Yeah, No. More Catwalk Colonialism. I Am #NotYourSquaw.

#DSquaw.

I shit you not. That's what these idiot white boys are calling their new fall collection, sent down the latest Fashion Week Colonial Catwalk.

As though the theft of imagery and culture, the appropriation of names and identities and narratives, the flat-out redface faux-powwow shuck-and-jive weren't enough, these morons had to take it all to new gutteral [as opposed to guttural] depths. Dean and Dan Caten, the hipster designers who hipsterishly refer to themselves as DSquared2, thought it would own so hip [and edgy, too!] to steal from Native cultures and then call it . . . wait for it . . . #DSquaw! Isn't that just too, too precious?!

Yeah, no.

And even the Styleite article slamming this racist idiocy gets it wrong. That word, people, does not, in the white man's vernacular, in his lexicon of racism and misogyny, translate to "vagina." Oh, no, no.  It translates to something much more vulgar, much more insulting. It translates to a four-letter vulgarity beginning with "c," used to describe women's genitalia . . . but not just any women, oh, no. It refers specifically, in the most odiously racialized sense possible, strictly and solely to Native women, reducing us whole and entire to that single body part. That vulgar, unclean, subhuman body part, when it exists on us Native women. That body part that members of the U.S. Cavalry cut off the bodies of our ancestors and turned into sacrilegious "medicine bags" and other personal ornaments, scalping of another sort, trophies of rape, of massacre, of genocide. 

And, as happened two weeks ago with fellow white racist ripoff design house KTZ, there is allegedly another direct theft from a Native designer. Then, it was Apsàalooke/NorthernCheyenne designer b.YELLOWTAIL who saw her own design, from her great-grandmother's beadwork, an old traditional family design that she used with the proper permissions, stolen, warped, and twisted into a nasty little piece of cheap knock-off appropriation. This time, it's a beaded bag by Sandra Okuma, copied largely wholesale, with a few cosmetic alterations, and slung around the neck of a white model who presumably is supposed to be the designated #dsquaw stand-in.

Enough, already.

Our cultures are not your property. Neither are our histories, our identities, our imagery, our traditions, our labor, or our very selves. And the nastiest of sexualized racial slurs is certainly not yours to fling at us while stealing from us (or even while not).

Every person in the fashion industry who contributes to these instances of cultural theft (and more tangible forms of theft, too), who praises it, who countenances it without publicly calling it out, who supports it in any way, shape or form: You're the heirs apparent of a long tradition of racism, misogyny, cultural theft and erasure.

And there's another word for that toxic combination, you know.




All text copyright Aji, 2015; all rights reserved. Nothing herein may used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the owner.

#NotYourRedskin: On MLK Day, the Fritz Pollard Alliance Takes Snyder to the Woodshed. In Public.

Image copyright Fritz Pollard Alliance; all rights reserved.

After another sleepless night, I got some early good news in the fight against redface on this observed day of commemoration of the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Wings himself brought this story to my attention, having gotten it as an online news alert.

The Fritz Pollard Alliance has (quite deliberately) chosen this day to take a very public stand and make a very public statement in opposition to the Washington Reds***s team name and mascot. 

For those of you unfamiliar with the Fritz Pollard Alliance Foundation, it's a civil rights group that works to promote diversity in the National Football League. Specifically, per the group's Web site:

We promote diversity and equality of job opportunity in the coaching, front office and scouting staffs of National Football League ("NFL") teams.

The group of former members of the NFL family and associated activists who would eventually coalesce into the Fritz Pollard Alliance are the ones who midwifed the "Rooney Rule," requiring interviewing and consideration of candidates of color for all head coaching hires. That rule went into effect at the end of October, 2002, and less than six months later, the FPA was born. In the more than a decade since, It has worked tirelessly to improve diversity in the coaching and managerial ranks of the NFL.

Today, FPA Chair John Wooten, Executive Director Harry Carson, and Co-Counsel Cyrus Mehri and N. Jeremi Duru have taken an extraordinary step on behalf of Native Americans, fans and otherwise, across Indian Country.

Leaders of the Fritz Pollard Alliance — an influential nonprofit group that was instrumental in forcing the league to revise its minority-hiring practices — said they tried to discuss the issue with Snyder at an intense August meeting. Instead, they said, they were shouted down by the executive director of the foundation he created to help Native Americans.

The alliance, which is headed by former players, also told The Washington Post that, at a pair of annual gatherings, they voiced concerns about the moniker to NFL leadership — including once to Commissioner Roger Goodell — but were told it was a matter only the team could address.

At a dead end, alliance leaders have taken their opposition public on Martin Luther King Jr. Day for maximum impact. The group has a history of spurring substantial change in the NFL, making the proclamation among the most significant victories for opponents of the name.

FPA Chair John Wooten was nothing if not blunt in his letter:

“As the NFL continues to move in the direction of respect and dignity, one of its teams carrying this name cuts glaringly against the grain,” read a letter co-signed by the group’s chairman, John Wooten, a Redskins lineman in the late 1960s. “It hurts the League and it hurts us all.”

The letter was also signed by Fritz Pollard Executive Director Harry Carson, a Hall of Fame linebacker for the New York Giants.

Of course, team spokeshill Tony Wyllie is seeking refuge in the organization's usual "play the victim" stance, pronouncing himself "dismayed" and feigning an inability to understand. FPA counsel N. Jeremi Duru, who is the author of Advancing the Ball: Race, Reformation, and the Quest for Equal Coaching Opportunity in the NFL, dispenses with that nonsense fast and thoroughly:

“There seemed to be an argument on the [team] side that it wasn’t reasonable to be offended by the use of the word,” Duru said. “My research found that it was quite reasonable to be offended by its use.”

Exactly.

Duru's co-counsel piled on more reality:

“You can’t move forward as a league talking about respect and dignity if you have one club going the opposite direction,” said Mehri, one of the alliance’s lawyers. “I made the point that this is bad for the league, and Jeremi made the point that Native Americans have a legitimate argument.”

FPA officials tried having a civil and reasoned discussion at the team training camp, in a meeting with a group that included Snyder himself, team president Bruce Allen, and OAF executive director and token "Original American" Gary Edwards. Snyder and his minions, of course, have reacted entirely predictably. Which is to say, thrown a tantrum the likes of which would shame the average two-year-old.

After Wooten told the team they had come as friends, Mehri said he started his pitch — then the meeting rapidly deteriorated. 

“Every time we tried to speak, this guy Gary Edwards exploded,” said Mehri, who has also worked an NFL consultant. 

“It was really hostile. And it was jarring, because it was so out of place.”

When Carson brought up the issue, Edwards fired back, asking what Carson, who is African American, would want to be called. 

“I want to be called a man,” Carson recalled saying. 

Edwards, a Cherokee and retired deputy assistant director of the Secret Service, was so disruptive that Fritz Pollard officials said they never had the chance to ask Snyder if he would meet with activists. 

“At some point, we just gave up talking,” Mehri said. “It was clear they were not in a frame of mind to even hear the words we were saying.”

This is simply more evidence that nothing Snyder and his people do is done in good faith. It's all about maintaining iron control over their right to be racist. Because they want to, and like a bunch of two-year-olds, they will not be denied.

Edwards is particularly troubling. He already has a reputation around Indian Country of behaving like a ringer and a plant, like the worst of the sell-outs from the bad old days of COINTELPRO, the kind of hired goon that would have been comfortable in the company of Dickie Wilson. His behavior since taking on this particular role as official Cavalry Indian scout for a white-owned billion-dollar corporate enterprise has been nothing short of shameful. Aside from the fact that he is engaging in destructive racism against his own for the benefit of the dominant culture, he is an embarrassment to this rest of us. Shouting people down, demanding to know what Black men "want to be called," insinuating that they secretly prefer racial slurs? This is not our way.

Mr. Wooten isn't having any.

“We have to take a stand. That name has to be changed. We can’t just leave it up to [the team]. We think it’s disrespectful. We think it’s, by definition, demeaning,” Wooten said. “I truly believe all sides, including the Native American groups who don’t feel the name needs to be changed, they all need to be there, and they should all sit and discuss this. That hasn’t happened. I truly believe that has to happen.”

It is disrespectful. It is, by definition, demeaning. It is destructive. It is racist. And it does need to be changed.

So many profound thanks are owed to the Fritz Pollard Alliance and its officials, for their courage and their willingness to stand with us as outspoken allies.

And to Snyder, Allen, Wyllie, and Edwards, on this day, when we activists of color and allies all over the country and the world celebrate the life of a man whose shoes you are not fit to shine, let this be fair warning:

The name will change. With or without you. Because we are #NotYourMascots, and we are sure as hell #NotYourRedskins.

  

Except as otherwise indicated, all content copyright Aji, 2015; all rights reserved. Nothing herein may used or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the owner.

"So What Should We Call You?"

Image Credit:  Mother Jones Magazine.

It's the first day of Native American Heritage Month. It's also the day before the largest-ever Native rally against racism, the upcoming warriors' cry against Dan Snyder's (and others') ongoing racist exploitation of the [ongoing] attempted genocide of our peoples.

So it seems like as good a time as any to talk about names. After all, this is a question (or set of questions) we encounter constantly, and so it seems worthwhile to answer them.   

Note:  Three points. 1) In this post, I am going to use certain slurs, wholly uncensored, solely for discursive purposes. Normally, I would use asterisks, but for purposes of this discussion, I want their full violent and painful impact to be felt. My use of them here is not a license for anyone else to use them in any way whatsoever. 2) I speak here only for myself and for Wings. With every definition and every opinion that follows, I can point to numerous Indians we know who feel similarly, but I'm not going to invoke anyone else's name here. I'm only giving you our very specific perspective, which arises in a very specific and highly personal set of contexts and experiences. 3) Because I am speaking for us, and only us, comments will be closed. Nothing in here is up for debate: not from Indians whose views differ (see that whole "speaking only for us" thing again), and certainly not from white folks, because they don't get to weigh in on the facts of our lived experience. This is not a discursive project, and devil's advocacy is most decidedly not needed; we've heard all the oppositional arguments before (yes, ALL of them), and not one of them holds a single drop of water. This is offered purely for informational purposes for people of good will and an anti-racist activist bent who genuinely want to learn how their own words are perceived. And again, as I say ad nauseum throughout, other Indians will have other opinions, and can and will speak for themselves when they feel so inclined.

Names.

Indigenous. 

First Nations. 

Native American. 

Native.

American Indian. 

AmerIndian. 

Indian. 

Injun. 

Brave. 

Redskin. 

Skin. 

Squaw.

This is the basic spectrum. It's not precisely linear. There isn't a definitive ranking to some of them — although clearly, some are more or less neutral, and some are so clearly racist that there is no place for them in civilized society. 

There are so many misconceptions and generalizations out there about what we "prefer to be called," as though there's one and only one opinion among all of us. And, of course, that "one opinion" is virtually always one that belongs to a non-Indian, and projected onto another population and culture and used to justify that person's preferred practice. In these days of organized, broad-based campaigns to overturn the use of slurs as mascots and the institutionalization of racism and appropriation, the question in the title is one we hear a lot.

Privately, among ourselves, we sometimes use certain terms that we would never countenance from outsiders. We also often use the names of our respective tribal nations (which themselves can vary depending on usage and context, and increasingly, we're seeing people revert to their names for themselves in their own languages, rather than accepting the labels put on them by others). But discomfiture often arises on both sides when outsiders presume to use one name or another for us. 

We have a unique window, having spent years operating a gallery visited by [mostly white] tourists. Tourists who say all kinds of things.

So what should people call us?

It's complicated. It's also simple.

#NotYourRedskin, #NotYourMascot, #NotYourstoWhitewashAway

Image credit:  Mother Jones Magazine

On a day when I find myself, once again, in the unenviable position of having my life, my very self, whitewashed out of existence, I also find myself about to do something completely out of character: Root for the Dallas Cowboys.

Yes, it's the Washington Racists at Cowboy Stadium tonight, and while I have no love for Jerry Jones or any part of his organization, for once I hope Tony Romo's got his head on straight tonight. I don't know how much of the game we'll be able to watch; it's next to impossible for us to tolerate the redface and the fake war chants and the tomahawk chops anymore. But we'll at least be checking in, if only to support the #BraidUp/AIM Central Texas and #EONM protestors outside and inside the stadium. I may hit Facebook and the Twitters occasionally, if I feel the need to say something, so shares and retweets would be appreciated. It'll be more of the same on Sunday, since Haskell and other groups are apparently busily helping to provide cover to the Kansas City Thiefs. [Yes, I know it's not correct pluralization. It's still their name in this household.]

And I'll just say for the record, right here, right now:  I am not going away. I will continue to write, to speak, to be who and what I am, every day. I've danced this dance my whole life, and I'm not about to stop because my existence is inconvenient.

"Who's 'we,' white man?"

Image credit:  Mother Jones Magazine

So Matthew McConaughey, alleged hearthrob and celebrity flake extraordinaire, doesn't want the Washington R[acists] NFL team to have to change its name.

It’s not going to hurt me. It’s just….I love the emblem. I dig it. It gives me a little fire and some oomph. But now that it’s in the court of public opinion, it’s going to change. I wish it wouldn’t, but it will.

"Fire," huh?  And "oomph?"  What, exactly, is that, Matt?  Hey, I can call you Matt, right?  Even though I've never once seen you use it yourself, it's all good, right, because lots of guys named Matthew have let people call them that since, oh, at least the last 2,000 or so years, probably, and besides, I'm doing it to honor you.  Really.

Gah.

It gets better. And by "better," I mean ridiculous, natch:

Man, it’s twofold. What interests me is how quickly it got pushed into the social consciousness. We were all fine with it since the 1930s, and all of a sudden we go, “No, gotta change it”? It seems like when the first levee breaks, everybody gets on board. I know a lot of Native Americans don’t have a problem with it, but they’re not going to say, “No, we really want the name.” That’s not how they’re going to use their pulpit. It’s like my feeling about gun control: “I get it. You have the right to have guns. But look, let’s forget that right. Let’s forget the pleasure you get safely on your range, because it’s in the wrong hands in other places [emphasis added].

"WE were all fine with it?" Who's "WE," white man? 

Yeah, no. You're reading from a seriously wrong script, dude.

CANCELED! #NotYourMascot, Snyder!

Image credit Mother Jones Magazine

We won!

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has canceled the trademark of the Washington Reds***s.

By "we," I mean Indians, but special congratulations go to lead plaintiffs Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs, Philip Gover, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh for stepping up and seeing this through.

ThinkProgress has a brief analysis here. The opinion itself is here. Briefly, key to the decision was the finding that the use of the slur was in fact [already] "disparaging to Native Americans" at the time it was registered [each time it or a variant thereof was registered].

This is, of course, not the end of the matter. Snyder, being the vicious racist that he is, will fight this to the bitter end and beyond. He'll take the immediate financial hit, which will be substantial even in the short term, and will sink even more money into retainers to file endless appeals. I fully expect a reversal in the courts, but it will be yet one more temporary switchback tun on the much longer road to justice.

For today, we dance. Because, Snyder, we are #notyourmascots, and we are sure as hell #notyourredskins.

Notah Begay III: #NotYourRedskin, Either

Photo Credit PGA

I love this man.

I love him for being a strong, proud Indian man who embodies his heritage even as he walks in two worlds, the second one filled with all the distractions and dangers of dominant-culture celebrity.

I love him for what he's doing in Indian Country, particularly with regard to children's health and diabetes prevention.

And I love him for standing up to the racists in and around the NFL and its hangers-on and fellow travelers.

And for the last, we can now expect him to be attacked shamelessly by many of the very pundits and fans who pretended to worship his "Indian-ness" up until now.

Last week, he agreed to appear on ESPN's Outside the Lines to discuss the racist slur that Dan Snyder insists on keeping as his vanity team's name and mascot. To the credit of the show, apparently all but one person booked on it opposed use of the slur and supported changing the name. Still, it's pretty clear from Dan Steinberg's post about the incident that they were hoping for "controversy" over it, and made sure they got it.

I have no interest in the arguments in favor of the name. I've heard them all before, and they're unmitigated crap, every one. There's not a new thought in the lot. But I want to bring Mr. Begay's words to your attention, because this is a man who has the right as an Indian man to speak to this issue, and who walks the talk, putting the blessings and benefits afforded him by his career right back into his community — into the children of the Navajo Nation, and the children of our Indian communities as a whole. And what he has to say is important.

First:

"If you ask me, it is offensive," Begay said midway through the segment, when asked about the Redskins name. "And I think it’s just a very clear example of institutionalized degradation of an ethnic minority, that being the Native American people. To classify it as simply a matter of political correctness only seeks to trivialize it a little bit, to an extent that it undermines the very human foundation of the people itself. I mean, if you look further and deeper into the issue, it’s about the culture, it’s about the identity, it’s about the history of our people. And that in and of itself is something that I think needs to be looked at further."

Boom. Down goes the "political correctness" canard.

Second:

"I don’t ever see myself going to a Redskins game,” he continued. “Or I should say, if I were to take my kids to a Redskins game, and we were to see a non-native dressed up in traditional regalia, with eagle feathers in a headdress, dancing around, basically mocking the culture and the tradition, it would be very difficult to explain to my children. And not only to my children, but children of many families across this country. I mean, this country was founded on the premise of equality and human rights and civil rights, and I don’t know at what point we decide what our tolerance levels are for discrimination. And who gets to decide? I think that’s the compelling question here, is who gets decide what is discriminatory and what isn’t?"

Boom. Down goes the "non-Indians get to decide what's racist against Indians" canard.

And third:

"Yeah, if you look at social indicators related to addiction, related to childhood obesity and Type 2 diabetes, related to graduation rates, yeah, there [are] much bigger issues that I think tribal leaders have to deal with,” Begay agreed. “But the fact of the matter is, if Native Americans can’t be viewed as an equal in this country, then we can’t afford our children the same opportunities as they seek to go to college and seek to participate in mainstream corporate America, competing for jobs. It all starts with the basic elements of who we are as a country. And I think there’s an existential issue here as well as a cultural issue. We all have to ask ourselves, how much discrimination are we willing to tolerate as it pertains to issues like this?"

Boom. Down goes the "more important issues" canard.

And coming from Mr. Begay, that last is especially relevant. Because he's already long since put his money where his mouth it. The quote may not indicate it, but he's been working for years on these alleged "much bigger issues," and he knows better than any non-Indian ever could how the racism that countenances this sort of redface minstrelsy as an integral part of this country's national identity is one of the major factors in exacerbating all of those "much bigger issues."

So let's show Mr. Begay how much we support him and his efforts, not only on the issue of structural racism but on the ground, in Indian Country. Go to the Notah Begay III Foundation's Web site. In the upper right are three buttons. Use them. "Like" and "Share" it on Facebook; send it viral on Twitter. And if you have a few spare bucks, use the top button to make a tax-deductible donation to his foundation.

And Mr. Begay, from this household: Chi miigwech and ta'a for everything you do.