by Sarah Jensen

As a teenager, I worshipped the pages of Seventeen and Y&M, later graduating to Glamour and Marie-Claire. I even read Cosmo for a while, in an effort to learn all the dirty sexy secrets that weren’t included in the sex-education curriculum at my Catholic high school. As I flipped through the magazines, one flawless model after another stared back at me from the pages.

While finding my footing as a woman, Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer and Linda Evangelista were strutting and stomping down runways; they were beautiful. They were perfect.

As a slightly pudgy thirteen year old, I looked nothing like these models. The more I compared myself with them, the less beautiful I felt. I started wearing makeup daily with the hopes that maybe it really was Maybelline. 60 minutes of layering, shadowing and blending produced results with which I was seldom thrilled. I assumed, however, that the makeup was an improvement over what hid underneath.

Though dissatisfied with my face, I reserved the most hateful thoughts for my body. I’d been a fairly average-sized kid, but puberty hit and I filled out before many of the other girls in my school. I began to feel like a fat troll compared to the elfin-sized popular girls. I wasn’t overweight then, though an unhealthy diet, often fueled by self-hatred would soon change that.

Both my parents worked full-time, so my brother and I spent a lot of time with babysitters. During the week, my best-friend’s grandmother watched us after school. She was a tiny, round, Haitian woman whose eyes always smiled. She spent most of her time in the kitchen, singing in Creole, dancing and cooking. Her specialties were fried chicken, fried potatoes, heaping plates of rice, and something we nicknamed “deep-fried deep fry”, which was basically deep-fried dough sprinkled liberally with salt.

Back at home, my meals could usually be described as “convenient”. By the fifth grade, I was packing lunches for myself and my brother. They usually consisted of luncheon meat-filled Wonder Bread sandwiches,  a heavily processed fruit-based snack, candy bars thinly disguised as granola bars and occasionally an actual piece of fruit which was destined to shrivel and die alone, untouched and unloved. On the bus-ride to school, I often traded my sandwich to another girl whose own lunch was a can of Dr.Pepper.

Kraft-Dinner, frozen pizzas, hot dogs, diet Coke and French fries all made regular appearances in my diet, courtesy of both home and school. My body gasped for nutrients while it drowned in calories. After school I rarely had energy to do much more than lie on the couch and watch television, or sit in bed reading. Among the mess that cluttered my room, the aforementioned stack of fashion magazines could be found. They were always there for me, like a hip but hardened older sister whose very existence assured me that, if I tried hard enough, I too could be beautiful.

Being beautiful meant being thin. I combed my magazines for diet tips, grasping for an easy way to transform myself. Inside the pages, an occasional cautionary tale would be told about a girl who had become too obsessed with being thin and had developed anorexia or bulimia. I wished I had enough self-control to be one of these girls. I would starve myself for a couple days, but then give up in defeat and soften my feelings of failure by giving in to the warm embrace of fatty, sugar-laden food. Other times I would try to make myself vomit, but rarely succeeded.

As the pounds increased over the years, so did my unhappiness. By the time I entered high school, I was miserable. I had lost interest in learning, except the few subjects I loved, such as Art and English. In most other subjects I tried hard enough to avoid failing, but not hard enough to excel. School felt like hell and home soon did too, as my parents’ marriage unravelled. On particularly dark days, I’d swallow a handful of Aspirin before having a nap; part of me hoped to never wake up. I also started cutting myself with a razor, sliding it back and forth against my wrist until an angry, stinging welt would appear and begin to bleed. It felt somehow cleansing and the external sensation of pain helped numb the pain I felt inside.

High school ended ten yeasr ago, but my feelings from that time still resonate. My weight has see-sawed over the years, but always remained in plus-sized territory. I hate myself less, but I can’t honestly say I love myself all the time either. My self-confidence has grown, however, with my realization that our society’s beauty standards are unattainable.

I grew older, and my interest in fashion magazines slowly waned as I tired of lusting after clothes that I could neither fit into nor afford. I began looking online for images of women who looked more like me, and while doing this I discovered plus-sized fashion blogs. Gabi’s blog was the first I discovered, soon followed by Frocks and Frou Frou and Good Stuff Only. Watching these women flaunt their curves helped me gradually awaken from the trance that mainstream media had put me under. I began to realize that beauty was so much more than the narrow definitions prescribed by the fashion and cosmetics industries.

I broadened my search and found women around the world, at every size and age, who radiated beauty. I found Stephanie Zwicky and Les Pitreries de Vanoue from France, A Curious Fancy from India, Weesha’s World from Dubai, Jennifer from Sweden, Rebequita Rose from Spain, Fat Nurse from the UK, Blog to be Alive from Belgium, Stiletto Siren from the U.S., Gazel from Canada, the women from Advanced Style, and many others. They became the sisters that fashion magazines could never be; instead of cruel older sisters who dangled happiness just out of my grasp, I now had sisters who seemed to hold my hand and help me feel less alone.

Putting yourself out there for the world to judge takes a lot of courage, and I commend these women for doing it. It has been argued that they promote an unhealthy lifestyle, but I think the lifestyle marketed by fashion magazines is much more harmful to society. At any given time, 70% of Canadian women are on a diet. Up to 5% of Canadian females will develop an eating disorder (a number that may be much higher, as the illness is often kept secret) and as many as 20% of those afflicted will die from complications– a mortality rate higher than any other mental illness.  As girls are sexualized and pressured to conform to beauty standards at younger ages, eating disorders or their symptoms appear earlier: 9% of 9 year-old girls admit to having vomited in an attempt to lose weight. 42% of first-, second-, and third-grade girls say they want to be thinner.

It’s an uphill battle to love myself, but I feel like I’m making progress. I started taking yoga a few months ago and have slowly cut out a lot of unhealthy (i.e. processed) food. I’ve lost weight, but have avoided stepping on the scale to find out how much, because I know it can quickly turn into an obsession. Instead, I’m trying to concentrate on feeling healthier and getting stronger. I’ve given myself a three-year goal of being healthier; each day I get a little closer.

There are many things I’d like to change in the world. I want to break down the barriers that keep women from equality; I want to smash glass ceilings. Sometimes I beat myself up for not accomplishing more, but I try to remind myself that loving myself is one of the most radical things I can do.

It’s a round-up in a round-up! Our Bodies, Our Blog helps us keep up with the US “war on choice and contraception”.

-Jarrah

by Jarrah Hodge

This is the third part in my anti-racist feminist analysis of Canada’s Heritage Minutes ads. Click here for Part I or Part II.

While not all Canadian kids of the 80s and 90s can tell remember the name of the guy who screened new designs for Canada’s flag, or the one who made the woman smell burnt toast when he poked her brain, most of us remember at least something from the Heritage Minutes, as indicated by this video:

Heritage Minutes have become the subject of acting impressions, high school history classes, and even drinking games. And they’ve provided great source material for political satirists and other artists looking to comment on Canadian culture and identity. Here are a few of my favourite take-offs that define “A Part of Our Heritage” in creative new ways:

First, I love Dominic Poliquin’s “Part of Our Heritage” on Canada marriage equality:

Rick Mercer has been one of the best at converting the Heritage Minute format into biting political satire:

And the Comedy Network came up with a few gems as part of their “Canadian Sacrilege Moment” series, including this one where Jennie Pike (spoofing Jennie Trout’s ad) takes it a step further in telling off Dr. MacFarlane:

Now all that’s missing are some more parody ads that help correct some of the imbalances and issues I mentioned in Part I and Part II of this series, which looked at representations of women’s history and the history of First Nations and Canadians of colour. Most of the parodies I found were by white men. While they’re great, it would be nice to see some by the people who are most under or misrepresented. If anyone knows of some I missed, please post in the comments below!

Josey Ross is an anti-violence worker and reproductive justice activist living in Vancouver. She has an embarrassing and uncontainable love of small dogs but fears corgis.

The abortion debate is over in Canada. We won. Stop worrying so much.

This is what I kept hearing as I was beginning to write my Honours thesis, which looked at anti-choice legislation in Canada. And it’s partly true. We won. Oh boy did we win. Unlike in the U.S. where the increasingly fragile Roe v. Wade decision is based on an easily trump-able right to privacy, women’s right to abortion in Canada is predicated on security of the person.

Since the Morgantaler decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988, precisely zero laws have been passed that regulate or prohibit abortion. However, there have been nearly 40 bills and motions introduced that sought to limit or prohibit abortion. In 1991 women’s right to bodily autonomy was maintained by a single vote when it tied in Senate.

And while I’m confident that Bill C-43 would have been deemed unconstitutional if not for that single vote, it would have been a nightmare. And it would have been women who paid the steep price of years of legal wrangling.

Conservative misogynist (or “pro-lifer” as he seems to prefer) Stephen Woodworth is using a well-worn tactic to attack abortion rights from the side. Focusing on personhood arguments neatly skirts the existence of the gestational vehicle otherwise known as a woman.

Woodworth is being not just disingenuous (“whatever view one has on abortion, it would surely be important to know whether not a child is a human being before birth”) but is dressing up his fight against women’s fundamental right to bodily autonomy in the language of human rights.

His motion (M-312) to appoint a special committee consisting of seven Tories, four NDP and one Liberal Party member to investigate “what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth” would, if passed, require the House to strike said committee that would report its findings within 20 sitting days.

Which means we will soon see how truthful Prime Minister Harper was when he repeatedly stated his government will not reopen the abortion debate. If he is truly committed to that stance he’ll lay down a whip that directs Conservative Party members to vote against the motion.

If, on the other hand, it’s been merely empty rhetoric meant to appease he’ll allow a free vote. Given his showings on the abortion debate outside of Canada (denying abortion as part of maternal health care and defunding International Planned Parenthood), I’m not holding my breath.

(photo via Wikimedia Commons)

Bridget Crawford is a professor of law at Pace University and one of the co-administrators of the Feminist Law Professors blog. This was originally posted at Feminist Law Professors, re-posted with permission.

Over at the on-line music publication The Quietus, UK-based writer Meryl Trussler reacts to what she perceives as a “counter-campaign” to make feminism palatable to the mainstream media (at worst) or “cool again” (at best):

This move is not deliberate – probably not even conscious. But the pop-culture image of feminism today – as perpetuated at Ladyfests, in BUST magazine and its Craftaculars, on so-called ‘ladyblogs’ and at freshers’ fairs – is ostensibly the direct opposite of the Hairy Dyke. For simplicity’s sake, we’ll call her the cupcake feminist. * *  *

Twee and retro have been seeping into feminism for a couple decades now, gaining potency. It’s all about cute dresses, felten rosettes from Etsy, knitting, kittens, vintage lamps shaped like owls, Lesley Gore. And yes – a lot of cupcakes.

It would be hypocritical to dismiss cupcake feminism outright….[T]o tell women they are letting down the cause is vomitously snide and unproductive – and I like the associated aesthetic as much as anyone. (Except for knitting, which for me could only end in injury.) Admittedly, too, the cupcake feminist is a sophisticated invention. Rouged, lipsticked, cinched at the waist, she performs big-F Femininity as the drag–show that it is. Her 50s-housewife schtick sets off everything about her that is radicalised and new. And, importantly, she emphasises that typically ‘feminine’ pursuits are no less worthy or important than their ‘masculine’ counterparts.

By now, however, western women have largely reclaimed and detraumatised the concepts of marriage and homemaking. Sure, a person can still raise some hell and eyebrows with the housewife trope if, say, her grandmothers were more likely to be domestic labourers than ‘goddesses’, or she sports a poodle skirt in her wheelchair; more subversive yet if (gasp!) a man should take the role. But on a relatively privileged woman, the sugar’n’spice act counters next to no expectations. It comes off more nostalgic than ironic.

The full piece is here. It’s worth reading.

I take Ms. Trussler’s principal point to be that the embrace of traditional “women’s work” and cutesy, girly products is too subtle to be an effective instrumental expression of any feminist impulse; it “comes off more nostalgic than ironic.”  The point about nostalgia is well-taken.  Remember the celebration of Barbie in Manifesta?  In their 2000 book, Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgartner wrote:

Barbie didn’t so much influences us as she was a blank screen on which to project what was happening in our heads. * * * Barbie stands as a symbol of the lack of understanding between the leaders of the girls’ movement and the girls themselves: this is hotly contested territory.  The traditional feminist distaste for Barbie has also kept many young women closeted about their dolly-loving past.  They fear that loving Barbie will water down or jeopardize their feminism.

Ms. Trussler does not mention Barbie in her Quietus piece, but I suspect she’d detect “cupcake feminism” in the third-wave embrace of Barbie.  (Come to think of it, depending on the doll and the owner, Barbie herself might have been a cupcake feminist, too.  There’s Dentist Barbie, Astronaut Barbie….)  But at the time Manifesta was published, Richards and Baumgartner were making a bold statement.  There were few other feminists at the time who touted the doll’s feminist credentials. Barbie resonated with women born in the late 1960′s, 1970′s, and early 1980′s — those who were roughly 20 to 40 at the time of Manifesta‘s publication.

But just as Richards and Baumgartner were reacting to the feminists who preceded them, now Trussler is reacting to the third-wave embrace of things “girly,” of which Barbie is one example.  So might a critique of “cupcake feminism” be a critique of third-wave feminism?  I’m not sure.  It is possible to read Trussler as critical of feminism’s failure to “raise hell and eyebrows,” a call to “counter expectations” without calling out individual women for “letting down the cause,” and without casting blame on the immediately preceding generation of women.

One might extend Trussler’s critique of “cupcake feminism” to function as a critique of a feminism too focused on the self and the irony of aesthetics – the proverbial nail polish in the boardroom image — and not focused enough on structural inequality.  From my perspective, that’s where the law might come into the analysis.  In other words, if “cute dresses, felten rosettes from Etsy, knitting” are now “safe” for feminists, they can least co-exist with considerations of how law might address persistent inequality in “post-equality” era.

-Bridget Crawford

(photo by Jarrah)

A Discussion of the Constructed Roles of Men in a Patriarchal World (and how we can resist and redefine manhood)

Flying home after a rather busy weekend in Toronto, I’ve finally got time to reflect on the What Makes a Man: White Ribbon 2012 Conference that I attended Saturday. This was the second annual conference organized by Jeff Perera, a co-founder of the Ryerson chapter of the White Ribbon Campaign.

It was a day packed full of powerful speakers, which makes it a bit difficult to succinctly collect my thoughts about all of the important discussions that were initiated. The thing I most enjoyed about this event (other than the surprise guest appearance by Michael Kaufmann) is that it was a dialogue between panellists and guests – instead of a lecture.

I think this is particularly important in feminist spaces: we’re all experts of our lived experiences, and we all have valuable things to bring to the conversation. It’s a collaborative process, a dialogue, and that’s important in addressing issues of equality so all voices can be heard.

A predominant theme that emerged through the discussions was the need to dismantle patriarchy in the pursuit of equality; specifically, as contingent upon addressing the issue of colonization. Through Heritage Moment commercials on television we’ve all come to know that ‘Kanata’ means ‘the village’.

However, as Jessica Yee elucidated in her opening presentation, Canada is actually an aboriginal word meaning ‘settlement’. To acknowledge that this country is a settlement would be to acknowledge that it is a shared land, that it isn’t owned by a select group of people but that it is a common space. Patriarchy and colonization are closely interrelated: they both maintain inequality and facilitate oppression of certain groups of people.

It is certainly important to deconstruct these institutions that create and maintain oppression, yet at times I felt as though the conversation became divisive. In her presentation, Kim Katrin Crosby called for coloured women to unite – Brown, Red, Black women. And as I sat there, a seemingly White woman, it occurred to me that this is suggesting that White women aren’t coloured women. Does that mean they are colourless?

Her discussion was powerful, beautiful, and emotional, and I appreciated her words. I also appreciate that living in this culture as a Black woman is not the same as living in this culture as someone who is presumed to be White. However, I think as long as these groups of women are sensitive to racial issues and aware of the privilege that being White affords them, we can all work together as allies, and more effectively so in this capacity than separately, toward the common goal of a society free of oppression and inequality.

To me, this event is an important part of the movement toward redefining gender roles, working to end violence against women (and against men), and in addressing a number of important social issues that result from institutionalized patriarchy. These discussions need to be had, and I was glad to be a part of this conversation at Ryerson.

In the discussion led by Slutwalk Toronto, a theme emerged of allies and consent. I’d actually not explicitly considered the role of consent in the work of allies. This struck me as a particularly important conversation.

As a feminist, I advocate not only for the rights of women, but for those of men, but I find that many men are suspicious of my position as an ally (often because of the misconception that feminism is merely about elevating women, I often face disbelief when I describe feminism as an egalitarian movement).

Conversely, I tend to appreciate male allies, and I don’t have any predisposition to be suspicious of a man who says he’s an ally of feminism. However, I have seen that there is some understandable hesitancy among some feminists to include men in the movement, or suspicion about their motivations to be involved. So, while I am enthusiastically accepting of male allies (and thus implicitly consenting), this conversation did bring to my attention that perhaps for others it is important to ensure more explicitly that they are a consensual ally rather than a self-identified ally.

Violence against women (and men) is supported by dominant social structures. It is a consequence of patriarchy and colonization, of power dynamics, and of inequity. The White Ribbon campaign is a movement that is working to include men in the discussions about ending VAW, by having them stand against it and resist complicity.

As allies of the women in their lives, the majority of men disapprove of violence against women in its many forms (sexist jokes, sexual harassment, physical assault, sexual assault) but don’t always interfere when they witness it occurring. It can be a difficult and daunting task to be the one man in the room who interjects when a sexist joke is made, to say: “This isn’t okay. We need to speak respectfully of the women in our lives”.

But as was discussed in these conversations throughout the day, it often only takes that one brave man to build the momentum. One man has the potential to inspire the men around him to stop being complicit and to vocalize their disdain for such behaviour. This, I think, is part of What Makes a Man.

-Jarrah

by Jarrah Hodge

In my last post I wrote about how Canadian Heritage Minutes talked about (white) women’s history. I did a quick calculation based on Wikipedia’s list of the ads and estimate that the number of ads featuring women was about 22%. So not amazing but not insignificant.

Where we get into more problematic areas are the Heritage Minutes that feature people of colour, particularly those dealing with First Nations history.

Heritage Minutes on Race

But let’s start with some more positive examples. In this first one, a man tells a First Nations legend to his (I’m guessing) granddaughter. While the production values are about at the level of an original series Star Trek episode, it nevertheless is one of the few Heritage Minutes that is actually told in the voice of a First Nations person:

.

Next, black Canadian Maurice Ruddick tells the story of being trapped in a mine in Nova Scotia in 1958:

Another one that’s more honest about the racism in our history is this ad about the Chinese people who built the Canadian Pacific Railway:

“Damn it, that’s the third one we’ve lost this week,” says one of the white supervisors in the clip, showing how Chinese workers were treated as expendable objects.

The rest of the ads dealing with people of colour and First Nations people fall into two categories: those that put white Canada on its high horse about its history of tolerance (especially compared to the US), and those that have a voyeuristic feel, telling the stories of people of colour from a white perspective.

The best example of the high-horse group is the ad about the Underground Railroad:

The escape of African-American slaves to the Northern US and Canada via the Underground Railroad is unquestionably a key event in Canadian history. The Historica Dominica lesson suggests the white woman in the ad is a Quaker. Given that Quakers helped lead the anti-slavery movement among whites, it’s not totally inaccurate. But if the ad just ends up signifying white Canadians more generally, it could imply that all or most white Canadians accepted and facilitated the Underground Railroad.

On the contrary, the official response was mixed. Immigrants and refugees to Canada were given land or provisions by the government, but this was not extended to those who arrived via the Underground Railroad. In addition many former slaves received hostile and openly racist treatment from white Canadians upon arrival. The systemic racism experienced by black Canadians today should further limit our ability to toot our own horn about our supposedly tolerant past. Another ad that shares this issue to a lesser extent is the one about Jackie Robinson playing for the Montreal Royals.

In a similar holier-than-thou vein, this ad about Sitting Bull features the famous Hunkpapa Lakota leader extolling the virtues of the North West Mounted Police while stating a distrust of the American forces. At least this one has a short disclaimer-like sentence at the end, something many of the others could’ve benefited from.

The second group of ads have a voyeuristic feel, using white voices to tell the stories of people of colour and First Nations.

In The Imaginary Indian: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Culture, author Daniel Francis notes how Canadian school textbooks constructed a frozen image of what First Nations people and their history were made of: “The textbook Indian* is very much a figure of the past, frozen in time like a butterfly in amber. Textbooks implied, if they did not state outright, that the important business of civilization went on without them.”

Some of the Heritage Minutes carry on this unfortunate tradition, showing First Nations in stasis and usually denying them agency by telling their stories through white eyes. Take, for example, the story of  how Canada got its name, or how white people learned to make maple syrup:

Other examples are the ad about Inuit building an inukshuk on Baffin Island, watched by a white RCMP officer, and the ad about Emily Carr. The only more modern story of a First Nations person – Canada’s most decorated Aboriginal war veteran Tommy Prince – is also told in the form of a eulogy given by white people.

The two episodes that deal with Canada’s work in Africa have the same issue. One looks at Canadian surgeon Lucille Teasdale’s efforts to build a hospital in Uganda in the 1960s. The other shows Canada’s peacekeeping role in the 1963 Congo civil war:

All of these are remarkable stories that deserve to be shared. The issue is that by having only white people take the lead in telling them, it belies the idea that we’re a truly multicultural nation giving everyone equal voice and importance.

In the third and final instalment I want to talk a little bit more about the cultural significance of the Heritage Minutes and share some of my favourite parodies. Let me know if you’ve seen any you think I should consider. I’d still really like to know which Heritage Minute you find most memorable so please comment below!

*Francis explains that he uses the term “Indian” when he is describing the view of Indigenous people held by non-Indigenous people. 

Part II: 
So, still unconvinced after my Part I emotional plea? You can refute my “feelings” all you want. But how about a real, peer-reviewed scientific study? You can’t mess with a one-two punch of emotions AND science, right?

In a 2008 study published in the Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology, Dr. Stephanie Fryburg (Stanford Almuna and one of my professor idols) took the mascot issue head-on. The paper can be read, in full, here.

Her article, “Of Warrior Chiefs and Indian Princesses: The Psychological Consequences of American Indian Mascots”, consisted of 4 studies, using Native youth from an Arizona reservation as her subjects.

Study 1: Students are given images of Pocahontas, Chief Wahoo, and a list of negative stereotypes. Afterward, they are asked to generate a list of word associations. For Pocahontas and Chief Wahoo, ~80% of their word associations were positive. (I know, that’s backwards, right?) for the negative stereotype list, only ~8% were positive (about what you’d expect). But before you get on my case about proving mascots aren’t bad…

Study 2: Students are primed with the same images or stereotypes list, but instead of word association, their self-esteem is measured. Students show depressed self-esteem in all 3 conditions, and their self-esteem was lower in the image conditions, versus the list. This means that even when the students are saying the mascots aren’t bothering them, or they are associating positive things with them, they are still exhibiting depressed self-esteem. Whoa.

Study 3: The same procedure as 1&2 was followed, but students were asked about community worth at the end of the conditions (“I respect people in my community”). Students primed with the images and the stereotypes exhibited decreased feelings of community worth, following the same pattern as above. So looking at a mascot makes students de-value their community.

Then, the kicker:

Study 4: College students were shown images of Chief Wahoo (“bad image”), Chief Illiniwek, and the Haskell Indian Nations University Indian (“good” images), as well as an image from AIGC’s campaign (an actual good image), and then asked to generate “possible selves”–looking forward to the future and how they see themselves. Those primed with the mascot images (even the good ones), generated far less acheivement-related possible selves than those with the control or AIGC image. Basically, looking at a mascot limits the way Native students see themselves succeeding.

…and a horrible follow-up, Fryburg did another study that compared white students, and in all the areas where Native students’ self esteem, community worth, and possible selves went down, white students went up. No active oppression in American society, right? White students directly benefit from racism against Native students.

In sum: Scientific research shows that mascots and Indian stereotypes, regardless of if they are “good” images (Pocahontas, The Fighting Sioux) or “bad” images (Chief Wahoo), they cause depressed self esteem, decreased community worth, and decreased possible selves–even when students say the images don’t bother them. Andimages are worse than words.

So still want to tell me how the Fighting Sioux are no big deal and I should get over it?

-Adrienne K.

(photo of Chief Illiwinek mascot at a University of Illinois football game, via Wikimedia Commons)

This is a two-part post by Adrienne K. It was originally posted at her blog, Native Appropriations.

Adrienne K. is a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and a graduate student in Boston, where she studies access to higher education for Native students. In her free time, she blogs about cultural appropriation and use of Indigenous cultures, traditions, languages, and images in popular culture, advertising, and everyday life at Native Appropriations.

As of last Wednesday, University of North Dakota (UND) has reinstated their use of the “Fighting Sioux” mascot, which was banned last year. Residents of the state gathered over 17,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot in the upcoming elections, and the UND administration says that they wanted to show that they “honor the refrendum process” by reinstating the mascot.

I, of course, think this is messed up beyond belief. Not only does this put UND in risk of violating NCAA rules that won’t allow post-season games at schools with Indian mascots, it sends a huge “eff you” to everyone in the Native (and ally) community who worked their butts off to get the mascot removed in the first place.

So, because my mascot posts tend to draw mascot defenders from the dregs of the internets, let me refute your claims right off the bat (excuse me as I plagiarize my own hipster headdress manifesto):

But mascots are HONORING the bravery and fierceness of Indians! 
No. They’re not. Honoring someone does not consist of taking their culture, reducing it to a one-dimensional racist stereotype, and representing them however you see fit. It’s about power and who has the right to represent whom. Also, this cartoon helps. I don’t consider a dude in warpaint and feathers making a mockery of my culture honoring. At all. Also, not all Indians are “fierce” and “brave,” just like not all white (or Black or Latino) people are “<insert stereotype here>”.

I’m Irish (Norwegian, Catholic) and don’t get offended by the Fighting Irish (Vikings, Padres)!
That’s because there is not an active system of colonialism and oppression marginalizing the Irish, “Vikings”, or Catholics in our country. Native peoples are still living under colonial rule–take a look at stats from any area of society, and you’ll see Native people at the bottom. I’m sorry if you feel “oppressed” as a catholic or a viking–but you still have a helluva lot of white privilege that kinda negates it. Sorry.

What’s next, animal rights activists telling us we can’t use ANIMALS as mascots?! Where does it end?!
Yeah, cause Native people (PEOPLE) are on the same level as animals? Thanks buddy. Thanks a lot.

What about the Wizards? Pirates? Cowboys? 
Um, mythical beings or occupations are not the same as an entire race of people.

But tribal members support the mascot! So it’s ok!
No. It isn’t. Hitler was a white guy. Can I then deduce that all white men think it’s ok to murder millions of people? And don’t cite that stupid Sports Illustrated poll that says 90% of Indians support mascots. That thing has so many issues with sampling and validity it’s not even funny. Yeah, a few tribal members might support the mascot. But it’s a sad commentary on how invisible we are in society, because most of them cite the fact that they feel “proud” to be “recognized” and “remembered”. If the only way Native peoples are viewed in the US are as racist stereotypical mascots, (or in movies, tv, and advertising) is it better to be invisible, or seen as a stereotype?

Don’t you have BIGGER issues to worry about? Like poverty and alcoholism?!
Yeah, we do. But most people, because they’re so inundated with these images all. the. time. don’t have the wherewithal to realize that Native peoples exist in contemporary society. The collective American consciousness has reduced us to a easily-digestible stereotype, and in that act, erased our ongoing struggles. In order for us to move forward as a people, we need to acknowledge and interrogate these stereotypes, so we can move past them. The two go hand-in-hand.

But the Fighting Sioux image is a “good” image. It’s not blatantly racist like the Cleveland Indians! 
Well thank you for that transition, it’s almost like you planned it! Get ready for some science (SCIENCE!).

Jump to Part II