North American Indians: a step by step guide to "playing Indian"

My friend Katie is currently in her first year of teaching 4th grade on the Rosebud Sioux reservation in South Dakota (go Katie!), and she sent me a scanned copy of this ridiculous book that was in her classroom library. I'll let her give the context:

"I finally started going through my classroom's library and was pretty appalled to find this book (along with the typical Indian the Cupboard and Little House on the Prairie-esque books).  I teach 4th grade on the Rosebud Reservation; 100% of my students are Lakota.  The book purports to give a history of Native Americans and a guide to Native crafts, but what it ends up being is a veritable handbook for white kids to "play Indian."  All the photos are of white kids dressed up as Indians!  I can't find one picture (other than the historical ones, of course) of a Native American child.  Even more disturbingly, the descriptions make it sound as if these white kids are authentic representations of Indian clothing, etc. The worst thing is that this book is (now was, ugh) in the library of a classroom full of Lakota children.  It's like hey kids, these pictures of white kids can teach you how to be Indian better than your own people!"

After the jump, scanned selections of the book. Prepare yourself, it's pretty bad. (All images can be clicked for a bigger version)

First thing of note: the title page says "Consultant: Anne Armitage, BA--The American Museum in Britain. So, there weren't any qualified "consultants" who were actually Native? or I don't know, maybe in AMERICA? Also, this is published by Scholastic--usually a well known and trusted name in children's books. 

This page talks about "Indian clothing". Everything is in past tense (as is the whole book), and it has instructions on how to make a "war bonnet" along with a historic photograph. 

"Hairstyles were important ways to look different but still fit in with tribal traditions. Some groups smeared their hair with mud and sculpted it into different shapes." Um, really? 

The descriptions of the tribes (not to mention the accompanying images) make me so upset. The past tense and historic descriptions would leave any child thinking there was no way a Nez Perce, Chumash, Tlingit, or Navajo person still lived today. 

Katie pointed out that the caption with the boy reads: "Plains warriors carried spears and hide shield and wore elaborate headdresses for ceremonial occasions", implying that he IS a "plains warrior".

More tribal descriptions--the description of the seminole is especially interesting. It's mostly about North American settlers and influence rather than the tribe. 

look at the boy's stance. Sitting "Indian style".

A couple of things: I like the fact the "Plains Warrior" and the "Seminole" are playing stickball--complete disregard for regionality of the game. Also, the one reference to traditions continuing today mentions that a form of this game is still played today "called lacrosse." Not that tribes still play the traditional form, which they do. 

"Early European Explorers and settlers tried to write down the sounds of Indian words, but some could not accurately be conveyed using our alphabet."

The caption reads "a sioux boy and a nez perce girl would have been able to speak to each other using sign language". 

So, overall, I'm a bit at a loss for words. I can't believe scholastic decided this was a great book to promote "hands on learning," and that someone decided this was a good book to put in a 4th grade reservation classroom. I mean, this is straight up, by definition cultural appropriation. 

I also just googled the book, and found it on a few "recommended book" lists for teachers (gross), and found that there is an entire series of books that teach kids how to "play history": Egypt, Rome, Stone Age...and American Indians (completely the same, right?). It appears to be still in print. 

Another example of placing Natives in the historic past, of melding of hundreds of distinct tribal traditions, of playing Indian, of not allowing Indians to be "experts" on ourselves, the "otherization" of American Indians...and about every other issue I've dealt with on this blog. So frustrating. 

Major kudos to Katie for cleaning out her classroom library, her students are lucky to have her. 

(Thanks Katie!)

Dartmouth Native Vigilantes?

(image via ivygateblog.com)

Last night several of these anonymous signs were posted around the campus of Dartmouth College on the lawns of greek organizations and in front of administration buildings. The text on the sign above, posted at the Psi Upsilon house, reads:

Dear Brothers of Psi U,

You have been charged with representing your brotherhood to Dartmouth as racist and insensitive. Your use of the Dartmouth Indian, which is a caricature of racist stereotypes, as well as the objectification of women on your other shirt send a message to campus that you as an organization are actively disrespecting the feelings of your peers. We are holding you accountable for your actions.

It is time you start doing the same. 

I'll admit that I'm not well versed in the intimate details of the ongoing issues surrounding the Indian mascot at Dartmouth, but I know that it has been a nearly constant struggle for Native students on campus fighting against generations of alumni who support and continue to use the mascot image. In addition to the mascot issues, there have been a series of serious incidents through the years directly targeting or affecting the Native community. Inside Higher Ed published an article in 2006 about some of the incidents, and can be found here.  I can only imagine, given the statement above, that the brothers of Psi U produced some sort of shirt using the mascot.

The Ivygate blog seems to think that these vigilantes are "anti-greek", but I think it's pretty obvious that's not the case, and that there are bigger issues at play here. In addition to the sign above, they also covered the porch of the house with ladies underwear and the words "this won't just go away". While the blog speculates this is a reference to sexual harassment, commenter "vigilante" sets the record straight:

The panties are not anti-sexual-assault or even feminist (god forbid), but rather refer to a Psi U’s response to concerns about the Dartmouth Indian tshirts about people getting their “panties in a twist” and saying the situation will just “go away” if they don’t address it.

The people behind the signs aren’t anti-Greek by any means, just looking to revive dialogue about some recent actions by various organizations that come across as racist/sexist/generally insensitive. These things are consistently dismissed and swept under the rug, so the signs sought to give voice to those who were affected, offended by, and/or silenced by such actions. Accountability and respect of others in the community are the main goals, but at the very least we hope people will start actually talking about these issues rather than blowing them off as usual.

I think this is definitely a voice that needs to be heard, and that the Dartmouth administration's track record of not taking action on issues affecting the Native community and communities of color in general is inexcusable. I hope that these "vigilantes" use this as momentum to keep the movement going and make their voices heard.

I know I've got a few readers from up that way, if anyone wants to give me more information, or wants to write a post about the issues facing Native students on campus, especially surrounding the continued use of the mascot, please don't hesitate to let me know. I am perfectly happy to keep you anonymous. nativeappropriations@gmail.com.

Dartmouth Apologizes for Indian Incidents--Inside Higher Ed (2006): http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/11/27/dartmouth

Anonymous Vigilantes Attack Dartmouth Frats with Manifestos, Women's Underwear--Ivygate Blog: http://www.ivygateblog.com/2010/02/breaking-anonymous-vigilante-attacks-dartmouth-frats-with-manifestos-womens-underwear/ 

(Thanks Scott!)

You Heap Fine Valentine, and HOW.

 

Happy Valentines Day everyone! Enjoy these Indian-themed vintage valentines, which can all be found at: http://www.vintagevalentinemuseum.com/2007/06/mechanical-native-american-indian-at.html

Lots more after the jump!

I'm sending this ARROW, CHIEFLY to say, Let me be your "beau", my valentine (1940's)

 

You've kindled a spark of love in my heart my valentine (1930's)

 

(1940's)

 

(1940's)

 

I'd never 'squaw'k if you'd be my valentine (1940's)

(wow this one is bad)

 

(1920's)

 

(1941)

 

Ugh! ugh! your heart valentine! (1940's)

(Front)

 

Ugh! Ugh! I'm an INDIAN GIVER it's time your should learn it, for I won't give my love unless you RETURN IT!

(I saved the "best" for last. Indian giver? really?)

all images found here: http://www.eclecticsalvage.com 

Indian River Light Beer: "At Last, a Beer Native to Manhattan"

 (image via heartlandbrewery.com)

My friend Kayla pointed me (via her friend Tia's Facebook) to Heartland Brewery, straight out of hipster-haven Brooklyn, NY, and their beer called "Indian River". Here is the picture that Tia snapped of their advertisement at a bus stop in Manhattan:

If you can't read it, it says "accents of orange, no pulp" and "At last, a beer native to manhattan".

So lets break this down a little: sexualized woman, most likely not Native, wearing very little clothing, and what she is wearing is sterotypical fringed buckskin, sporting "war paint", a feather, a beer, and a shotgun. Also the bonus of using "native" in the tagline, in case we were unsure of what asthetic they were going for. This takes the cake for rolling about every stereotype ever into one advertisement. In my indignant googling, I found the Heartland Brewery website here.

After the jump, more upsetting labels and some analysis.




It appears they are equal opportunity stereotypers, because they also have labels that are disparaging to women:

and

 

Then they have multiple labels that are stereotypes of farmers/rural white Americans:

 

and 

 and

 

note the distinct lack of teeth, presence of overalls, and cross-eyed/crazy expressions. 

While I am completely aware that the farmer imagery is not 'the same' as the Native imagery, I put them up to offer a more complete picture of the company, and to demonstrate how they're clearly trying to be "edgy" or "subversive" to get customers. but why does being edgy have to come at the expense of others?

They appear to be a fairly established presence in NYC, with multiple brewpub locations and about 10-15 beers, but it seems they are trying to maintain the local, quirky, hipster-y image. Which apparently hinges on otherizing, stereotyping, and disparaging images.

Overall, it's incredibly upsetting that something like "Indian River" is deemed acceptable, and that New Yorkers walking around the city now have another false image implanted in their brains. It's a vicious cycle.

If anyone wants to send the brewery a letter or email, they can be reached here:

Address:
1430 Broadway (at 40th St.) 7th Floor
New York NY 10018
Phone:
212.400.2300
Email:
veronica@heartlandbrewery.com


(Thanks Kayla and Tia!)

---

Is Twilight good for the Quileute?

(image via hottopic.com)

Note: This piece assumes some limited knowledge of the Twilight series. If you need some background, look here. :)

I was so happy when I saw this fantastic OpEd in the NY Times about the relationship between the Twilight franchise and the Quileute tribe. The article was written by the Associate Director of American Indian Studies at UCLA, Angela Riley, who is an awesome scholar in Indigenous intellectual property, and it captures a lot of what I have been grappling with in regards to the whole Twilight phenomenon and its affect on Native communities, in particular the Quileute.

Admittedly, I read the entire Twilight series, and am un-apologetically Team Jacob (mostly because I want the Indian to win for once), but I still have a lot of issues with the portrayals of Natives in the books and movies. I'll delve a little into the presented images of the Wolf Pack in my Part 2 post, but first I want to focus on the commercialization, and in many ways, explotation, of the Quileutes.

 Riley begins her piece discussing all the ways that Quileute name and community has been commercialized in conjunction with Twilight: 

“Twilight” has made all things Quileute wildly popular: Nordstrom.com sells items from Quileute hoodies to charms bearing a supposed Quileute werewolf tattoo. And a tour company hauls busloads of fans onto the Quileute reservation daily. Yet the tribe has received no payment for this commercial activity. Meanwhile, half of Quileute families still live in poverty.

Add to Nordstroms the incredible array of New Moon products at Hot Topic, which you can see here.

The entire Twilight franchise has revenues estimated in the billion dollar range, and Riley goes on to note that the tribe has not received any revenue from the books, movies, or merchandising, nor were they consulted in any of the portrayals of their community. The upsetting part is, there is no legal precedent for involving or reimbursing the tribe. She points out that,

...the outside uses of the Quileute name, from the “Twilight” books to the tattoo jewelry, are quite likely legal. American intellectual property laws, except in very specific circumstances, do not protect indigenous peoples’ collective cultural property.

The only laws in place protect tribes from products that claim to be "Native made", but nothing protects tribal names from commercial use--think Jeep Cherokee, all the "Navajo" named items I've posted before, Apache helicopters, etc. Riley also notes that many tribes are able to market their own cultural property for profit, such as traditional weavers, silversmiths, and beaders from many communities. But what it truly boils down to is an issue of control--Native communities should have the right to determine how their community is portrayed, and this is closely related to sovereignty and self-determination. 

By not involving the tribe in decisions that directly affect their community, it serves as a direct affront to their status as a sovereign nation.

The Quileute’s Web site tells visitors about the tribal laws that govern Quileute territory. One of these laws specifies that burial grounds and religious ceremonies are “sacred and not to be entered.” Had MSN acknowledged the tribe as a sovereign government, it might not have broken that rule. The Quileute believe that respect for Indian tribal sovereignty could likewise bridge cultural gaps between other Indian communities and outsiders.

I agree with Riley that meeting with Quileute leaders and community members and involving them with the marketing process is an important first step. I see this community as setting the stage for Natives taking control of intellectual property and turning the tables of negative portrayals back into something that can ultimately benefit the community.

The Quileute are a small tribe on a small reservation that have been thrust into the national and international spotlight, and not by choice. However, I hope that with the help of scholars and lawyers like Angela Riley, the tribe can use the publicity to bring light to issues within their own community and perhaps these larger issues of cultural property and representation within Indian Country. 

Finally, the piece ends with a quote that I think encapsulates my entire thinking with this blog:

The ultimate choice, regarding not only the Quileute but all indigenous peoples, is not simply whether outsiders are free to appropriate tribal cultural property. For the sake of fairness as much as law, indigenous peoples must play a significant role in decisions regarding their cultural property.

It's not just about the right to appropriate, it's about control over portrayals of our people and our communities. Native people deserve a voice at table.

The whole OpEd (read it!): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08riley.html

(Thanks Mollie and Marjorie for the link!)

Appropriations at the Boston Museum of Science

This past weekend I took a trip to the Boston Museum of Science to see the Harry Potter Exhibition (which was amazing and awesome and anyone who is a fan should go see it...but I digress), and since our tickets got us into the rest of the museum, we wandered around the galleries a bit. I didn't even have my Cultural Insensitivity Radar (I should trademark that) on, because I figured "science" would be a safe zone, right?

Apparently not. The above image is a diorama on the second floor, not in the context of an exhibit, in fact kind of just stuck in a hallway. It depicts a "Hopi Indian Village," and is about six inches away from a diorama of an "African Watering Hole".  In addition to the diorama, there was also an interesting display in another part of the about migration and genetics with some eyebrow raising use of graphics and language, and a couple of other small things.

After the jump, more images of the dioramas, as well as the analysis of the migration and genetics display.


(all images can be clicked for a bigger version)

This is a close(r) up of the interior of the diorama

Even closer. They are performing a "Snake Dance" according to the didactic panel. Are any Pubelos/Hopi's able to verify the accuracy?

One last close-up

 

Sorry for the photo quality (I really need to get a better camera if I'm going to keep doing this blog!) but the most interesting and disheartening part of this descriptive panel was the pervasive past tense. Apparently Hopi's and the Snake Dance are not something alive and continuing today, according to the museum. 

This was the neighboring display, the African Watering Hole. These were the only two dioramas, and it is interesting to note that this one does not include people. So animals in Africa=Natives in US? It's hard to imagine the typical museum visitor would be able to make a distinction between the two. 

This is my friend Jenny showing how close the two displays were to each other, further adding to the idea that they are somehow related, or meant to be viewed on the same plane. 

Next we jump to the Human Body exhibit, which was actually pretty cool--we played with stethoscopes (Jenny couldn't find her heartbeat and thought she was dead), found out which of our eyes were dominant, weighed ourselves to find out how much blood we had (Jenny would die first in a knife fight, I have more blood), and then there was this display:

"Mapping People in Native (Indigenous) Populations." I'm glad they used the Native/Indigenous distinction, though it got to be a little overkill to see the parentheses in every sentence. The point of the display was to examine the roles of migration and genetics in human evolution...I think. But they throw "culture" in there too.

This is the side panel. "Most of us no longer live in the same place or cultural group as our great-great-great-great-grandparents." Um, actually, a lot of us Natives (Indigenous) do. Well, at least those of us who weren't forcibly removed from our homelands.

 

This was kinda a cool graphic showing levels of lactose intolerance (the other side had the Americas). There was also a map talking about a certain bitter chemical that only certain indigenous populations can taste.

But then there was this:

Skin color in Native (Indigenous) Populations.

That's the Americas side. 

We decided Jenny was some sort of Asian. But in this photo I guess she could be North African too. 

How they describe Skin Color to the kids. (click for bigger image)

We REALLY wanted to find a volunteer to ask these questions. I'd love to hear the talking points that they give volunteers, especially on "How does skin color affect us today?" are they actually trained to start a discussion on race and racism with children? 

Finally, this cave art was on the wall above the display. 

I do think it is an interesting display, and I liked the images about lactose intolerance, but I don't know, it just felt a little wrong, and very "otherizing"--like these "Native (Indigenous) Populations" have evolved away into "modern" humans, and are not like "you" (the visitor) at all. 

Then as we were leaving, we stepped into the exhibit on human reproduction. Since we didn't think we needed the lesson (ayye) we left, but not before seeing this:

Guess what? Indians have babies! Totally reminds me of the scene of Simba's birth from Lion King:

haha.

This is the larger context of the display, a "cross-cultural" depiction of birth--and I just noticed, of fatherhood in particular. Interesting!

So that's it for the whirlwind tour of the Boston Museum of Science. Museums in particular have such a complicated and upsetting history with Indigenous Peoples, and it's weird to see that a museum focused on "science" (not Natural History, or Archeology, or Anthropology) can still have so many instances of cultural appropriation.