time trying to explain what I have learned about this very statistic as a result of my research. Because when it comes to statistics and "facts" it always comes down to the measurement you use. This presentation from Blaine Hanson (Department of Air, Land and Water Resources) at UC Davis says depending on those measurements you will find that agriculture uses: 80 %: based on the developed water supply But what does that mean? First we have to start off with how California talks about water so we can understand the difference between "Gross water use" and "Net water use." (You should be able to click on the image to make it bigger. The green outlined boxes are my comments.) Some of the problem is in how people understand what "excess" and "lost" water means. Some people (like me) would say that "excess" water which is used for the river is not that, it's not in excess of, nor is it simply return flow (meaning it returns for gross water usage). It essentially quantifies and qualifies water for how it can be used, instead of understanding how we should be responsible for ensuring a "sustainable flow" or a "healthy living flow" and not be concerned with a bottom line of how "Gross water use" affects "Net Water Use." But the other part of the problem is that the reduction of gross water use does not make that much of a difference. (Even though it seems to be the measurement that @almonds wants to use to figure out water usage in California). The significant difference comes from a CHANGE IN AGRICULTURE. Oh, speaking of which @almonds, I got this info from the exact same place that you cite for your facts. Although instead of using their "just the facts" page I looked through the full report. AND, the "Just the Facts" page you refer us to also answers part of this question as well. How much water does agriculture use? It depends, not just by what you measure BUT by what region. Statewide, average water use is roughly 50% environmental, 40% agricultural, and 10% urban. However, the percentage of water use by sector varies dramatically across regions and between wet and dry years. The part of the state that you live in, @almonds, is one of the parts where environmental use is not dominant. Which means that at minimum, the agricultural use in your area amounts to at least 53% (not the 40% you want us to believe) of the total use of water. That is over half. State average considers areas like the Northcoast, which primarily uses their water for the environment. Now, to settle the "is it 80% of 40% that agriculture uses in California" question. I got this from californiawaterblog.com: The roots of confusion lie with the change in how the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) reports water use. Historically, DWR only counted water that was applied for economic uses. Under this scheme roughly 80 percent of water went to agriculture with the remaining 20 percent going to urban uses. Now when you look at the "total water supply" (and thank goodness somebody already did this work for me over at californiawaterblog.com) which includes water that is set aside for flow requirements to protect species and habitat (and our rivers) (which by the way agriculture couldn't use ANYWAY) and it also includes water that we have to use to keep our water safe for drinking (also water that agriculture COULDN'T USE or otherwise we might not have water to drink) you still get: this translates to 62 percent agricultural, 16 percent urban and 22 percent environmental. Think of it this way -- after your Mom gets done baking cookies she sets aside one for your Dad and two for your Grandparents and then she says to all you kids, "divide up the other cookies equally", agriculture decides that they get 80% of the cookies on the baking sheet and then tells their little siblings "don't feel bad, I'm actually only taking 50% of the total cookies available even though those other cookies are for other people. You are still getting 50% of all the cookies that were made (even though neither one of us could, should or do have access to the cookie set-asides)." STATISTICS. And consider this. Even though agriculture accounts for anywhere between 50-80% use of water in the state, it ONLY accounts for 2% of the total Gross State Product which means it is not the most significant contributor to our state economy. In fact, (if what you are concerned with is the bottom line and your bottom line is $$ whereas my bottom line is something like "health of our living environment which includes people, water, plants, animals") our economy relies a lot on Education, Health and "Other" services and Real Estate. But we aren't talking about GSP and who makes us the most money (although sometimes it feel like we are), we are talking about water usage. So let's say it again: depending on the measurement you use, agriculture still uses a significant amount (from 50%-80%) and is in a category all it's own for water use. Because it makes sense to invest the future of our state, peoples, environment and wildlife in what amounts to 2% of our state's economy (it doesn't, I'm being glib). @almonds says: It takes water to grow almonds. It also takes water to raise all other animal- and plant-based food, as well as to make your make your car, jeans and cell phone. Estimating exactly how much water any particular item takes to produce is extremely difficult, but for a broader perspective, you might be interested in a study conducted from 1996-2005 that estimates the global water footprint for a variety of products. Many people don’t know that almond trees produce two crops with the water they use. One is almonds, and the other is their hulls, which are used for livestock feed. A useful by-product includes shells, which are used in co-generation of energy and as livestock bedding. I did not know that. But @almonds this is where I got a little... what's the word... exasperated. First, you seem to be saying "other stuff uses a whole bunch of water so we can use a whole bunch of water too! Everything takes water!" Here's the thing. You @almonds are representative of a bunch of big and small business and you also represent workers and families and people who rely on jobs having to do with almonds. You employ somebody to tweet me. That person has a job, to tweet me about how much you care about almonds and the CA drought. I know that those things are important, because I know people who need jobs and livelihoods. And I also know that almonds are good for you and almonds make milk for people who can't drink dairy milk. I also know that meat, hay and other types of farming are an issue, they are. In California, a bunch of people invested in the idea that they could do what they wanted with the land cause it JUST belonged to Indians and they couldn't really USE it so they made us reliant on agriculture and who cares what that means for the rest of the state or population cause it makes so much $$Money$$. But, all that aside, somebody has to take a step forward to say "YES we have to do something and it STARTS WITH US." So instead of "yeah but cows use this much and alfalfa uses this much and your jeans use this much and we only use this much and so you should be mean to them" stand up and be part of the solution. What I got from your facts primarily is that @almonds isn't going to change. @almonds wants us to just leave them alone to do what they want. @almonds doesn't want to address some critical concerns on their continued water use or the continued water use of agriculture in California. I don't know if you are exactly as concerned with our shared California drought because otherwise your almond facts page wouldn't have been "but the facts are wrong and everybody else is worse" and instead would have made some concrete plans for actually reducing the number of almond crops and/or supported the rights of the wildlife and tribes to water before agricultural and big business. Do you have to be the #1 grower and exporter of Almonds in the world? If we are in a drought, and your water use is problematic do you, in the name of actually saving our State (instead of using it up until it falls apart), decide that you can only export a certain amount of almonds and that you need to reduce the crops that you are growing in California until such time as the state can handle an increase? What can you actually do? I believe in you @almonds because that is the person I have always been. Go out there with your political influence and figure out what you can really do to protect our (shared) state. Because I know what I can do. #NoMoreAlmondsCA P.S. Okay @almonds I'm going to throw you a bone. What else should we be calling attention to? Besides AGRICULTURE in California... How else can we show California law makers and Westlands Water Districts that we are serious about the well-being of our shared lands and environment? How about #NoMoreAlfalfaCA But what did Alfalfa do? First, it is the crop in California with the absolute highest water use. If agriculture uses 80% of the water, than Alfalfa uses the most of that. And that's just to grow hay. And most of that hay gets shipped far, far away. Check out this from BBC News: The southern Imperial Valley, which borders Mexico, draws its water from the Colorado river along the blue liquid lifeline of the All American Canal. Also: *Translation for my Mom: "Almonds use too much water for the state in this drought ya feel me?"
**Facts are funny things, @almonds. See I'm a teacher. I teach by nature. I like to help student to learn what "Facts" really means. And because I am a humanities teacher it eventually gets to the "Fact" that most "Facts" are just "How I want to See Things" statistics and "a result of a very small sample size" or "not infallible but instead require critical response and question." Tomorrow I will be headed out on a road trip with my Auntie and my Baby Girl so that we can go sing at the Lewiston Dam in Shasta County for the water. Why? Why not? Why don’t we sing to water every day? I’ve been told (by some pretty reliable sources) that Hupa people are the “singiest, danciest people” you’re ever going to meet. We sing for everything. It wasn’t just ceremony and sacred calls to our K’ixinay to help us out… it was in thanks, in gratitude, in happiness, in sadness, to distress, to communicate, to love… to laugh. We’ve been inappropriate (in a hilarious funny exaggerated way) through song since Year 1. I have been doing a lot of research on singing for my dissertation (which is why I haven’t been blogging all that much) and have found a couple of pretty cool things. According to Time Magazine – Singing Changes Your Brain. And one study from Australia found that: …on average, choral singers rated their satisfaction with life higher than the public -- even when the actual problems faced by those singers were more substantial than those faced by the general public Also this one scientist found that water… yep H20 molecules, can be changed by prayer, song, and kind (or negative words): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-0ulKgmio The point is it's worth it. Especially now, as we fight for our water... but not just our water, ourselves, our communities, our lives. Yes it sounds a bit dramatic, but guess what -- Water is life. This is a saying that many of us Indigenous folks use as we talk about the importance of water to our communities. It’s powerful because it’s true. The human body is made of 60% water. If you don’t have water, you will die. Water is how we feed, nourish and regulate our bodies. Water is essential to our planet and our ecosystem and all of the living things in our world. It represents “life” as we explore other planets. Consider this: ..every organism we know of needs water to survive. In fact, without water, life on Earth would have never begun. Acting as a medium in which organic compounds could mix with one another, water facilitated the formation of the planet's first life forms, possibly even protecting them from the sun's radiation. Water is life. There’s a reason that Indigenous peoples throughout the world (Hupa included) prayed to, cared for and respected their water. We were in it for the long haul. We’d been here since the beginning of time and our water was clear, healthy, and full of life. We planned for it to be that way until the end of time. Even though we are up against states and corporations and governments and individuals who want to believe that water is about economy and gross national product, we will continue to fight for the water. It has been this way until the beginning of time... and so it will be. In Which I Attempt to Prepare Myself For Singing For The Water or On Water, Droughts, Senior Water Rights and the #ALSIceBucketChallenge Or Water, Water, Water, WATERPeople in California should be mad. They should be marching to the State Capitol and sitting on top of each and every dam wondering why we can spend money on commercials that tell average citizens “we are in a drought so we will fine you if you use water” but there are no commercials that explain some fundamental facts about WHO uses the most water in our state. (*Spoiler Alert* it’s agriculture) We are in a drought. The state of California is covered in red (which is bad, red is always bad) and our once green paradise of lusciousness is now a wanton desert. Help us, everyday citizen, to protect our state from sudden doom. Our “lack” of water is more than concerning, it is worth public shaming of individuals who water their lawns or have water based birthday parties or those who participate in #IceBucketChallenges (more on that later). You, good citizen, can do what needs to be done to help our state, but turning off your faucets, and taking shorter showers, and not watering your lawns. WE ALL must conserve. That’s what the rhetoric says. ALL OF US must do what we can to conserve water. Except – big business-- big, agricultural, business. In California, big business agriculture is often given first dibs to water. For instance according to this article from Slate, (and keep in mind, we are IN A DROUGHT) in our current situation: California as a whole diverts or pumps 43 million acre-feet of water each year to supplement its meager rainfall. In total, agriculture consumes 34 million acre-feet of that. (An acre-foot is just what it sounds like: the amount of water needed to cover an acre of flat ground up to a foot, or about 325,000 gallons of water.) ...In the middle of a drought, farmers are shipping fresh hay across the Pacific Ocean. The water that’s locked up in exported hay amounts to about 100 billion gallons per year—enough to supply 1 million families with drinking water for a year. What this means is that our water usage is skewed, skewed toward agricultural business in the central valley. Skewed for a number of reasons but SKEWED none the less. You can quickly become very unpopular in California when you start to question the ethics and necessity of the agricultural business model we have (seemingly) built our California economy on. Why agriculture? Why in the central valley where it takes so much energy and water to grow? What does it mean about our "long term planning" or our "sustainable future?" It doesn't bode well. But don't tell farmers that. Don't suggest that maybe they should find a different place to grow. Don't tell them that diverting rivers using dams and other mechanisms is dangerous, not just for other people (who have to contend diseased rivers and streams) but for other living beings (like fish and animals and domesticated pets). Don't tell them that we can no longer practice agriculture in a vacuum, like the diversion of one river doesn't some how affect every single other river we know, that our system of water can be forced into submission, that we are in control of it, and not that we rely on it and should be respectful of it. We are agriculture. It means jobs and economy and money. That's what the rhetoric says. We are agriculture. But why? Why agriculture? Why agriculture?The thing about agriculture is that at some point it got elevated to and associated with "civilization," and "modernity." According to "science" as societies "progressed" they moved through the following stages:
This is logical (so they said); this is the way that all societies move (so they wrote); this is how you show that you have "progressed" to civilization. Agriculture was a sign of a great society because... wait for it... it was something that western society was doing. In Red Earth, White Lies, Vine Deloria wrote that the entrenched belief that “all peoples began as primitives and inevitably moved toward Western forms of organization, which in turn were guaranteed by Western religion and philosophy” successfully created scholarship that was “laudatory of Western accomplishments” while “tribal peoples were given a marginal status as human beings” (65). When settlers got to California they saw no "agriculture" (as they thought it would look) and so they said "look at this vast, empty wilderness that is just waiting for us to grow stuff on." This erased Native peoples from the landscape, and created a modern mythology that Native people were “hunter-gatherers." (We hunted, and gathered... along with MANY OTHER THINGS that people do in ALL SOCIETIES.) California Indians were also often referred to in newspapers during the nineteenth century by the derogatory term “diggers” and were seen as having only basic knowledge of how to survive. James Rawls writes that: "There was a curious twist to the dispute in California, in that the European visitors argued that the superior natural environment of California had somehow created an inferior people. They argued that the abundance of wildlife and the temperate climate of the area had made life too easy for the California Indians." (Rawls, 32) This is why California Indians stayed "primitive" and never became "agriculturalists" because... they didn't have to. California already had everything it needed for people to thrive. But it wasn't just about having everything you needed, it was about "civilization" and "civilization" was "agriculture" or the forced domestication of plants and convenience growing. Now, this does not mean that Native people rejected and/or didn't understand agriculture. We had agriculture. It just didn't look like what we think of now. We grew tobacco (as it was an important plant to our religious lives and culture), we sometimes grew plants that we needed for medicine. We helped to prune, care for, and make plants healthier. We cut trees and we made use of plants for all the things people use plants for today - food, decoration, to make things smell better, as cures for ailments... seasoning. But... there were many other considerations that Native people made when designing how they lived WITH their world. Considerations that they had formed for (bare minimum) thousands upon thousands of years of knowing their space (since the beginning of time). For instance, there is an old story about how the Missionaries came to Southern California, looked around and said "Hey Indians, you are so primitive, we must teach you to grow corn like the other Indians who taught us to grow corn. We will conveniently forget to mention that they were the ones who taught us, because actually many of us starved and didn't know how to raise simple crops and things in this country until Indians taught us how, and instead we will try and make you grow corn like we do. Also you should be raising pigs around you, even though pigs often carry sickness. Geez Indians, don't you know anything?" And the Indians went "Actually, corn doesn't really grow well here in California and we like acorns and acorns are pretty plentiful and you can try to grow corn if you want to but you will be disappointed." I may be paraphrasing a bit... In the end they made the Indians grow the corn and there wasn't enough food because it didn't grow well and the Indians were like "we could walk outside and get you some acorns so you don't starve" but the Padres said that was "food for pigs." Starvation in the name of agriculture and civilization! What's the point? The point is that they built this city (this state) on agriculture. This was after they tried to build it on enslavement of Indians in missions (and agriculture) and genocide of Indians and gold (and agriculture) and taking of Indian land (for agriculture) and removal of Indians from their land (in the hopes of using it for natural resources and probably... agriculture) and then trying to force Indians to use their land for...you guessed it... agriculture. Ideas about the promise of agriculture run deep in western culture because it defines who they are as a civilization. Food is important to any group of people - we must eat to live. And yet western settlers were suddenly (in many different times and in many different ways) thrown into a strange territory by which they had heard many rumors and stories and mythologies but that they could not really fathom. They were afraid of starving. Going out into this scary world to find food and other sources of nutrients is SCARY.... making it grow right next to your house is... agriculture. In seeing California people saw a land of "prosperity" and "promise." And for a long time (and still today) agriculture was prosperity--- and promise. And conceiving of agriculture in any different way, having conversations about how to build a system that works with the ecosystem, considering sustainability and responsibility was "primitive." So what does this mean?Well, right now it means that we are in a drought and looking around trying to figure out how we can address this problem. There is a lot of talk about lawsuits and restraining orders. And there is just a murmuring that perhaps -- it will mean we finally have to reconstitute and reconsider how California is organized. In fact, according to some articles, it may mean for the rest of the country that everyone has to start reconsidering how we eat or where we get our food from. It also means that Native people have to stand up and be heard, constantly, to remind people of some well known facts like... Water is life. And we are all in this together. Right now as we struggle to keep our rivers healthy (while water is being held... for other uses) we are faced with the fact that our water, the very vein that runs through our valley and protects all sorts of life (human, environment, plants etc.) may be toxic. Blue Green algae has been found in our rivers. And the advice we have been given includes: Keep children and pets away from the water; do not drink, cook or wash dishes with the water, and to get medical attention immediately if we feel we have been exposed. This is not a third world country we are talking about. Yes, people in the past have compared Native reservations to "third world countries" but our home... has been "Our Home Forever." There are many socio-economic issues that we face every day, head on. These water issues no longer belong to some "far off land" where YES there are serious issues with access to water and water sanitation. No one wants to diminish the importance of one water crisis for another. But here, in California (which has the highest GDP in the United States at 1.9 trillion dollars) we have communities with no water. Their water is being bussed in to them and they are being told that this is only for a few weeks and after that they should ask for donations or something. And up here in Nor Cal we contend with possibly toxic water, to fish, to animals, to people, to our ecosystem. We need to hold all of our "citizens" (corporations included, because the Supreme Court says they are people now...) to standards that support the life of our ecosystem, lands, living beings, and peoples. We cannot depend on our individual good intentions as citizens who "conserve" to somehow out weigh and make up for the use of water to support industry. We have to demand ethics and responsibility of our industries. We have to stand up and be heard. Which is why... Na:ke:ah-te (I am going to sing)So tomorrow there's going to be a bunch of Native people gathering at the Lewiston Dam in Northern California to rally for the water. Just last week we rallied to ask the Bureau of Reclamation to #ReleaseTheDamWater and prevent a fish kill. At the time current conditions in our river were worse than they had ever been. In 2002 we experienced a massive fish kill of thousands upon thousands of salmon. We didn't want to see it happen again. After a lot of negotiation and letters, phone calls and tweets the BOR agreed to #ReleaseTheDamWater. And they did. It was immediately after that though that water districts filed a restraining order against the BOR. (Even though the water was already released... it's mostly to prove their point which is something like "that's not fair! We want water for our industries!") So tomorrow we rally. I will be singing with a group of powerful, strong women who will stand with me to be heard. We will encourage people to sing with us. You can sing to if you like... wherever you are. And tweet. I'll be using the hashtag #ForTheWater Tell everyone what you are doing #ForTheWater Tell big business what they should do #ForTheWater Also, we should all no longer buy almonds...I'm sorry. I know the almond industry is booming. Just a few months ago I wrote about how "in" to almonds I was. They had gotten me. I didn't put all of it together until I did... This article points out that: California almonds use a stunning 1.1 trillion gallons of water each year, or enough for you to take a 10-minute shower each day for 86 million years (using a low-flow showerhead, of course). ... In 2013, there were 940,000 acres of almonds in California, according to the USDA (PDF). Each acre of almonds uses three to four acre-feet of water each year, most of which are delivered via river diversions or groundwater. You know what's better for California than the almond industry? Undaming the Klamath river and supporting the revitalization of the Klamath River basin. Case in point: A controversial U.S. Geological Survey Report was leaked to the press concluding that far more economic benefits were to be had in the Basin by restoring water for fish habitats and recreation than diverting water to agriculture. This report claimed that the $5 billion dollars in restoration necessary would be easily offset by $36 billion in benefits from recreational activities compared to $239 million at most in total agricultural production in the basin. Tell everyone you know that you are no longer supporting the almond industry until they actively participate in securing our water for the future. This may mean losing an almond crop, or two, or relocating, or changing their water use but they have to do something. #NoMoreAlmondsCA PSI"m not doing the #ALSIceBucketChallenge and to be quite honest I haven't even watched one. I see them on my Facebook feed and various reports of famous people here and there, but I have had no desire to click play. It is partly because as I was standing on the edge of a shrinking, sick Trinity River in the Hoopa Valley praying for water... I started to think that feeling a cold splash of ice water on my head would only remind me of how warm the river was. Second, many Native people I know already did the #IndigenousWaterRightsChallenge where some of them actually jumped in to freezing ice water and others into freezing creeks. It was winter. I jumped into a river. Yes, throwing ice water on your head is "challenging" but I felt a little been there, done that. Something to think about...
This whole phenomenon, however, has made me wish I had challenged a lot more famous people to go jump in a lake. Because I guess... when famous people do it... e'erbody gonna write about it on news sites. Now to tweet famous people #NoMoreAlmondsCA. We'll see how that goes... Here is my list of ways that I answer the old "how much?" questionYou're native? How much? You couldn't afford alllll thisssssss. 1$ for the first minute, $1.50 for each additional minute. My BIA blood quantum chart is somewhere in my filing cabinet at home...sorry. Let me consult my handy, dandy scientific, fraction calculator right quick. Just the left half of me. (Better rhythm on the left side.) Just the top half of me. (Higher cheekbones, long...range...vision.) All of me except this hand. This hand is straight up white and enjoys polo and high tea and diet coke and teevas and Subarus and other white people stuff. Also, that's none of your business. You're native? How much? Actually, that question is quite offensive. Based on colonial interpretations of what it means to be native. In fact, you are probably asking for my degree of Indian blood, as established by the blood quantum principle which holds that a Native person is made up of a percentage of native blood and when mixed with any other "blood" or race, their children loose an amount equal to exactly 1/2 of the previous total amount. Of course, all white people are full blooded white, which encompasses to most, nearly all European and some Meditteranean countries. Mixed raced children are therefore products of "white, just white, only white" and a "full blooded or mixed blood or lost blood Native." The entire system was created as a way to establish "scientifically" and "mathematically" and "legislatively" the eventual (hopeful, probable, please, please please) extinction of Native people. Blood quantum is designed as a losing game. Eventually all Native people will cease to exist, which solves the "Indian problem" "easily." It's not real. I can't receive a blood transfusion from a white person and suddenly become white. It's an entirely made up system that has been adopted as having some type of meaning but is actually the worlds greatest colonial hoax that Native people have embraced. Also... It's none of your business. The above images are from "Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir" by Deborah Miranda. She writes: "Do you have extra BIA Blood Quantum charts left over from those heady days of proving up? Don't just waste them; use every part! Here are some ideas to get your started." If you haven't gotten her book -- DO IT. 15 ways I knew that I was a "real" Native American while I was growing up (a list I wrote after someone asked me "But, were you raised like in a real Native American way?" Whatever that means...)1. My mom and dad told me that I was.
2. I had a weird name. 3. I had long brown hair that I wore in braids. Sometimes kids would pull them and ask me where my bow and arrow was and I would respond "if they were up your butt you'd know." 4. My grandmother had diabetes and only drank diet soda and chewed carefree sugarless gum. 5. I knew, for a fact, that eating too much sugar free candy gives you really awful diarrhea. #DontAsk 6. When I was little and I would talk back to my mom or whine about having to help in the yard or say something snotty my Grandmother would say "stop acting like a white girl." 7. Commod cheese is the best cheese (everybody knows that) but little known fact - commod peanut butter makes the best peanut butter cookies (with commod shortening). 8. People were afraid I would never get married because I suck at making fry bread. 9. When they realized I was pretty good at fileting and cooking a salmon they felt a little less worried. 10. My Uncle told me a lot of "guess what chicken butt" jokes. Actually, I guess it's just the one joke. "Guess what?" "Chicken butt..." told many times. My favorite joke he told me I can't remember, I only remember the punch line: "liquor, but I barely even know her!" I think it involved a priest and a nun. 11. The first time I ever drove it was an El Camino coasting down the road coming into the rez. In college someone would ask me "what's your dream car" and I would say "el camino" and they would give me a weird look because their dream car was a Maserati. 12. Sometimes we would have to leave school early to attend the Boat Dance or the Deerskin Dance or the Jump Dance. 13. When I would tell my Grandma "I'm so bored" she would say "ooooh, so you want to clean pine nuts!" 14. In the sixth grade we read some book about this Indian guy who had a secret name or something that nobody could ever say or his magical Indian powers would disappear and something bad would happen. After we read that book a whole bunch of kids followed me around the playground trying to get me to tell them my secret Indian name. 15. It's "none of your business." So just today the US Patent and Trademark Office cancelled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the Washington Racial Slur team. Indian Country rejoices because - it's a step in the right direction. Welcome to being "on record" that this term is "derogatory." So now what? First some background. And by no means is this a comprehensive background. The fight to eradicate Native American mascots has been a long one. The National Congress of American Indians began lobbying against the use of the Washington (Racial Slur) team name in the 1960s. Students at Stanford University moved to change their Indian mascot in the early 70s. But here are a few key moments to ruminate on before we get to today's moment... Stanford University changes it's mascot. (1972)Why start here? Mostly because I get to give a shout out to my Mama who was a part of the student group that pushed forward the change of the Stanford University Mascot. Stanford was known as the Indians from 1930-1972. You can learn all about my Mom and her role in changing the mascot if you watch the video. (Her story starts at 25:40). Also in this video, Suzan Harjo who is, yes, the "Harjo" of "Harjo et al. v. Pro Football, Inc. (1992) that we will discuss next. Now to humble brag for a second -- my Mom and I both went to Stanford. Mom went as a Graduate Student and I went (some years later) as an Undergraduate. Our experiences there were very different from each other. I remember the day that I found out I got in to Stanford. My Dad was so excited he was yelling at me on the phone that "A huge envelope came! It says congratulations on it!" (Spoiler Alert) But Mom was fairly quiet until she said to me "You don't have to go there if you don't want to." I don't think ALL of it was because of the experience she had speaking to people about the mascot. The mascot story is one that is very personal to her. She went against the wishes of some of her family members and publicly spoke out against someone from her very own tribe. It was NOT popular opinion at this point in time, in fact, the voices of these students were challenged on every occasion. When I asked her one time why she wasn't ecstatic that I could attend Stanford she said something like "the people there, they can be hard to deal with. Most of them don't understand things outside of their own little world." When I was there as an undergraduate I went to one football game (as required, basically, Big Game) and there were older white people wearing Stanford Indian sweaters and tshirts and carrying tomahawks. It was uncomfortable for me (at 18) to see it. And I remember staring and staring at this guy in front of us until my friend leaned over and said "whatcha looking at so intently there?" And I said to him "A racist." So why start here? Because this was a "win" of sorts. Sure you still get those random dudes wearing shirts, and sure Native students have to get together every once in a while when some campus group wants to use the Indian mascot for something to be cute, or "edgy." But this was a win. Stanford, a major, significant, university got rid of it's mascot. Other universities were still (and are still) trying to say "hey, it's not that bad." And Stanford said "it's pretty bad. We really don't want to be on the wrong side of history with this one." Point -- human decency. Harjo et al. v. Pro Football, Inc. (1992)This was the first attempt to cancel the trademarks of the Washington (Racial Slur) team. In 1992 Suzan Harjo (et al) filed a petition to cancel the trademarks because "the marks consist of or comprise matter which disparages Native American persons, and brings them into contempt, ridicule, and disrepute..." After seven years of litigation, involving multiple discovery and pretrial motions, the Board issued its decision on the merits, held that respondent’s REDSKINS marks were disparaging to Native Americans when registered and ordered the registrations canceled. What's a trademark for? According to this website:
Another site insists that: Trademarks are your most enduring assets. Because: Trademarks are usually the only business asset you have that can appreciate over time. The Washington (Racial Slur) team appealed the decision and the decision was reversed. However, the case was reversed solely on a technicality and never specifically addressed if the team name/ mascot was disparaging. (Because it is... ) All of these appeals and such run through 2002. National Annenburg Election survey finds: "Most Indians Say Name of Washington “Redskins” Is Acceptable While 9 Percent Call It Offensive" (2004)And I only include this because I am one of those people who reads the comments of news stories and tend to see anonymous internet commenters throw around this statistic a lot: "90% of Native Americans said they don't mind the team name." or "90% of Native Americans said the name is fine." That's a lot of percent. Also, it's (technically) not what they said. The question in the survey was: “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?” Huh? Consider the first question: "...do you find that name offensive?" Separated and placed by itself it's a pretty straightforward one. And the answers (yes, no, don't care) are pretty straight forward as well. But the second question "or doesn't it bother you?" is misleading. When posed in this way, people would tend to answer the second question and disregard the first. (BTdubbs I used to design surveys back when I was majoring in Psychology and then I did it for a living as a nonprofit consultant). So the people being surveyed are focusing on one part of the question, if the team name doesn't bother them... because that is the last question that they heard. And how do you answer it? "No it doesn't bother me" or "Yes, it doesn't bother me." At least that's how the question is posed. Both of those answers would lend themselves to supporting the team name. The other answer "Yes, it bothers me." or "No, it doesn't not bother me" or "Yes, I find it offensive" requires an extra step on the part of the respondent, to change the offered content of the question in order to answer it. *SKETCHY* There are plenty of other problems with this survey as well, not the least of which it was done over 10 years ago and/or the people were "self-identified" as Native Americans (which could mean any number of things, that's never been made clear). But, so what? If (BIG IF) 90% of Native Americans say the mascot doesn't bother them, does that negate the other issues pertaining to mascots? No, it doesn't. Study shows that American Indian mascots are harmful, caused depressed self-esteem and community worth for Indian children. (2008)Of Warrior Chiefs and Indian Princesses: The Psychological Consequences of American Indian Mascots was a study done by Dr. Stephanie Fryberg (et al. which is important because one of the et al. is my friend Joe!). Essentially the study found this: Four studies examined the consequences of American Indian mascots and other prevalent representations of American Indians on aspects of the self-concept for American Indian students. When exposed to Chief Wahoo, Chief Illinwek, Pocahontas, or other common American Indian images, American Indian students generated positive associations (Study 1, high school) but reported depressed state self-esteem (Study 2, high school), and community worth (Study 3, high school), and fewer achievement-related possible selves (Study 4, college). We suggest that American Indian mascots are harmful because they remind American Indians of the limited ways others see them and, in this way, constrain how they can see themselves. There have been a number of other studies done since 2008 that have very illuminating findings as well among them (via Indian Country Today): 1. A study by Chaney, Burke, and Burkley (2011)found that many people, in fact, do not distinguish between their feelings between stereotypical Native mascots and actual, living, breathing, Native American people. 2. Steinfeldt et al. (2010)examined racial attitudes about Native Americans expressed in online newspaper forums, focusing on the nickname and logo used by the University of North Dakota’s “Fighting Sioux.” The study found support for the positions of anti-mascot activists and organizations that Native American mascots, nicknames, and logos perpetuate stereotypes. It also found that “Because sports fans have the power to play Indian without the consent of American Indians, relations between both groups are negatively affected" Now that you have the *quick and dirty* background here we are in 2014! There has been a lot of movement this past months on this particular issue which (IMHO) has been growing since the 1960s and begins 2014 with the Twitterstorm heard round the water cooler. It is here that we get to watch the crazy that is Dan Snyder (owner of the Washing Racial Slur team) and see how the social media/information/internet age can chip away at a decades old fight against mis-representation. #NotYourMascot trends on Super Bowl Sunday. ( February 2014)On Super Bowl Sunday groups of people came together in support of the hashtag #NotYourMascot and subsequently trended on Twitter (during a day when the other trends were focused around the Super Bowl). Suddenly, Native issues of representation and mascots were front and center. This "Twitterstorm" was just one way to get people talking and to show the massive, diverse population in support of changing the name of the Washington Racial Slur team. Does a hashtag change everything? No. But it does put voices in support of changing the name, and eradicating Native mascots front and center on an International stage. Twitter has become part of the national news media, they are consistently using Twitter for finding breaking news, updates, and/or communicating with mass groups of people. More and more people were talking, tweeting, writing and asking themselves "why is this still an issue? Why do we still have team names that are racial slurs? Shouldn't this be something that we can actually address and fix?" The national media was talking about it, the late night shows were talking about it, and Dan Snyder was thinking about it (I'm almost positive) because suddenly the voices speaking out against his racism were *not so silent.* Dan Snyder starts a "foundation" to "help" Native Americans because the Washington Racial Slur team name is an honor and because throwing money at the problem seemed like a good idea at the time. (March 2014)The OG AMericans Foundation (or wait, the OAF Foundation, or wait... whatever he calls it, okay, it's actually called "The Original Americans Foundation") was Dan Snyder's (owner of the Racial Slur team) attempt to start a foundation to give Native people coats and also somehow defend the use of the Racial Slur that is his team name. Most people saw through it. In fact, Stephen Colbert used it to point out just how racist (ignorant, arrogant, patronizing) Dan Snyder really is. Of course this started a whole other controversy that I can't get in to here... but still. Dan Snyder's transparent attempt to buy the silence of Native people as if we are *for sale* was simultaneously hilarious... and infuriating. This will be the first of a few really sad, disingenuous, desperate actions that Dan Snyder takes in an attempt to justify the use of a Racial Slur as a team name. Richard Sherman is asked if the NFL would respond to racism the same way the NBA responded to Donald Sterling and Sherman says "No I don't. Because we have an NFL team called the Redskins. I don't think the NFL really is as concerned as they show. The NFL is more of a bottom line league. If it doesn't affect their bottom line, they're not as concerned. " (May 2014)*Yup* President Obama has also said the team should change their name. Comedian Lewis Black says the team should change the name. Senator Harry Reid (NV) says that Dan Snyder is "short sighted" and should change the name. A group of 50 senators wrote letters to the NFL urging them to change the name of the Washington Racial Slur team. So of course...Dan Snyder tries to find some Indians to say the name doesn't not or doesn't somewhat not bother them (or something). (May 2014)(My guess as to what the announcement said) Call for Indians! We are looking for a few Indians who would like to come and hang out with us while we parade you around and tell people "see, Indians are willing to be seen in the same room as us! That means racism is OKAY!" You will be flying coach... Actually what happened was "team intermediaries" tried to invite some tribal leaders to attend a meeting with the team without telling them what it was about. BLAH. Also Snyder hired a lobbying firm because he wanted someone to go and tell people what a great thing racist team names are. And his new foundation tried to sponsor a gold tournament and a bunch of other people pulled out because of it. The National Indian Gaming Association cancelled its sponsorship of the tournament. And Navajo pro-Golfer Notah Begay also pulled his foundations support from the tournament. All told - he looks like he's on the run. We can see him sweating. He'll probably start getting mean now (mark my words). He will be done with his faux "I'm just here using a racial slur and giving you money for charity!" good guy act and he'll get to being mean. This will also... be hilarious and very sad all at the same time. A new survey says that: 67% of Native Americans find the Washington (Racial Slur) name and imagery racist. (June 2014)Remember the 2004 survey of "Native Americans" that Dan Snyder et al. keep referring to when they want to "prove" that Native people aren't bothered by the team name? Well now (finally) there was a new survey done by Dr. James V. Fenelon. The Center for Indigenous Peoples Studies at California State University, San Bernardino has conducted a study on racial and ethnic perspectives on the team name Redskins and associated issues, and found that the large majority of American Indians, when properly identified and polled, find the team name offensive, disrespectful and racist. Though another interesting finding is that: more than 60% of whites reject the term Redskins as racist, while more than 60% of Indians see the term Redskins as racist. The "Proud to Be" commercial airs during the NBA playoffs (with support funding from the Yoche DeHe Wintu Nation). (June 2014)And in response, John Oliver says: "The strongest possible push back you can have after watching something amazing like that is 'yeah but, uh, you're right, we've got to change the name, you're right, you're right." Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc. (Today! June 18, 2014)And then TODAY -- The US Patent and Trademark Office cancelled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the Washington Racial Slur team. What does it all mean? First: this article -- http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/25808643/redskins-trademark-canceled-what-does-it-mean "It DOES NOT mean that the Redskins have to change the team name, or stop using the trademarks at issue. Why? Losing the federal registration of a trademark does not necessarily mean that the owner loses all legal rights in the mark. That’s because trademark rights in the United States come from use of a mark on or in conjunction with goods or services, not merely from the additional, optional step of federal registration. It DOES mean that if the cancellation of the registrations for the trademarks at issue is not appealed, or if the cancellation is not affirmed following possible review by a federal court, the team will lose the legal benefits conferred by the federal registration of the marks. Those benefits include the legal presumptions of ownership and of a nationwide scope of rights in these trademarks, the ability to use the federal registration ® symbol, and the ability to record the registrations with the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Service so as to block the importation of infringing or counterfeit foreign goods." The case that the decision was made for was this one: Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc. and you can read the decision here --http://www.uspto.gov/news/DCfootballtrademark.jsp --Some choice quotes from the decision -- "The recognition that this racial designation based on skin color is disparaging to Native Americans is also demonstrated by the near complete drop-off in usage of “redskins” as a reference to Native Americans beginning in the 1960’s." "The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent’s services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2(a) prohibits registration of matter that disparages a substantial composite, which need not be a majority, of the referenced group. Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990." "Respondent has introduced evidence that some in the Native American community do not find the term “Redskin” disparaging when it is used in connection with professional football. While this may reveal differing opinions within the community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparaging." So Now What?To explain that I'd have to tell you a story: (old Indian way of doing things...storytelling tradition etc. you understand : ) So today I'm sitting in line at the Starbucks drive through and I notice this big old crow fly up on this little bird that was perched on top of a light post. The crow nudged the bird off the light post and took over. The little bird started to fly around in a circle, perched itself on a neighboring tree for a bit and I thought "well, too bad little bird." The crow started squawking. "I'm a big old crow. Look at me on my new perch. WEEEE." Finally, the little bird flew over again and started to dive down toward the crow. The crow flew up and challenged the little bird and they flew around at each other for a while, a nip here and there. Finally the crow re-perched on the light post seemingly victorious. But the little bird didn't give up. The little bird kept diving and flying, diving and flying. Over and over again the little bird went. The crow squawked. The crow opened it's wings. But the little bird kept going until, just a few minutes later... the crow flew away. And the little bird? Flew after that dang crow like a BEAST. Got in front of it, yelled at it and then flew back to it's perch on top of the light post. True story. Congratulations birds of feather... today we knocked Dan Snyder off of just one of his many light posts. That doesn't mean we don't have to keep flying after him. Like many people are quick to point out: this does not mean that Snyder has to change the name of the team. This also does not mean that people will not come to his side or that it won't inflame those who continue to think this racial slur is a good idea. What this does mean-- people are talking about it. So let's keep talking about it. Organize, write, make videos, make memes, tweet, take pictures, do what you do best. Get the word out farther and wider. Jump up and down, put up a celebratory dance video. Suzan Harjo said it best: “I have had the privilege of being the kind of the face of this fight,” Harjo told Business Insider. “But I stand for lots and lots of people who are either vocal about it, or who want to be a part of it, or who are a part of it. This is not a small group of people. Now, it’s their fight. … We’ve said now is the time for everyone to just jump into this so that it’s not on the backs of a few people, especially a few young Native people.” Come on little birds... fly. Wanna know something you could do right now to help? Like "Eradicating Offensive Native Mascotry" on Facebook. http://eonm.org/ https://www.facebook.com/mascotry I have so many qualms and quibbles with this video I don't even know where to start. So I'll start with how I found it. My professor asked me to watch it. This is a Professor from another department who I am taking a class with this quarter. She asked for my reaction and response to the video because she was told that this video (actually this series of videos) is being used in AP History courses to help students engage with U.S. History. As evidenced by You Tube comments like: "I'm watching these so I can get at least a 3 on the AP Exam in 3 weeks" PS. that person took the AP exam "and it was fcking easy." So... there's that. Perhaps expecting any sort of critical thinking to be involved in Advanced Placement history is asking too much. Anyway, my Professor brought it to me and asked if I would be willing to tell her what I thought about the information in the video. I told her I would watch it and give a response on the blog. So here is my response: No. Just...no. Wanna know why? Well, it's mainly because oversimplifying history is a delicate art that not all can master (I know, I know... pot, kettle. I am as glib about history as the next person.) Second, when you make settler colonial based assumptions about history and you back them up with cute little animations that reinforce these primitive (HA, see what I did there?!) ideas about Native peoples in history rather than engaging in critical dialogue, you make an ass out of you and you make ME want to shake my head disapprovingly. Third, for students (or people) to use this video to learn what they will probably assume is a simple, easy, objective, factual, kind of history and then will probably never hear about Native people in history again, this pretends that learning from the assumptions doesn't actually have a lasting impact on the way we treat living Native peoples and their nations. I get what the video is trying to do. It's trying to engage people in this story by making the story accessible. I agree, somewhat, with the premise of the video series. For far too long things like history, have been told from an inaccessible, stodgy, overbearing point of view. History is interesting, it's hilarious (ask any Native person and they can probably tell you a hilarious joke about history) and it's also complicated and dense. But what about the people who don't really care and who just want to get a 3 on their AP exam (which, is fking easy by the way...)? Well, for them, and others who have many things to do, we (in my humble opinion) at least owe them a conversation that challenges their cultural assumptions while engaging their curiosity and sensibility. Also, a lot of the stuff in the video is wrong. W-R-O-N-G. No matter what the AP test says. ASS-umption #1: When the European's arrived there were no classical style civilizations with monumental architecture and empires like the Aztecs or the Incas. Native North Americans had no metal work, no gun powder, no wheels, no written languages, and no domesticated animals. However, they did have farming, complex social political structures and widespread trade networks.I immediately lost all hope for a pleasant surprise (like SURPRISE we aren't just making another video that forwards settler colonial ideas about Native peoples "before European arrival" in order to justify colonization and invasion of Native lands) when the video started this way (I don't mind the fast talking, the animations, the music, the "thought bubbles" - I get it dude). Whether or not the video is attempting to acknowledge that Native peoples were more than just "primitive" peoples who were in the Americas camping out, or waiting around for someone to tell them how the wheel works, the set up of the statement (and the follow through) is actually quite successful at painting Native peoples as primitive. (The host does a lengthy take down of the term, though he then proceeds to do exactly what he says he doesn't want to do- to show Native peoples as primitive non-civilizations). First, the comparison of one "classical style civilization" to another is, problematic, and also disingenuous. It asks students, viewers and others to believe that monumental architecture is paramount to a civilization, and that our ideas about what makes "technology" central to a "classical style" civilization is tied to "metal work" (European), "gun powder" (Western, and Eastern...mind you), wheels and written languages. Note, however, that there were many other civilized and technological advances in Native nations which are not engaged with NOR presented in the video. For instance, aside from "complex social political structures," "farming" and "trade networks" Native peoples had (and have):
ASS-umption #2: So there had been civilizations in America but they peaked before the Europeans arrived. The Zuni and Hopi civilization... peaked about 1200 CE.Wow. Tell that the Hopi. Actually, don't tell that to the Hopi because they might just punch you in the face. Actually, yeah, try telling that to a Hopi. So the narrative is the same that happens in "history" done by "old historians" (who the host makes fun of) who want to believe in a few fundamental facts without critically thinking about said "facts." This "fact" is centered around the idea that somehow, in some way, Native peoples were on their way out of being populous, civilized, organized, generous, complete, whole, balanced "civilizations" and nations because of (insert reason: disease, "environmental degradation" and/or a combination of) and this means that when Europeans got here their "colonization" was in some way supported by nature and "destiny." That's right - "manifest destiny." Now, the "selective reasoning" that goes in to this assumption of fact means that those instances that support your idea are explored and/or documented while those that do not (say, the continued growth of Native populations "pre-contact" or the complex systems of government, civilization, religion and the like that existed) are erased from the documented record either (1) because people don't WANT to see them or (2) they didn't bother to ask while they were killing/ massacring/ committing a genocide of Native people or (3) they didn't care. "Selective reasoning" means that one can say "you see, this is an example of how Native Americans peaked and were on their way out because they lived in one place (where the Hopi's/ Zuni's lived) and then stopped living there." Even though you wouldn't tell European history as "see the Europeans peaked because at one time some of them lived in Rome and then they didn't." You can't (or shouldn't) even say that the Hopi's or Zuni's "peaked" at a certain point in history because they are STILL ALIVE. However, thanks for giving me my new favorite comeback line to anything my Hopi friend Jackie says to me. "Yeah, well, the Hopi's peaked in 1200 CE. HISTORICAL FACT!" ASS-umption #3: Most Native groups in most cases organized as tribes and their lives were dominated by the natural resources available where they lived. These tribal bands often united into loose confederacies or leagues the best known of which was probably the Iroquois Confederacy, also called the Great League of Peace. Wow. Tell that to the Haudenosaunee. They were a "loose" confederacy. Dang, you are good at giving me comebacks for Native people I know. "Yeah, well, we know how those Iroquois are -- just a LOOSE confederacy." Let me note a little about this "loose" confederacy. First, it was from this confederacy that the United States Government was modeled. Second, this "loose" confederacy was documented by the Haudenosaunee people (and I say documented because there were in fact DOCUMENTS created "pre-contact" to "document" history, which I will quibble about later). Third, seriously, tell that to the Haudenosaunee. I'd like to see it. Video it and put it on You Tube. ASS-umption #4: In general colonizing Florida sucked because it was hot and mosquito-ey. Spain was much more successful at colonizing the American southwest. Do you know what that means -- to be "successful" at colonizing the American Southwest? Do the students watching this video know what that means? You could add just a few sentences to let people know what that means. It is not a benign statement. To be "successful" at colonizing these areas means: enslavement of Native peoples, killing of Native peoples, displacing of Native peoples, eradicating of Native peoples. Later this ASS-umption becomes even worse when the host states: New Mexico is really important because it is the site of the first large scale uprising by Native Americans against Europeans. I mean, the Native people, who the spanish called Pueblos, had seen their fortunes decline significantly since the arrival of Europeans. How much decline? Well between the years 1600-1680 their population went from about 60,000 to about 17,000. When I first heard this I had to back it up several times to figure out what he meant by "had seen their fortunes decline significantly" and I STUDY THIS TYPE OF HISTORY FOR MY JOB (although, granted, I do not have to take the AP test to get paid... but still). "had seen their fortunes decline significantly"?? I paused, you mean like, they weren't making as much money because of the arrival of the Europeans? Like somehow the Europeans took their jobs? Like before the Europeans came the Pueblos were rolling in dough and then the Europeans came and now they can only afford one house instead of three? But no, what he means is that their "fortunes" (like the "fortune" of being alive, not being enslaved, not being killed, not being forced to move, not having your children taken or your family raped or killed) had "declined" which you can tell because their population was decimated (octo-mated?) from 60,000 to 17,000. That is precisely the problem with the statement and this (re)telling of history. Sure dude, be glib, whatever. But at least, at least consider your word choice. When you have 11 minutes to tell me about all of the Spainards history and the Pueblo Revolt and Native peoples at least consider what you mean by "their fortunes declined significantly." ASS-ide #1: So we focused a lot on the brutality of the Spanish toward the Indians... Did you? He makes this ASS-ide after he reads one statement (just one) by Bartolome de las Casas about the inhumane treatment of Native peoples by the Spaniards. And it's almost like he is apologizing for reading these very damning words about what was happening in the Americas as a result of this colonization. Much more than a "decline of fortunes" that's for sure. ASS-umption #5: As we mentioned at the beginning of today's episode American Indians didn't have writing so we don't have records of their perspective. We do actually. We really do. There are a lot. (1) You can look at oral narratives if you'd like, there's a LOT of history in there about "pre-contact" cultures of Native people in the Americas. ("But, but, in history we don't think oral narratives count as real historical documents!" Well, that's really to your detriment then. Because if you wanted to KNOW instead of just ASSUME you would consider the oral tradition, and you would learn how to read and understand them.) (2) You can look at the documents of Native nations. Wampum belts, Navajo rugs, painted animal skins, baskets, canoes, carvings, rock paintings, etc. (3) There was a lot written during the Spanish colonization and also a lot taken as testimony during Spanish colonization. So you can learn from people who told their story and it was written down, or your can learn from the stuff that was written down by various Spanish, French, Dutch, Russian and other "explorers." (4) You could ask. There are lots of us in Native American Studies, at least some of us may be willing to help. (I don't know about the Hopi's though, they might just say "oh hey dude, I thought we PEAKED in 1200 CE!" But why does it even matter? It's just history and stuff...Do you know when I get students in my NAS class they usually end up writing me a reflection in which they say something like "What makes me the most upset is that I never learned these things about history before. Why didn't anyone ever tell me?!" And most of them were AP history students... I suppose I will answer this one with a quote from the video: One of the great things about American history is that we have a lot of written sources- this is the advantage of the US coming on to the scene so late in the game, historically speaking. But every story we hear comes from a certain point of view, and we always need to remember who is speaking, why they are speaking, and especially which voices go unheard - and why. Maybe, had the video been held to the same standard, this "crash course" could actually benefit people who are curious enough to want to learn SOMETHING by helping them to engage with what this learning is about. Read the quote above again (said by the host at the end of the video) and note that this video is a certain point of view (western based historian) and we need to remember who is speaking (western based historian) why they are speaking (to get you tube views?) and which voices go unheard (in this case, the ones that call in to question these settler colonial western historical ASS-umptions about Native peoples.) And why. But also, how come. How come we don't expect more from even a short video used to help high school students access history. And shouldn't we? I know I do. P.S. This video is supposed to be about The Black Legend, Native Americans and Spaniards and nary (yes, I said NARY) a mention of California and how the brutal treatment of Native people continued well into the 1700s by the Spanish in order to colonize Native peoples nor (yes I said NOR) a shout out for the many uprisings and rebellions of Native people in California against the mission system? Not even a "oh yeah they did this in California too!" Nada? Although the video probably would have said something like "and you know those California Indians they peaked in 1500" and then I would have had to get in my car, google where the host lives, drive for hours, find his house, knock on his door, waited until he opened it so I could look at him and say "NO, okay! JUST NO."
Let me start with why I haven't responded to or written about the whole Christina Fallin debacle of a few weeks ago or the newest, latest and greatest "Siouxper Drunk" frat party racism at the University of North Dakota. First, I'm busy. Second, Native Appropriations already wrote a really good letter in response to Christina Fallin. Third, how many "don't wear headdresses dummy" posts does one person have to do before they start to feel like they are just being trolled by spoiled, self-centered people who could care less? I figured, my gut reaction response would probably be an effort to try and explain to Christina Fallin (daughter of Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, home to the second largest population of Native American people in the United States) and the spoiled brat racists at the University of North Dakota, why they should not wear headdresses or shirts that say racist things about Native people and how they can better, in the words of Christina Fallin, "innocently adorn" themselves in our beautiful things (blech). I would have said (1) try buying some contemporary jewelry made by contemporary Native artists and supporting this continued cultural art form rather than picking stereotypical things to wear (2) don't wear headdresses, dummy. But, then I started feeling like I was being trolled. Especially now, when everyone is yelling at each other on Twitter and there's a bunch of spoiled brat college students wondering how they can be racist if other people are racist? That seems to be the defense "hey, other people do this too, how come we're in trouble? That means it's okay or otherwise those other people wouldn't do it!" It doesn't make any sense, don't try to make it make sense. The more they write back and favorite each other's tweets and pass around each others 140 character diatribe on "political correctness" the more I start to feel like I'm being trolled. Maybe I just want to feel that way. I want to feel like this couldn't possibly be yet another instance of ANOTHER person who HONESTLY thinks that wearing a headdress, or a tshirt that makes fun of Native people as "drunks" and/or dressing up like an Indian is "honoring" or "respecting" Native people or "not that serious." Just as soon as we finish with a Governor's daughter who thinks she's cute because she wears a Native headdress and then thinks it's okay to be dismissive of criticism of that action we have to deal with a bunch of riled up kids from North Dakota. It all seems so attention seeking. I'd never heard of Christina Fallin, or her band (I can't remember their name) before she put a headdress on. She's in national newspapers now talking about how cool she is because Native people are protesting her and I suddenly had this thought --- "Is offending Native people the new 'oops somebody released my sex tape, oh well I'll go with it and become famous'?" Is this an easy way to get attention, some news, and possibly your own reality show where you sit around and do nothing? I'm feeling trolled. This doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to get everyone to "just stop wearing headdresses dummy", but it means that I'm trying to take a different path. I am relying on education and knowledge. I have seen, first hand, that there are many people out there who really want to learn and listen. These are not the Christina Fallins of the world. These are not the Dan Snyders of the world. Those types of people want to use Native people as props, as objects in their continued attempts to legitimize their snobby, self-centered view of the world. They believe that Native peoples are there for the consuming. Their mentality is infected by the ongoing colonization of the spaces they inhabit where Native peoples were consumed - consumed by genocide, consumed by slavery, consumed by assimilation. This country was built on the consumption of Native people. This consumption continues. But, there are also those that benefit from and want to learn and understand Native peoples, their cultures, their survivance, their humor. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. This is why I teach Native American Studies. This is why EVERY SINGLE PERSON should have to take a Native American Studies class. Not because I want to yell into the wind tunnel that is Christina Fallin, but because I know that many of the students and people I encounter are open to learning and discussion and change. What they learn -- what I teach, is that all of these things are interconnected. The representations we have of Native people in the mass media, in our heads, in our history books, those stay with us and they contribute to contemporary issues in Native communities, into politics, into our own culture and who we are as people living here in these Indigenous spaces (all peoples, everyone, we are all affected). So, in an effort to extend my educational reach beyond my classroom I am going to offer another presentation (as I did before) but this time we're going to talk about why people dress the way they do when they think they are "honoring" Native people. Or -- You realize you are just dressing like a stereotype of a Native and not like an actual Native person right? Or-- Stop Wearing Headdresses, Dummy. In Which We Find Out Why People Dress The Way They Do When They Say They Are "honoring" Native People -- OR You realize you are just dressing like a stereotype of a Native and not like an actual Native person right? OR Stop Wearing Headdresses, dummy.First, close your eyes and draw a picture of a Native American in your head. What does your Native American look like? Lemme guess. He/She looks like this: (I know, I know, many of you will say "but mine looked a little different." It's okay. Go with me.) What do these Native people have in common? Here we go:
Now watch this: Disney's "Peter Pan": "What Makes the Redman Red?" (1953) Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you. Take notes. Keep track of what the Native people look like and what the story of the song is. Okay first - what is the story of the song? This song is part of the movie Peter Pan, where Peter has rescued Tiger Lily from Captain Hook. In response, Tiger Lily's father is very happy and grateful that his daughter wasn't drowned in the ocean by a Pirate (which shows, to me, he has human emotion, good for him). Now, in response he decides to give Peter Pan an Indian name ("Flying Eagle") and this makes Peter Pan very happy. After that he offers to teach the visiting little children about Native Americans and the children proceed to ask him racist questions like:
Short answer: he kissed a pretty girl and that made him blush, then saw his mother in law and that made him say "ugh!" and he asked a lot of questions about how things work so he could learn stuff. To help my students dissect this video we first talk about what the Natives look like. But there soooo much going on in this video I feel like I can't skip over it so let's start with the sound. The music here is supposed to represent Native people and culture. It's a deep, dark sounding drum with ugh and mumbling sounds and it mirrors this idea that Native peoples music was always war like and full of menace. The Indians here hoot, hollar, jump around, act crazy, sing about nonsense and offer children pipes to smoke while also ordering around women and allowing the men to play. The fantasy here is that Native people allow a stuffy, uppercrust group of children to chillax for a minute and dance around fires while singing. Except Wendy, who doesn't like that in this society she is nothing more than a "squ*w" and so she storms off. Also Wendy is really uptight. Now, let's look at what the Native people are wearing...
Next... video number 2. Judy Garland - "I'm an Indian Too" from Annie Get Your Gun (1950)Are you gonna spend the rest of the day singing "I'm an Indian too!" or is that just me? Actually I sing that sometimes to myself when I do something like put the dishes away. There's me, super Indian, putting dishes away cause "I'm an Indian too!" Okay, what's the story in the song? The story is there is this little woman who wants to be an Indian. So the Chief tells her she is an Indian now and she sings a song about what she will do now that she is an Indian too. This consists of - having a lot of Indian stuff like totem poles, running off with men and having lots of babies (the full song, not what Judy Garland sings, mentions these plans even more). So why is being an Indian so cool? Because then she doesn't have to be uptight and tied in to societies expectations of her. Again, it's a rejection of these norms, saying that being an Indian means that you don't have to worry about the pressure of society and instead you can live in whatever wild, and crazy way you want. There is a deep longing here for freedom, something that these outsiders for some reason think is tied to (1) having lots of sex and (2) having lots of babies (and /or running off with someone else). Just like in Peter Pan the message is: you can become an Indian. If you become an Indian, you are awesome. I would say it was flattering in a really messed up way but I hate giving credit where credit isn't due. The music. Think about the music too. The drums, the moans, the calls, the dancing around in a circle. It's all there. And how does Judy Garland become an Indian? -- they put a feather on it. (I guess they liked it... so they put a feather on it. Timely Beyonce joke for the win!) Also -- how is she dressed? Say it with me now...
Granted, some people say "well you know this was a long time ago and it's not like we don't know this stuff is racist NOW but back then it was a different time. People didn't KNOW it was racist then. You can't be critical of it now that we know how racist it is." Okay, so let's start with "it was a long time ago..." Here are some videos from the last few years of high schools doing this song dressed up as Native people singing about how they are Indians too. (Notice what they wear) Not... a... long...time...ago. PS. I'm not trying to say that these students should be ridiculed or made fun of, I'm saying, that here are just two of the many examples of this "obviously racist" portrayal of Native peoples that continues. People (supposedly) KNOW it's wrong now and they do it anyway.
But maybe they don't know that it's wrong? Another thing that people have said to me. They probably should know it's wrong, but I get that there are contradictory messages out there. For every #NotYourTonto tweet there is some guy saying "But I asked this Native person I know and they said it was okay." For the thousands who say "No more Indian Mascots" there are the Native peoples who say "it's fine with me." There are many images of Native peoples "out there" and most of them are messed up and deserving of criticism. Yet, they are constantly portrayed as the "norm" or socially acceptable (There are also many positive portrayals and images, and they get MUCH less attention). But even if some people are okay with it, it's still racist. It's a great big cycle of crudity that dates back to the first movies made in Hollywood which demanded that Native peoples (1) all wear feathers and look essentially the same to make them easily identifiable to the audience; (2) all wear headbands (and this was not because Native people's wear headbands all the time, but because they needed to hold wigs on to actors heads); (3) wear costumes with fringe and (4) be primitive, lacking in humor, education, words, ideas because the movies were about displacing, killing and eradicating Native peoples and that isn't as easy to do to people who are "real." (Want to know more? Watch REEL INJUN). Hollywood's Indian is not a real Indian. Yes, there are parts of this Hollywood Indian that comes from various tribes. Maybe some Natives wore headdresses but others wore basket caps. Maybe some wore fringed clothing, but others wore bark skirts. And they wore these things with responsibility. They did not just put a headdress on to look cute. They did not wear a feather in their hair to make a better "costume." The costumed Indian is the Hollywood Indian. There is no tribe that fits the Hollywood stereotype because it's an imaginary abomination meant to justify genocide. When you can make a whole people into a cartoon, a caricature, you feel less tied to them, you feel far away from them, like they don't matter. Then, it's easier to dismiss them. When people "dress up" in feathers and fringe and Halloween Costumes, and hipster costumes and rave outfits or whatever. When they have frat parties and make racist t-shirts. When they paint their face and put on "war bonnets" and head to football/baseball games they are not honoring Native people. They are honoring Disney's "Red Man", they are honoring Hollywood's Indian. That's why their wear the headband and the feather on the back of their head. That's why they paint their face and play their music the way they do. That's why they jump and hoot and holler and say nonsensical things and act a fool -- to honor an imaginary character that does not exist. A character that we KNOW is racist. A character that is a clear demonstration of derogatory stereotypes. A character that literally makes students turn away when I play these clips in classrooms. I have seen people watch these clips through their open fingers like they are watching a horror movie. So this "honoring" of Native people, that's not real. It's a way to erase the real Native people. Some people would rather have their non-sensical Native that they can own, than a real life Native who challenges their legitimacy and "manifest destiny." This is why representation matters, because these images, left unchecked, lead to the dismissal of Native people as living. It leads to the dismissal of Native people as intellectuals. It leads to the dismissal of Native people as allies in education, science, technology and research. We all lose when we cannot learn from each other. Now watch this video. (it' s not a very good version of the video, you know why, they took it down because it was racist... so this is the best I can do.) No Doubt - "Looking Hot" (2012)This happened in 2012. 2012. Sometimes people will say "but we know better now." And then this will happen. I already wrote about it before which you can read here. But let's just point this out right quick. Gwen Stefani dresses up as an Indian for her music video and how is she dressed?
To No Doubt's credit, they took the video down and you can't really find very many versions of it. Of course they said the didn't KNOW it was racist when they were making it, watching it in the editing room, watching the final version, uploading it to You Tube... but they agreed to take it down because they didn't want to offend anyone. So now we know-- this video is racist and offensive. Dressing up like a Native Person is not honoring them, it's honoring a stereotype. Take the information and run, run to your closest headdress wearing friend, sit them down, look them in the eye and with a sincere and open heart say: Stop wearing headdresses, dummy. |
SubscribeClick to
AuthorCutcha Risling Baldy is an Associate Professor and Department Chair of Native American Studies at Humboldt State University. She received her PhD in Native American Studies from the University of California, Davis. She is also a writer, mother, volunteer Executive Director for the Native Women's Collective and is currently re-watching My Name is Earl... (5) Top PostsOn telling Native people to just "get over it" or why I teach about the Walking Dead in my Native Studies classes... *Spoiler Alert!*
Hokay -- In which I lead a presentation on what happens when you Google "Native American Women" and critically analyze the images or "Hupas be like dang where'd you get that dentalium cape girl? Showing off all your money! PS: Suck it Victorias Secret"
In which we establish that there was a genocide against Native Americans, yes there was, it was genocide, yes or this is why I teach Native Studies part 3 million
5 Reasons I Wear "Indian" Jewelry or Hupas...we been bling-blingin' since Year 1
Pope Francis decides to make Father Junipero Serra a saint or In Which I Tell Pope Francis he needs to take a Native Studies class like stat
I need to read more Native blogs!A few that I read...
Archives
June 2020
Categories
All
|