"Not Like That"- A Compendium of Thoughts on That Thing That Happened

I'm going to keep updating this as new info comes out, so if you're someone that gives a damn, maybe check back in a couple days. But I'm going to just sort of spat thoughts on the thing with the Catholic kids and the Native American elder. So there's no thesis or main point, here, just venting. I've been festering over this, and reached the point where the zit needs to be popped.

This article by Indian Country Today is a good compilation of videos encompassing the whole thing. The super long one, the one by those guys who identify themselves as Hebrew Israelites, hasn't really been given enough attention, and I want to start there- makes sense, chronologically, but also because what these guys were doing was pretty awful, too, and the reason all this shit went down to begin with.

So these assholes showed up to the Indigenous People's March, to protest it, apparently. And they were shouting all sorts of racist, disparaging things at the people marching. If you listen to the beginning of their (again, long) video, you hear them yelling at the Native Americans about how they knew Native history better than the Native Americans do- there's some garbage about how "before Natives worshipped totem poles," they had worshipped "the true God," or something like that. And that because of this "idol worship," their "land was taken from them."

I have to say, it's pretty vile to protest against indigenous people marching peacefully. Like, what are you really protesting to begin with? I guess, based on the shit they were saying, it was to "save" them? But, as people try to talk to them, they're entirely uninterested in dialogue and just talk over them, being super rude every time. If they were there from a place of genuine love and compassion, they would want to talk. No, they were there to pontificate, not to really help anyone or save any souls.

Something that confuses me: at 38:18ish, the guy with the phone starts mocking one of the students for wearing a MAGA hat to a Native American protest- and like, what? You've been standing here, telling Native Americans it's their own fault they're the victims of genocide, and now you're going to "call out" a white kid for being disrespectful? I mean, the thing is, within the first two minutes minute, they completely dismiss/talk over one of the Native Americans that is... wait for it... trying to point out that they're being disrespectful. I mean, seriously, I don't think the dude is able to finish a full phrase because the guy in the Hebrew Israelite group wouldn't shut the fuck up. So like, who the actual fuck are you to care about respect for the Indigenous march? "I'm just here to tell you what you have to do," he says to the Indigenous man. I guess the boarding schools didn't try hard enough.

Point there is, these guys are hypocrites. And they incited the whole thing, and their part in it hasn't been explored enough, as far as I can se.

(At about five minutes, a Black woman who has been visible for pretty much the whole video starts trying to talk to them and they say shit like, "Where's your husband?" as if to say he shouldn't have to listen to her because she's a woman- so like, dude, obviously these guys prescribe to some pretty regressive shit.)

Because after they mock that first kid, they go all-in at mocking the whole crowd of teenage boys. Sure, it's true the Catholic church has done some deplorable shit, but they're fucking teenage boys for crying out loud- if these Hebrew Israelites are half as smart as they think they are, they should have known that asking if they have "one nigga" in the group and calling them stuff like "dusty crackers" was going to create a huge kerfuffle- honestly, if Phillips hadn't stepped in, there would have probably been a riot (and I strongly suspect they were hoping the rich white kids would get physical with them, based on how they kept going). 

Which is exactly why he did what he did. He says he saw something about to happen and wanted to pray, to calm things down. No, he didn't realize how bad it was until he was in the thick of it, but dude, that's the point. It was that bad.

So then you have those shorter videos in the ICT article, and you see the progression of the behavior of the boys. For starters, it's clear there's space between Phillips and the boys, a space that gradually gets tighter and tighter, with fewer and fewer of the boys on the stairs- indicating the whole crowd was swarming Phillips and his fellow indigenous singers. Some of the boys do mock-Indigenous dances (apparently, some were attempts at the haka, according to Al Jazeera), the whole crowd engages in a mock-chant (more on that later), and there's this Nick Sandmann asswipe.

I first found out his name reading this NYT article, and it led me to his statement. And that. Oh, that. This kid is full of shit. In the first of the shorter videos from ICT, he isn't even visible- which means he deliberately positioned himself in front of Philips. In other words, in order to appear so close, had to push past his classmates. So duh, he was the one "invading personal space." And there's no reason to get that close to someone except in an attempt at intimidation.  As for that ridiculous smirk he had pretty much the whole time, it was obviously one of mockery, the same smirk guys in fake warpaint and war bonnets wear when confronted by indigenous people outside the stadiums where the Braves and Redsk*ns play. His statement is nothing but lies, passive-aggression, narcissism, and backpedaling. I suppose Trump would be proud.

I don't believe the diocese when they say they'll do anything. I just don't. The Catholic church was an active participant in the cultural genocide practiced against indigenous people on this continent up until the 1980s. I've mentioned before that my great uncle was beaten so badly by a priest for speaking Lakota at boarding school that he went to the hospital- what I didn't mention then, was it was a Catholic priest. Stewart Indian School, the last boarding school in the U.S. to stop operating as such (in 1980), was a Catholic school. If they continually sweep molestation under the rug, why would they care if some rowdy teenagers were rude to a Native American elder? I'll believe it when I see it, but for now, I don't.

Also, about that mock-chant in the videos ICT included in that article. It's the same one you hear at, like, Braves and Redsk*n games, or in the scene where they do "the chop" in Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Some even do the hand motion. (I feel like it's in Major League or one of the sequels, too, but this was easier to find, so here's the one from Men in Tights.)

So I don't see how anybody can still get away with saying they weren't mocking- then again, look at what our president gets away with every gorram day?

(As an aside, I'm pretty disappointed with that NYT piece- it's basically pulling an "on all sides" in its reporting, and it's pretty offensive they'd give credence to the claims that the indigenous people were somehow the aggressors, here.)

And yeah, the guy that calls Phillips "Grandpa" shouldn't have engaged with that teenager, but I get why he did it- he was angry, and hurting, and the kid was obviously painfully ignorant (or one of "those" debators, the kind that studies Schopenhauer's ways to win an argument)- whether or not indigenous people crossed a land bridge from Asia is entirely irrelevant to the fact that our lands were stolen from us and his ancestors committed genocide to do it. Aside from that, though, it's pretty clear that, despite the picture Sandmann and supporters are trying to paint, the indigenous people were the only ones that weren't being assholes. 

It's just heartbreaking to watch Phillips at the end, shouting, "RELATIVES! RELATIVES!" and watch as nobody gives a shit. It reminds me of another great uncle, one that taught me about humility and forgiveness. He was a lobbyist for Indian Country, and I remember a conversation we had when I was around thirteen. It went something like this:

"Uncle Gerald, how can you be so kind to these guys that are making laws that hurt our people?"

"Because without grace, we're no better than them."

"But why forgive them? It's not like they've really done anything to make things right."

"Forgiveness isn't for them, it's for us. If we don't forgive, we carry hate in our hearts, and again, that would make us no better than them. We have to forgive and move on, and hope that eventually they'll listen and help us. With, of course, some forceful convincing on our part." [wink]

[He then taught me the Serenity Prayer.]

After all the mockery and meanness, Phillips says, "Yeah, let's make America great! Let's do that!" In earnest. Not sarcastically, not to be funny. In earnest.

One of the kids shouts, "How?"

And the guy that had called Phillips "Grandpa" says, "Not like that!"

And that's kind of perfect.

Nothing is going to get better if all this hate continues. And the kind of bullshit these kids (and those assholes that antagonized them to begin with) were acting out is just making it worse. And I wish I could talk to my Uncle Gerald about how to deal with these zealots- these MAGA-wearing, Trump-loving bigots. Because I strain and twist myself, trying to be compassionate and open like he taught me. But it gets harder all the time. And in the face of stuff like this? I just can't. And I wish I could ask him what to do.  He's gone, so I can't, and that hurts about as much as everything else right now.

And another thing that makes this so painful is the shit Phillips and his companions were dealing with? It's more like an everyday occurrence. I'm glad this one is getting attention, but what I need you to understand, reader, is that this kind of shit happens every day to indigenous people. And to people of color now that Trump is in office. And it's not just elders. It happens to kids at school. Trump gets quoted by fucking teachers being racist to their students. 

And yet, snotty little brats like Sandmann go unchecked when they play the victim. Major news outlets like the New York Times don't call him and his ilk on their bullshit.

And what that does, is it silences us. Those of us whose identities are being attacked. Whose very personhood is being called into question. How can we stand up for ourselves if lies about us, about what these people are doing to us, go unquestioned? If when we call for peace, we're depicted as the villain? If when we try to reach out, we're mocked and ridiculed, then turned into the scapegoat and have angry fingers pointed in our direction? So we remain silent. Because you can't reason with irrationality and delusion.

It reminds me of a quote from retired Senator Barney Frank: "On what planet do you spend most of your time? Having a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."

It's impossible. So I don't have any answers. I don't know what to do. 

I guess I'll just pray to my totem poles that things will get better somehow. 

Inclusion in the "Nude"

I'm  gonna talk about this stuff in a moment:

But first, I need to do some babbling  about identity. 

I've  mentioned a few times on  this blog that I have indigenous American ancestry and self-identify, at least in part, as Native American. And, as such, I'm pretty quick to notice and point out negative or problematic portrayals of indigenous peoples or cultures, even in things I love (like Harry Potter). (If you click on some of the tags at the bottom of those posts to related topics, you'll find more, if it interests you.) What I perhaps should have clarified before, and wish to now, is that I have lived a life of privilege based on the fact that  I 100% pass as white.

For those unfamiliar with the term, passing is related to when a person that self-identifies or has characteristics relating them to a marginalized group is perceived as the  dominant  group. When I was in grad school, a lot of the literature I read from specialists on disability and identity talked about passing at least a little (and I have one book  devoted entirely to the topic; not to say that's the only one out there, but  rather, that passing as non-disabled is a Thing), and I think a lot of us do it all the time when it comes to our depression, anxiety, etc.- we don't want people to know we have depression. A famous example is how F.D.R.'s physical disabilities were kept out of the public eye as much as possible, and it really wasn't until after his death that the severity of them became generally known. Transgender and non-straight individuals do it all the time, in different ways, and for different reasons: We have some pretty fucked up misconceptions about how GLBT people "should"  act and look, and  if a person of that identity fits them, we assume they're straight/cis, etc. And it is, as for me, quite common for people of color to pass as white because their skin tone is light enough to be "convincing" or whatever. 

Passing is a complex state of being. I know I have had more opportunities than a lot of my cousins would have had if they were in the exact same situations as me growing up, and not  just because I already started off at an advantage, being born in California and moving to Las Vegas, then going to college, rather than being born on a Reservation in South Dakota like most of them. This isn't to say none of my cousins are educated or have had successes- a number of them did go to college, and two of them are teaching on the Reservation in South Dakota right now. But, even with the disadvantages I had because I was poor, had disabled siblings, lived in dangerous neighborhoods, etc., I still had the advantage of being ghostly pale (I don't tan- I burn and peel) and dirty blonde. Well, dirty blonde nowadays; when I was little, I was Sleeping Beauty Blonde:

I'm gonna say second or third grade-
that was the age when I always used a
RIDICULOUS amount of gel in my hair, be
it in a ponytail, or like above, behind a headband. Oh, youth...

But still, I grew up knowing my heritage, hearing stories from my mom, grandpa, great uncles and aunts, my mom's siblings. Not to mention having a last name  that makes it kind of obvious (even though what I know of my indigenous heritage comes from my mom's family, not my biological father's, and it's his name that "sounds" Native). But because I look so damn white, it usually takes me saying my last name with a kind of "duh" tone attached for people to catch on if I bring it up with them. 

And I'll admit... I don't do it a lot. Partially because my ethnicity shouldn't matter... but partly because I know there's a part of me wondering what will happen, if they'll see me differently, treat me differently.

When I was in fourth grade, I got in an argument with my teacher over the pronunciation of "sioux"- she was saying it was "sao" (like "sour" without the "r"), and I was pronouncing it... correctly. This was during a presentation I was giving on my own family history, so I refused to back down, so she told me to "sit down and shut up" and that she was "pissed off" that I would be so disrespectful. I can't remember if I was sent to the principal or not, but I know the news went home eventually. And holy shit. My mom was pissed as all Hell and and made sure the principal knew it. And in the end, the teacher barely spoke to me the rest of the year, presumably because she got in deep fucking shit for being so damned racist to her student; but after that, a few kids called me the R-word I have disparaged on this blog before. I never told my  mom (sorry if this is how you're finding out, Mom, if you're reading...), or anyone, for that matter... but the rest of the time I was at that school, the bullies called me  a redsk**, and it was only the fact that we moved a monthish into fifth grade, thus prompting a school change, that I got away from it. 

I know that experience influences why I don't always offer the information freely with new people. I usually wait a while, testing them, getting a feel for whether or not I can trust them enough with it before bringing it up with them. As if it's a terrible secret I have to keep hidden, lest I be persecuted. It's kind of irrational in most contexts, I get it, but trauma does some fucked up shit to your brain, yo. 

So even though I look white, seem white, and everyone thinks I'm white, I don't necessarily feel white, and here's where shit starts to get wonky. Or, well, wonkier. 

I work at a store that sells intimates for plus-sized women. And one aspect that I am super, duper proud of our company for is that our models are always very diverse- more than one of the regulars  are women of color, and there are even some that show visible signs of aging!!! 

Shocking, I know. 

Another thing I've noticed is that, while it can't control the names of things from other companies it's contracted with, such as Spanx, which uses color names like "nude" and "soft nude" for lighter shades that light-skinned women would want for underneath thinner, lighter-colored clothing, and "taupetone" for the shade darker colored women would prefer for the same purpose, the company I work for calls lighter shades "cafe mocha" or straight-up "beige" for the former, and has equally non-ethnically-charged names for darker shades, like "French almond" (and I remember a bra that's now discontinued that was in "chocolate brown") (and by the way, the "French" in that isn't, as far as I can guess, just a way to make it sound fancier than "almond," an isn't meant to imply a white French person, especially since the models wearing that color on the website are women of color).

And I love that. Because I do so very strongly believe that words matter. I do my best to be inclusive for everyone, regardless of their myriad intersectional identifiers. And I know exactly where the idea to call a pair of beige panties "nude" came from: A white person. Because yeah, the message they wanted to get across was, "This won't show through your white pants/skirt/dress/etc.!" But who was it aimed at? Certainly not this woman: 

This is Precious Lee, the first plus-sized model of
color to be in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition

Nor anyone else with skin that's her color, or close to it, let alone any darker. This is the link for a Google Image search for "nude bra." Look at how few women of color there are. So whose "nude" is it?

Now here's the thing. "Nude" panties and bras could totally work for women like me that are passing as white;  those are the colors I do, indeed, go for when I'm wearing a light colored shirt or dress. And yes, I tell all of my  light-skinned customers to get a bra in the color they keep calling "nude," that's really "cafe mocha," because it's better for underneath thinner and lighter-colored tops than white (joking about how they actually "aren't that pale!"). And no, white women aren't white, but that's the point- that's why what's basically beige or a super light brown is called "nude." "Nude" implies "skin colored," and it's the skin color of... not-women-of-color, excluding us "passers." 

So I hate the whole "nude" thing. It excludes women with darker skin tones, implying the only skin tone that matters is lighter. And this kind of systemic racism is the subtle, difficult kind that people often reinforce without realizing they're doing it. Because God knows how long ago, someone decided to call it  "nude," everyone does, nowadays, not even thinking about exactly who that item would really be "nude" for in the first place. It's the "normal" thing to call those shades, and is so entrenched in the cultural zeitgeist that even women of color call my store's cafe mocha stuff "nude." 

But it's systemic racism. Period. If the tables had been reversed, and the fashion industry wasn't entrenched in racist practices and tendencies, either "nude" would never have been a thing, or it would be the "nude" for this gal

Angela Bassett

as opposed to this one

Meryl Streep

But that's now how things are. Women of color are surrounded by products named after white women, and, at least the customers I have seen, often internalize this so deeply that they get confused when something "nude" isn't called that. That's racism at its worst. 

This feeds into the idea that lighter skinned women of color are more beautiful that runs rampant in society. It's imperialist and orientalist, for women with darker  skin are thus  more "exotic" and "tribal," and darker colored women (and men) are more susceptible to things like harsher sentencing and incarceration, are less likely to get a job, are likely to get less pay, than their lighter-skinned brethren (let alone white people). There are tons of studies supporting this, but here's a good piece that talks about a lot of the different ways lighter skinned persons of color are treated less harshly.  

And this discourse, this deplorable idea that "lighter is better" is perpetuated in communities of color, too. Dark Is Beautiful is a campaign that has gained international attention, as its message is one combating the discrimination dark skinned Indian women experience. Indian cinema and advertising has historically excluded women of darker skin tones, or featured them in exploitative or problematic ways. And there are even Indian products designed to convince the women  using them it will actually lighten the pigment of their skin. I love this take on the issue:

I hate the idea that white/light is beautiful, is the baseline. Because it isn't. This whole business of lighter is better encourages passers like me to keep quiet, thus reinforcing the whole bloody mess in the first place. Like we shouldn't be proud of our identity. Of course, identity is super complex and I in no way am saying all passers are lying assholes. But I am saying that it's fucked up how the system is so skewed, white skin is the baseline, and light skin is actually safer to have than dark. 

So when I'm at work, I try to subtly correct my customers that look for "nude"  panties and bras. If they are pointing and say, "I need that nude bra," I'll point at the same one and say, "This? The cafe mocha one?" or if they  have to order something in that color, I'll say, "So that color is actually called cafe mocha, so let me  order that in a size 42DD for ya!" and do other, similar thing to remove "nude" from the conversation, given the context. Sometimes they seem to get annoyed, as if they think I'm talking down to them, and sometimes they refuse to stop saying "nude." When they  dig their heels in like that, I dig in my own (with a smile!), and find excuses to work "cafe mocha" into what I'm saying with them as many times as I can, to kind of drive the term home. I think most of my customers don't get what I'm doing or why, because, again, it's so "normal" to think of "beige" as "nude," it seems weird a store would use something other than "nude" for the color of the bra or panty  they obviously want for under light materials. I think a lot of the reason some think I'm being condescending, as if they're supposed to just know it's not cafe mocha because that's what my company does, not because "nude" is racist, because of how I pass as white. 

But sometimes necessity leads to me being a gentle educator. I have had a few times where a customer asked why it's not "just called nude" before, and when I give a very elementary lesson on racism to them, they actually tend to be pretty cool about it. My passing as white usually results in a response of... I dunno, awe, I guess, as if I'm some amazingly enlightened person because I care about subtle racism like that, when I'm talking to these particular gals. My favorite instance was particularly touching, though, so I'm going to retell the whole thing for you here.

I had been working pretty closely with an older white woman on bras for a good forty minutes. She wanted to get a ton (they were on sale, and she hadn't had a right-fitting bra since "well before [I was] born, sweetie"), so when I did my subtle correction of her when she said "nude,"  she asked, "Oh, now that's interesting. Why isn't it called 'nude?'"

"Well," I said, smiling a little, "probably because there are a lot of women that have skin colors that would totally contrast with that one in a light t-shirt because their skin is darker. And [insert company name here] cares about inclusion, so instead of naming a color after Caucasian people, they named it after something most people like, coffee!"  I laughed for a second, until I saw her face. She looked  worried and lost in thought. So I said  her name and asked, "Are you okay?"

"Oh," she said, "yes. I'm alright. I just... I had never thought of it that way. I just thought of it as 'nude' because it's close to my own skin color and, you know, that's my normal thing, and-"

"-and that's what it's always called, right?" I said, gently.

"Yes," she said, and she looked genuinely sad and sorry.

"Yeah," I said, nodding, "that's exactly the point. Kind of like how mainstream history textbooks are really more like white history."

"And why we need a Black history  month." She was nodding gravely, now.

"Yeah, so I just try to always use 'cafe mocha' or 'beige' when I can so that I don't exclude women of color from the conversation."

She nodded more rigorously. "Yes, I can see why. That makes sense." She paused, took a deep breath, slammed her hand on the counter, and said, grinning, "Well, Gabrielle, you better get me two of those cafe mocha bras, because Lord knows my girls need the support, and I don't wear a lot of black tshirts."

When this customer (finally) left the registers, a tall Black woman that had been standing nearby came up to me and bent down to whisper at me, "Thank you."

Admittedly, she surprised me, so I kind of jumped and squealed,  and once the you-startled-me and sorry-for-startling-yous had been exchanged, she went on, "I had always thought, 'Nude for who? White people?' before, but I don't know why I didn't notice that [insert company name here] doesn't call it that."

I nodded and said, "Yeah, I genuinely believe they're trying for inclusion  and diversity. I mean, look at all of the posters and marketing we have all over the store with women of color. And given the message of inclusion we have when it comes to body shape and type, I just find  it hard to believe that the whole 'cafe mocha' thing was on accident or whatever, y'know?"

She smiled and said, "Yeah, I think you're right. And you're doing a good job reinforcing that counter-message, honey."

"I do what I can, when I can." 

We went on to talk about how I pass as white, so I care a lot about it because "nude" wouldn't be actually nude for a lot of my family members, and she ended up tearing up. Which caused me to tear up, so we hugged and she said she wished she lived in town so she could shop with me more (she was here on business), but that she'd tell all her friends in the area to go to my store and look for me, and that all of her friends that don't shop at our store should because we have such great people like me working there. 

So that says to me it does matter. It matters for the women whose skin isn't the "nude" the fashion industry says it "should" be. And that is  the baseline I operate off of, myself. I don't give a shit if it gets on the nerves of white women when I say "cafe mocha" over and over again. 

I did get kind of snippy with a fellow employee over the phone  once over it. She had called our store to have us look for a bra for a customer that was at theirs, and I was the one taking the call, so I did the exact same  thing over the phone I do to customers- she kept saying "nuce," and I kept saying "cafe mocha" over and over. When she said, "Okay...?" with an attitude, I said, "Well, it's called 'cafe mocha' because not everyone is white,  and to include women of color. And I'm a woman of color, so having someone insist it's 'nude' like you're doing, especially when it isn't called 'nude' by  the company, is, well, kind of offensive. And you work for [insert  company name here], you should know your company's message of inclusion isn't just about size."

She hung  up. 

People  like that don't care. And aren't going to help. But people like my customer with the bras I talked about earlier, they're the best kind. They are open to the conversation about inclusion, and they want to help. So I am happy to educate them. Fuck the closed-minded assholes that don't get it- they don't want to get it. I don't mind making them uncomfortable, given their position of usual comfort is exactly what caused the issue in the first place- that their identity is presented writ large as "good" and "better" and "right" and all that nonsense. No. I'm much more inclined to make  the women whose identities are made to be "bad" or "dangerous," that get exploited, feel safe. It's the women that usually feel marginalized, like the woman that thanked me, that matter. 

The Bait-and-Switch: Discourses of Oppression and Self-Aggrandizement

Alright, as promised, my obligatory piece responding to Daniel Snyder's letter about retaining the current name for the NFL team from Washington. I've written about this a bit before in a different context, but this? This is a game-changer. So, well, let's do this.

Get ready for an onslaught of hot-headed opinions and
jargony ranting about the same ol' same ol' from me.

Ooookay. So there's a lot to unpack from this dude's letter. Like, way a lot. Essentially, if I was to come up with a "thesis," I'd say that Snyder is pulling another one out of Schopenhauer's strategems (29), that is, the bait-and-switch; this line of argumentation, basically, "How can you be concerned with sports teams when there are people in abject poverty on reservations? When indigenous women are three times more likely to experience sexual assault than white women?" And  he's doing it in order to stubbornly dig his heels in because he basically masturbates to his own reflection.

But first, I want to talk about how he's using a "selective agreement" strategy I've talked about before; that is, he's using the opinions of indigenous persons that jive with his own as evidence for why he's "right" and ignoring the opinions of indigenous persons that disagree with him. I'm going to take  this one further, though. He professes in his letter that he gave a survey to some tribes, and they picked the poverty and  stuff as the most pressing or whatever. As a pseudo-scientist, I'd like to see the survey instrument he used, because I have a stinky smell under my nose, and think it's the questions. My guess is, they were worded in such a way to manipulate respondents into providing answers supporting his assertion that indigenous people care "the most" about aid to reservations. Even without the survey or data in front of me, I'm sure it's not that the respondents don't care at all about whether the R-word is used as DC's name, but rather that they are concerned immediately about the poverty because, well, they're living it, and so emphasize that more in their answers.

Think of it this way. They're basically in a state of duress when answering the survey, and the questions are phrased in a way making them believe they have to choose between food or changing the football team's name. If their fucking stomach hurts because they haven't had a square meal in days, of course they're going to pick something that could alleviate that real pain. Duh. No-brainer. (Note: I keep talking about food, but  make  no  mistake, there are a slew of inhumane conditions on reservations. That's just a quick example.)

Also, again, as a pseudo-scientist, I doubt that sample was really representative of indigenous persons across the country- there's a reason he picked the tribes and peoples he picked, and I have a sneaking suspicion he knew the people he was asking would be more likely to share views closer to his. In other words, my gut tells me he picked people that exemplify those atrocious conditions, because he knew they would care more about aid to reservations than anything else the indigenous populations in the US are struggling with. 

But even if not all the people taking the survey are experiencing the worst of the reservation system, again, I'd bet my boots that the question wording led them right to where Snyder would want them to go. 

That being said, even if the survey was entirely coercion-free and objective, and even if the sample was representative, there's still the fact that there are lots of people that think the R-word has no place as a sports franchise name. And it's one thing to do something like keep on making  a remake of an old franchise, despite lots of fan reaction in the negative*; it's another to keep on doing something people find offensive and hurtful, just because not everybody does. When something is hurtful, it's more cowardly to side with those that aren't hurt- because those that aren't are in agreement with those in power. They pose no threat, present no challenge to the status quo. Not that their feelings are invalid, but their opinions ultimately serve the majority, rather than the oppressed.

Here's the thing. As I said before, I bet some of the questions made it seem like an either-or, feed indigenous children or change the mascot. But I think presenting it that way is just poppy-cock. It doesn't have to be an "either-or," it's only an "either-or" because white people want to relieve their white guilt while still retaining their hegemonic power and control.

Because notice what he's doing in that letter. He spews all sorts of (valid) stats about some of the troubling conditions indigenous persons in the US experience every day. In doing so, he's distracting people reading from the original topic, his team's name. Rather than discussing why so many indigenous people think the team's name is racist, he starts a pity-party about indigenous people, as if that's the only thing we should care about. I get frustrated whenever this bait-and-switch strategy gets used during any discussion, but it's particularly dirty in situations where the topic is this very one or the closely related one of appropriated indigenous iconography (meant to "honor" indigenous cultures, be it mascots, slogans, costumes, or hipster fashions) because of how frequently it's used as basically a cop-out. Not only does it serve to move the conversation away from its original subject matter, but it also works as an implicit ad hominem in any situation, but in ones on this particular subject, it's as if to say the individual(s) arguing for the removal of racist iconography in any way are being selfish or insensitive because they're deliberately ignoring the poverty, violence, etc. on reservations. That the people saying something is racist are willfully ignorant of those struggles; that they're selfish, bleeding-heart liberal elitists that are hypersensitive and overly politically correct at the expense of other indigenous persons  that are suffering right now; that they care more about their pseudo-intellectual pontifications about symbols and metaphor than  the real world tragedies every day that need fixing; that they "have no idea" what's "really going on" and are ungrateful that they aren't also living in squalor. 

It's an attempt to guilt anyone in disagreement for that disagreement by convincing them the other issue is of a greater moral concern, that the original problem is petty, at best, while the new one is concrete and terrible. 

He goes even further, though. Because for a good chunk of the letter, he's portraying his foundation as a stand-in for Mighty Whitey that takes on the White Man's Burden- the white charity will help those poor, defenseless, uneducated injuns! He went to investigate whether it's racist or not (by hitting up the Torrez-Martinez Cahuilla tribe in California), "discovered" the poverty, and knew he had to take action, GOD BLESS HIM! Ugh. And we should think he's a saint because he's (supposedly) going to let indigenous people run the show- what an innovator, he's letting indigenous people make their own decisions! He takes the valid claim that the logo is racist, makes it irrelevant, then turns the discussion into one about how wonderful and awesome he is for starting this foundation because he's going to help and save so many poor, unfortunate souls.

Call me stubborn, but I don't really want to join this guy in his circle-jerk. It's misguided at best, entirely corrupt at worst. 

And it seems entirely shallow and hollow to me. Like he's just trying to buy off any naysayers. You see this a lot from people with money, they think it can get them out of trouble any and every time- they throw money at the problem, and it goes away. Because, let's face it, often times, it does get them out of trouble, the problem does go away. It's fucked up, but it's true. But of course, Snyder isn't stupid- he's an asshole. So instead of just giving a lump sum and more overtly throwing money at what he's now declared the real problem (because remember, bait-and-switch), he's packaging it  as an ongoing  thing through this foundation. Now, do I think  the foundation in itself is bad? Heavens, no- it's a great thing, a fabulous idea. But I don't like the context in which it's being formulated, and it feels more like blood money than genuine aid. And it feels hollow- if Snyder was to really put his money where his mouth is, he'd change the franchise name and create a foundation to provide aid to indigenous communities. Because in order for white people to believe indigenous people can handle a real infrastructure and improve socioeconomic conditions on the reservations they've been forced to live, white people need to respect indigenous people- and they won't do that if they have a jersey with a gorram racial epithet in their closet. I'm not saying the change to the franchise needs to come first, but it would help foster the respect necessary to reduce the pity and objectification preventing indigenous autonomy- since the r-word is in itself a form of objectification, after all. But no, I don't like blood money. Nor do my own people- that's why the Lakota Sioux have on numerous occasions refused money awarded them in lawsuits over the Black Hills- federal courts acknowledge that the seizure of the lands was illegal, yet the lands themselves aren't offered, just money. So the Lakota Sioux refuse to take monetary compensation in lieu of what the US government has promised and the lands they deem sacred- and it's not like the choice has ever been easy. And here's the rub: It's noble when a white person in a movie or on TV (or in history, yeah) refuses to be bought off, but Native Americans are criticized and demonized for doing it. Fuck that. (Of course, I'm not saying the tribes the money from Snyder's foundation may end up going to should say no- I can't make that call, for myriad reasons. I'm just saying, this whole, "let me donate money to placate you so I can keep what I want and by the way I'm a hero" thing is fucked up.)

And here's another rub: I have another hunch that if there was a national poll  done, or if every single person in the US that has an opinion on this (non-opinions don't count, here, since another strategy to uphold the status quo is say, "Well, nobody cares except you.") was asked, the vast majority of people that want it to stay the same would be white, and  yeah, there would be a majority in favor of keeping the r-word. And that means money. It'd cost lots of money to change the name and merchandise. And if Snyder went ahead and had them do that, he'd run the risk of losing some of that audience. And while one  would think that'd be fine (because if people decided to change teams over removal of a racial epithet, then, well, those people would prolly belong with these folks), when it comes to capitalism, that's just plain bad news. Creating a foundation that won't take any of the team's money? That runs absolutely no risk whatsoever.

Along those lines, I had someone ask me, "What if part of the  team's profits every year went to the foundation?" I'll admit, that'd prolly be less icky-feeling, because that's guaranteed revenue. But.. I actually think it'd be worse. It'd be as if the team itself was paying indigenous peoples directly to use the name, and it would more closely mean tacit approval of the r-word mascot than a foundation based off of donations. A foundation run by indigenous people can, in time, become its own entity; one tied monetarily to a white-run franchise wouldn't. But regardless, Snyder wouldn't do that, anyway. The letter isn't clear on where the money will come from, but I highly  doubt it'll be direct from the franchise, because that's just bad business, from an entirely monetary perspective. Even if the startup funds have come from the team, my guess is they'll come up with some bullshit "transition plan" wherein it'll turn over to the outside donations page, and then, you know, die.

Although, I dunno, if Snyder was concerned about safe monetary practices, perhaps he should have picked a different person to be the CEO of the foundation. 

A sort-of sidenote: I had already written the above paragraph about paying things off (I've done a LOT of editing of this essay, so things have been moving around- but that was actually the first paragraph I wrote, days ago) when I saw this article from the Native Appropriations FB feed. (Native Appropriations is also where I found out about Snyder's letter from in the first place, to be entirely honest.) I kind of want to go toe-to-toe with this guy, because I think there's a HUGE difference between schools on reservations, whose student bodies are made up mostly of native students, that are run by native Americans... it's a HUGE difference between THOSE mascots having indigenous iconography and schools off-res doing it- a boy whose grand-dad very well could have been the model for the  mascot wearing it on his basketball jersey is fine, but a boy whose grand-dad could have killed the model... And I'd point him to stuff like this study, and emphasize that it doesn't have to be an either-or thing- that making it as such is exactly what people like Snyder want us to do. 

Plus, and maybe this is a stretch, and prolly a controversial stand to take, but... well... if Snyder is only surveying people on-res, he's surveying natives that are the majority in their area. I know it's kind of selfish, but native Americans that are living on reservations aren't surrounded by white people all the time, white people that don't "get it," that are constantly appropriating iconography and imagery that an indigenous person in their midst may find sacred, or at least whose ancestors did; that don't care whether something they're doing is hurtful. On-res people have it hard, but so do people off-res- it's a difference in kind, not validity. I'd remind Gyasi Ross that claiming the concerns of off-res indigenous peoples are invalid and moot is the "divide" part of "divide and conquer." And I'm sick of my people being conquered over and over again. He's doing indigenous persons like myself and my relatives (some who do live on-res, I might add) an extreme disservice by assuming we don't care about the poor socioeconomic conditions for our on-res cousins, and, frankly, he sounds like an asshole because of it. (Okay, I prolly wouldn't say the "asshole" part, but yeah.)

Because if I haven't made this clear enough already, let me do it now. We shouldn't have to choose between aid and respect. The fact that Snyder is making people do that is disgusting and colonialist. Giving aid is a way of avoiding giving autonomy. It's not that I don't care about the reservation system, it's that I ALSO care about representations and discourses. The Indigenous peoples of the US will not be able to stay out of poverty until we're thought of as equal citizens, Americans, and human-fucking-beings. As long  as a racial epithet against us is on billboards and jerseys and hats, as long as people still go, "Bobobobobo!" waving plastic tomahawks, as long as "Indian princesses" jiggle around  parties, we won't have equal rights and access to the economic and educative systems necessary to sustain a quality of life that's above devastating. 

So just to wrap this up, yes,  I'm glad there's a foundation now; I'm sad it came at the expense (or, more accurately, the money-saving) of keeping the  r-word as the name of D.C.'s team. I wish all the recipients of any of the monies given well, and I hope that somebody somewhere  will be able to knock some sense into this self-loving douchebag that is Dan Snyder. Either that, or he croaks soon and the person that takes over has more of a heart for others and less of a hard-on for theirself.

Over and out. 

*I have to point out something related: So Mr. Bay decided to nix the "alien" bullshit he had let leak at first, okay, fine. But  he also white-washed Shredder by making him this guy. And while sure, while I've never seen Mr. Fitcher do badly in a movie (nay, he's pretty awesome in everything), it's kind of sad Bay would go with original story for fanboys but mess things up for... racial hegemony. 

Quantifying Identity- "It Only Takes One Generation"

Story Time:

At a gathering for graduate students in a local bar, the inevitable, icky question of funding came up with people I was meeting for the first time from other departments. My roommie and I explained how ours worked, and part of this involved discussing the nature of graduate fellowships. I clarified that most  of our fellowship students are on one of two that last five years each, while I was a unique case with my two-year-master's-diversity one. Another guy said he was on a Ph.D. fellowship for diversity  because he's Hispanic. I said I'm Native American. He squinted his eyes and asked me, skeptically, "How Native American?"

"Wait, what?" I asked.

"How Native American are you?"

I stared, slack-jawed. Some other gals at the table started to say something like, "Now hang on, it's not like I get asked, 'How woman are you?' and I say, 'Uuuuuh, 98%!'"

"Well," he went on, entirely unphased, "I ask because there was this girl at my undergrad that's 1/32 Cherokee and had a full ride for it. I mean, the girl was as white as white can be, but she claimed this random, distant relative, and got free college, it seemed really unfair."

How cute.

I knew exactly what he was doing- implying that since I'm pale with dirty-blonde hair,  I must be a total poser, milking the system unfairly, etc.

So I puffed up and said, "You want to test how Native American I am? My grandpa was beaten by a priest for speaking Lakota at school, that's how Native American I am."

(Granted, it was actually my great uncle, but I was pissed- same generation, at least.)

"What?" he asked, confused. I repeated and he asked, "I'm sorry, speaking what?"

"Luh-coe-tuh, you know, my tribe's language?"

"Oooh, LAKOTA!" he said, as if he just now got it. 

"YES!" I said, "Lakota. Sioux, Oglala Lakota Sioux, like Crazy Horse?"

"Yeah..." he said, but his eyes squinted again. "So your grandpa?"

"Uh-huh?"

"Was beaten?"

"Uh-huh?"

"For speaking Lakota?"

"Yeah, exactly, so don't you dare go implying I have no connections to-"

"Well," he interrupted with, "so you got the diversity fellowship, that's great. Mine was a doctoral one, so it was for academic merit and diversity."

So we went from implying I'm "not Native enough" to having no actual academic credentials because I am "Native enough" in a few seconds. 

Now, this dude would prolly have gone off the rails if I asked "how Hispanic" he was. And would have thrown the table at me if I suggested he didn't deserve his fellowship because the only real reason he had one was because  he's a minority. But I'm not that kind of person. So I refrained.

I kind of wish I hadn't.

The above conversation is one indigenous persons in this country have over and over again, even if they have darker skin than I do. It comes in different forms and in different contexts- it could be from institutions testing their credentials; from non-indigenous persons they meet; or even from other indigenous persons themselves. This comes down to blood quantum.

Remember how that guy said, "...1/32 Cherokee..."? I'm sure you've heard people talk of their heritage that way before- "I'm 1/2 Irish." "I'm half Muggle." You know, as a way to highlight whatever portion of their heritage they wish to highlight.

With indigenous ancestry, there's an entirely different connotation.

Blood quantum is the shorthand way of saying "Amount of Native American blood in a person needed in order to 'count' as Native American." Blood quantum laws were set by the federal government and then adopted and modified by individual Nations as a means of controlling tribal membership and rosters. The federal government doesn't mind it, and there are always fights about it in Indian Country. Because yeah, resources are limited, so there needs to be a way of figuring out whose claims of ancestry are "legit" and whose aren't. But at the same time, there are so many problems with it, it's rather deplorable. But nobody can really come up with anything else. So it doesn't change.*

Why is it problematic? Well, remember how I said that guy would have flipped his shit if I had questioned his authenticity? Yeah, that doesn't really happen to any other ethnic/racial minority. It stemmed from cause to discriminate, oh sure, but the opposite happened with Blacks with the "one drop" rule, and now it stands as a means of affirmative action-esque policies. No other minority group has to provide government documentation in order to proclaim that as their identity. None. Period. Nor do they have to pass a gorram background/blood check. I think this is something  that gets taken for granted by other minorities. And I don't think anyone asking, "How Native are you?" (because again, we get asked this all. the. time.) intends to bring this  baggage up, but by invoking the question, they do. And coming from a white person, it feels like, "Fuck you, it's your ancestor's fault you'd even feel the need to ask that." When it comes from a minority, it feels like, "And I bet you've never had to answer the same question, have you? Must be  nice." Even if they  mean well, as if they  just genuinely are curious, blood quantum is an underlying, unspoken  presence in the conversation. And other people just do not understand this. The authenticity  of claims of indigenous heritage is brought into question daily by the government. And that leads to general questions from everyday people, like  that guy in the bar.

Another reason is you have to prove it through documentation of your lineage. So if there's a missing spot on the family tree, PRESTO! go home, you don't count. Have a nice day. It's really easy to get kicked off the roster because of some bureaucratic error, rather than because you actually are not qualified. 

Another reason it's problematic is the rules themselves keep changing. A few years ago, for example, the Cherokee Nation declared it would no longer allow people descended from slaves to count. A whole huge group of people were taken off of the Cherokee roster as a result. And yes, there are economic issues to consider, and they claimed they were doing so in order to keep resources in the hands of people whose blood ran Cherokee, but the Freedmen are descendants of people immersed and bred within the Cherokee Nation's culture. What the Cherokee did itself isn't my main concern, though, but rather why. The fact is, they were having trouble with their rosters and dealing with blood quantum, and kicking some people  off the dole made that easier to do. And other tribes change their rules all the time as their resources shrink and as their lands are encroached on more. Never mind whether those people getting kicked off identify in their heart of hearts as that tribe- it's the bottom line taking precedent over some people because others are suffering.

And that relates to the next reason it's problematic. Again, the rules began with the federal government. And it's entirely colonialist for a government to tell the people it has conquered the rules for identifying as part of that group. The tribes carried those rules over because they didn't have any other model to go off of- legal documentation to prove status? Entirely foreign to indigenous peoples in North America. I don't know how other tribes work, but I know back when this shit was made into law, my people, the Lakota, would accept you if you wanted and earned it. There was no document to sign, you just had to prove you lived Lakota, loved Lakota, breathed Lakota, and would die Lakota. The document thing may sound easier, but it's not- it's a lot more exclusionary to say a person's blood has to be pure enough than to say their heart does. And again, the government doesn't set these rules for any other group, so the only people whose cultures are being defined all have brown skin and have been sequestered onto Reservations.

The main reason this is problematic, though, is that it's an institutionalized, bureaucratized form of modern genocide. 

Think about it.

If a person has to pass a threshold of "Indianness" in their blood before being allowed to claim it as their identity, it's only a matter of time before Native Americans will die off. Even if we keep "breeding" with each other, the way the blood quantum laws are so finnicky with some tribes, if you're a mix of enough stuff, even if it's more Native stuff than white, if you can't claim enough of one tribe's blood, you're out. I'm not into inbreeding, and we shouldn't have to resort to that sort of thing in order to retain the "purity" of our blood just so that the government will be happy. I see no reason why mixed bloods shouldn't count, so long as they believe it in their hearts.

My mom has a saying, "It only takes one generation." Hers was the first generation to grow up off-res on her dad's side. And she is 100% city girl as a result. In one generation, the language, the skills, the culture- pretty much gone in her family.  I have more "Native heritage" than her because I learned how to do things like start a fire and grow vegetables from my friends and "family" out in Washington- and they're white. Her sister and one of my cousins are sort of going back to their roots, so to speak (I think my cousin is trying to learn Lakota, and she works on the res now), but the only way for my cousin's kids to officially count would be for her to marry someone with HELLA more Native blood than she has- and her fiance isn't at all Native American, so that's not happening. So she can immerse herself and her family on the res all she wants, the government isn't going to give two shits unless she bangs a Real Live Indian.

"Why should you let the government decide? If you want to be Indian, be Indian!" you say. Again, I point you to the uniqueness of blood quantum laws. They do not exist for anyone else. So the government has already said our identities need to be codified and quantified, ours and ours alone. There's no blood test to be American- but there's a test to be Native American. Which is pretty fucking ironic, given all of the ridiculously hypocritical nativism arguments being spouted by white people afraid the Mexicans are going to ruin the country. You want  Homeland  Security to secure your borders, do you?

I think that image is pretty telling- notice how those Apache warriors have guns? That's escalation. It shows how we aren't dying off, we're adapting. 

And I say all this as someone that doesn't "count." I'm 1/16 Lakota; that's not enough. My mom's generation is the first to be raised off-res, but the last to make blood quantum.

"It only takes one generation." 

With the birth of me and my siblings and cousins came pretty much the death of the Lakota line  in my family. Unless by some miracle  I meet a nice guy that happens to be Lakota- because call me selfish, but I'm   having enough trouble with men as it is, so I'm not about to limit my search to Lakota men.

But  as resources shrink, as demands increase, blood quantum laws are going to get stricter and stricter. And there may be some ridiculous reversal where they all of a sudden get really loosey-goosey, but in all honesty, I don't think  a swing like that would work. I think there are too few of us left for it to make a lasting difference. And anyway, individual tribes would  have to disappear. Hell, they kind of already  are.

But.

We are not dead yet.  And  yeah, Indian Schools stopped running  a while back, the last being Stewart Indian School, closed in 1986. So our culture isn't technically illegal  any more.  But legacies  of direct violence such as war, rape, and forced removal, as well as indirect violence, such as discrimination and  blood quantum, are doing their job, and I worry that within a few more generations, there won't be enough of us left to hold onto our lands, to keep our cultures alive. 

I wonder what I'm going to tell my children. And it frightens me, and it saddens me, and I mourn for the identity they won't really be able to have. Because how can I tell them they're Native when they're two generations away  from "counting" and every signal they get from the entire United States culture is telling them that? How can I tell them they're Lakota when I already have asshats like the one in the bar going after me? When they're prolly going to look whiter than I do?

It's prolly a good thing I'm single and am nowhere near having my own kids  yet, otherwise I'd have to more seriously think of this shit, and I'd prolly have a huge meltdown.

I get angry when people ask "how" Native American I am.  And I get hurt. And  I'm not really sure how to end this, except to ask anyone reading to think next time they start to ask somebody claiming Native ancestry "how much" that ancestry is. Because it's bad enough we live with the knowledge we're being measured by the government  every day. It's bad enough we know there are government-sanctioned practices acting as the norm today that are gradually killing us off. 

We don't need you reminding  us. 


*I realized after writing this I was almost uncannily channeling this gentleman here, so I figured I should give credit where subliminal credit is due. 

Tonto: A New Hope (?)

I know I just ranted about Johnny Depp's portrayal of Tonto in The Lone Ranger, but some  new info has come to my  attention, and I would like to speculate on what it could potentially mean for Indian Country and the future of indigenous people in the U.S. I'll put some "citations" at the bottom of the piece, but I'm going to mostly rant about this because it's pretty gorram personal for me.

So to backtrack a bit, I need to do my own overview of Depp in order to set the stage, here.

Over a year ago, the Comanche Nation made him an honorary member. Somewhere along the line, he started making vague references to having Native American ancestry in statements such as this: 

"The interesting thing, if you find out you've got Native American blood, which a lot of people do, is you think about where it comes from and go back and read the great books... you have to think, somewhere along the line, I'm the product of some horrific rape. You just have that little sliver in your chemical makeup."

This is kind of more than a little problematic for me- he's basing his assumption off of the fact that his family is from areas where the violence against Native American women occurred in the past. This becomes clearer through statements such as:

"I guess I have some Native American [in me] somewhere down the line. My great grandmother was quite a bit of Native American, she grew up Cherokee or maybe Creek Indian. Makes sense in terms of coming from Kentucky, which is rife with Cherokee and Creek."

So yeah. His white ancestors are from an area with a lot of indigenous people, so obviously he's Native, too, right? If he can't even say what tribe he's affiliated with, it's pretty damn hard to take that seriously. Maybe I'm being indigenously elitist (which in itself sounds slightly ironic, eh?), but it sounds more like the "Cherokee" claim (and, actually, pretty much is, given Cherokee is one of the tribes he thinks he may  be decended  from)- "Oh, yeah, I have Cherokee!" Every other person claims to have Cherokee. Bullshit, it's not like Oprah is going around granting Cherokee heritage to everybody.

I had to; I'm already going to burn in the firey recesses of Hell, so I may
as well have some fun on the way, amirite? But I still have to be
grammatically correct, even when making memes... Sigh.

So okay, vague association with some tribe back in the day because of a rape. Awesome.

Move forward a bit to the character design of Tonto. Without delving into the details too much, he was blatantly honest about how a specific painting inspired him. But the painter is open about how he deliberately avoids historical and contextual accuracy- he literally just paints whatever stereotypes pop into his head at the time out of a fetishized notion of all indigenous people and peoples being "more connected with the earth" and all that hippie bullshit. And of course, dude's white. Not to say white people can't be respectful and portray indigenous culture in ways that aren't offensive, but all he does is paint stereotypes- and he admits it openly, so I'm not stretching this at all, here. 

Anyway, since the inspiration piece was built off of a hodgepodge of stereotypes, it's no surprise the end result of Tonto would be a hodgepodge, too. And it was. Ignoring the hideous paint and the riggoddamndiculous crow on his head, different parts of his outfit are either generic "Native-esque" things (like the random feathers hanging off of him), or they're from specific tribal cultures that have been forced onto the body of one man (the chest plate thing is Sioux, the headband thing southwestern, etc.).

Oh yeah, and there's the Tonto Talk, too.

So then it's no surprise he'd get a lot of poo-poos and fingerpointings. 

Well, I found out this morning that he's expressed interest in buying  the land on which the Wounded Knee massacre in of December 29, 1890, as well as the 1973 protest on and near the site took place. The current owner put it on the market for a few million dollars a while back, and it seems the deadline passed in May. But now Depp has said he wants to buy it and return it back to the Sioux Nation. Here's the main quote I've seen floating around about it:

"It's very sacred ground and many atrocities were committed against the Sioux there. And in the 1970s here was a stand-off between the Feds and the people who should own that land. This historical land is so important to the Sioux culture and all I want to do is buy it and give it back. Why doesn't the government do that?"

It's hard to tell exactly what's going on with Depp himself, since he's kind of vague and says that he's trying his best to make it happen or something, and also because he and his people aren't responding to anyone's inquiries. It's somewhat complicated by the fact that apparently there are some other donors elsewhere that have been talking to the owner about buying the land and doing the same thing with it, as in giving it back to the Sioux. 

There are mixed opinions, of course. The Sioux have been trying to get the land back via the courts, since it does come down to a legal, territorial thing, and they shouldn't have to buy back the lands they were forcibly relocated to in the first place. At the same time, the president of the Oglala Sioux has said he loves the idea. There are some tribal members that don't want the land bought back at all, though, because it's messed up for the white dude that owns it right now to  make a bunch of money off of its sale. There are others that don't really care, as long as the Sioux get the land back and can then erect the right monuments and museums to educate visitors about the history of what happened there and such.

So now, my position.

While I'd prefer that no white dude make a profit off of Wounded Knee going back to the control of my people, I realize that's probably a pipe dream. Since the history of the foundation of this country is the original exploitation of the tribes (and that this exploitation has never ceased), I find it highly unlikely that the Oglala will prevail in the courts. So acquiring it by any means necessary, given the fucked up system we're in, will just have to be the way to go. And since the Sioux Nation is so fucking poor, why not make a dude that sort of made a mockery of all Native American tribes in a summer blockbuster foot the bill?

As for Depp himself, I'm trying to see this as an earnest gesture in the face of what he did with Tonto. I agree entirely with people accusing him of making a PR move- but I like to see it as a public  move stemming from sincere regret and apology for the offensive nature of his version of Tonto. I don't know if he'll ever say, flat-out, "I'm sorry for Tonto," but if this is his way  of doing so, that's totally fine with me. Plus, if my tribe can get something out of his fuckup, then yay.

I also like to view this as the beginning of a genuine search for verification of the Native ancestry he says he has. And as it's highly unlikely he'll actually have all that much Native American blood in his body, if any, perhaps it will also lead to him realizing how fucked up the whole "blood quantum" thing is in the first place. It's entirely messed up that a person like me with relatives  living on the Rez in South Dakota can't legally claim to be Native American. And there's a saying, something like, "The government only  quantifies three things by blood: dogs, horses, and  Indians."

Yeah.

So maybe, and this is my highly optimistic, probably not-gonna-happen optimistic hope... Maybe in realizing he doesn't "count," and that probably multiple generations back, his line stopped "counting," Depp will get angry enough  about the whole concept of "blood quantum" and  become an advocate against it.

Now I realize there are logistical and pragmatic reasons for it in terms of who the tribes can and cannot afford to take care of, but  along with the optimistic hope that Depp will advocate, I also have this naive, self-righteous belief that the government should do a better job  of helping the tribes. Infrastructure, education, health care facilities, rehabilitative centers- tribes need assistance building themselves up. If the tribes had enough resources, they'd be able to embrace more people with legitimate ancestry connecting them. 

I guess my point is, I want things to get better for all indigenous people, and that my hope is this gesture on the part of Johnny Depp, if it actually leads to something real, could help start a trend in the gradual restoration of the dignity and autonomy of the tribes of the U.S. 

Comprehensive "sources"

Native Appropriations. This specific article deconstructs Tonto pretty rigorously, but it also has links to the rest of her coverage of Depp's little journey with the role. Her own sources are legit, it seems, so if you just skim over her stuff, you'll see I'm not pulling my summarizations of what's been going on with respect to Tonto or Depp's heritage out of my ass. 

This article is pretty comprehensive for all the necessary info about Depp buying Wounded Knee, but here, here, and here are some other sources.