PDA

View Full Version : Native Actors Walk off Set of Adam Sandler Movie After Insults to Women, Elders



RedRajah
04-24-2015, 01:33 AM
Native Actors Walk off Set of Adam Sandler Movie After Insults to Women, Elders (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/04/23/native-actors-walk-set-adam-sandler-movie-after-insults-women-elders-160110)

maxmordon
04-24-2015, 11:44 AM
Not surprised about this. Between this and the debacle of Will Farrel's latest movie, it feels like society is moving on some things while they remain on autopilot doing the same kind of comedy since the from 10 or 20 years ago.

Alessandra Kelley
04-24-2015, 03:15 PM
What a horrible thing to spring on those actors. Everything about the movie sounds awful.

Snowstorm
04-24-2015, 05:48 PM
That's disgusting. Good on those who took a stand.

How could any filmmaker/screenwriter thinks that's even remotely okay or funny?

Amadan
04-24-2015, 05:51 PM
That's disgusting. Good on those who took a stand.

How could any filmmaker/screenwriter thinks that's even remotely okay or funny?


It's Adam Sandler.

aruna
04-24-2015, 07:40 PM
It's Adam Sandler.

Tell me again why I'm not surprised.

backslashbaby
04-24-2015, 11:21 PM
Why was that ever funny? It's just a string of racist filth and always has been. I can't believe they thought that just hiring a Native consultant that they don't listen to would absolve them of having to have some damned sense in their heads.

regdog
04-24-2015, 11:24 PM
I'm not at all surprised. One of Sandler's last movies was about a school teacher who had a sexual affair with a minor child and got pregnant by him. Apparently the idea of child rape is comedy. Who knew?

Why does anyone find him funny again?

Gilroy Cullen
04-24-2015, 11:24 PM
Is it sad I've never found Mr. Sandler funny?

Maryn
04-25-2015, 12:43 AM
What I find odd is that when I see Sandler interviewed, he's funny, thoughtful, self-deprecating, and had moments of spontaneous wit. Yet his movies suck lime green donkey balls, as we say at Purgatory.

maxmordon
04-25-2015, 01:04 AM
What I find odd is that when I see Sandler interviewed, he's funny, thoughtful, self-deprecating, and had moments of spontaneous wit. Yet his movies suck lime green donkey balls, as we say at Purgatory.

I think he has been running on autopilot for a while now. Same deal with Eddie Murphey and some others.

Alessandra Kelley
04-25-2015, 02:30 AM
The BBC has picked up the story.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-32447263

J.S.F.
04-25-2015, 03:57 AM
Dumbass move by Sandler, but then again, his movies aren't exactly known for their sensitivity. (I'll except The Wedding Singer, as it was actually quite good). The Native Americans were right to protest and I hope they sue the hell out of him. Comedy is one thing, but insulting for the sheer hell of it with ZERO sensitivity is something else.

As someone said, why am I not surprised.

mccardey
04-25-2015, 04:02 AM
The BBC has picked up the story.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-32447263

We heard about it (http://junkee.com/adam-sandlers-latest-movie-is-so-racist-and-awful-that-native-american-extras-are-walking-out-en-masse/55627) in Australia, too...

I had an argument bit of a chat with someone the other day about how Everyone Keeps Getting Offended At Stuff And Changing The Rules.

Because that's always a fun conversation. The one where Stagnation of Thought is a noble goal.

ETA: Ah me, those children of the 60s. How they have aged (and become JUST LIKE THEIR PARENTS!)

William Haskins
04-25-2015, 04:49 AM
The Native Americans were right to protest and I hope they sue the hell out of him. Comedy is one thing, but insulting for the sheer hell of it with ZERO sensitivity is something else.

sue for what?

J.S.F.
04-25-2015, 05:20 AM
sue for what?

---

Emotional distress, racist depictions...they'll find something. Even if they don't win, they'll make Sandler look like an insensitive jerk...which he was.

mccardey
04-25-2015, 05:44 AM
---

Emotional distress, racist depictions...they'll find something. Even if they don't win, they'll make Sandler look like an insensitive jerk...which he was.

I don't know that that will happen, but if the pre-chatter leads to the project getting shelved, I expect the completion guarantor will have things to say...

Tally
04-25-2015, 06:18 AM
Were his old movies this terrible? I watched them when I was young, and remember enjoying them, but you know how you think of things you liked as a kid and wonder if they were actually good or if you were just dumb and ignorant back then? Yeah.

William Haskins
04-25-2015, 06:48 AM
---

Emotional distress, racist depictions...they'll find something. Even if they don't win, they'll make Sandler look like an insensitive jerk...which he was.

the public relations disaster will illuminate that just fine.

what are the courts supposed to be expected to do about free expression?

do you really want disapproval of art (such that it is) litigated?

aruna
04-25-2015, 08:51 AM
I only ever saw one Adam Sander movie and I had to gag. I remember once asking for movie recommendations on AW, and one of the stipulations was: nothing with AS. I can just imagine the "humour". Something about the guy...

aruna
04-25-2015, 10:33 AM
Hahaha, here are the (funny. not.) jokes. (http://defamer.gawker.com/these-are-the-jokes-that-caused-actors-to-walk-off-adam-1699990455)

Albedo
04-25-2015, 10:39 AM
The Sony leaks showed even the studio hates Adam Sandler movies, and the audiences have been staying home in droves for years. I don't see how much longer the 'Adam Sandler movie' can remain a thing in Hollywood, unless the guy's actually signed some sort of pact with the Devil.

Ravioli
04-25-2015, 03:45 PM
I only liked "You don't mess with the Zohan" because the Israeli humor was so recognizable. Other than that, he annoys me. I hate the screamy voice he does for many of his characters and his toilet humor is getting old.

kevinwaynewilliams
04-25-2015, 06:43 PM
I only ever saw one Adam Sander movie and I had to gag. I remember once asking for movie recommendations on AW, and one of the stipulations was: nothing with AS. I can just imagine the "humour". Something about the guy...

Sad thing is, he actually can act. Punch-Drunk Love (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0272338) was a poignant and painful film to watch, one that made me physically cringe as the bad things happened to the lead because I empathised with him so thoroughly. Yet, that kind of performance obviously isn't what he chooses to do.

Chris P
04-25-2015, 06:57 PM
Hahaha, here are the (funny. not.) jokes. (http://defamer.gawker.com/these-are-the-jokes-that-caused-actors-to-walk-off-adam-1699990455)

Good grief. Who'd have thought poopy-mouthed preteens had enough money to make them a targetable market?

Oh, yeah. Adam Sandler thought that.

Alessandra Kelley
04-25-2015, 07:02 PM
I find it interesting that the actors were Navajos hired to play Apaches.

Also, did I read correctly, is Dan Ayckroyd involved with this project?

kuwisdelu
04-25-2015, 08:03 PM
I find it interesting that the actors were Navajos hired to play Apaches.

Hollywood can't even hire a Japanese actress to play a geisha.

It's a lot easier to find Navajos than Apaches.

maxmordon
04-25-2015, 08:44 PM
Sad thing is, he actually can act. Punch-Drunk Love (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0272338) was a poignant and painful film to watch, one that made me physically cringe as the bad things happened to the lead because I empathised with him so thoroughly. Yet, that kind of performance obviously isn't what he chooses to do.

I think there's a difference between an Adam Sandler movie and a movie that just happens to have Adam Sandler in it. This belongs to the latter.

Marian Perera
04-25-2015, 10:17 PM
Come back, Cassie Edwards! All is forgiven!

mirandashell
04-25-2015, 10:19 PM
Hollywood can't even hire a Japanese actress to play a geisha.

It's a lot easier to find Navajos than Apaches.

Can I ask why that is? Genuine question. I'm English and don't know much NA history apart from Westerns. Which are obviously not to be trusted.

kuwisdelu
04-25-2015, 10:38 PM
Can I ask why that is? Genuine question. I'm English and don't know much NA history apart from Westerns. Which are obviously not to be trusted.

There are a lot more of them.

Amadan
04-25-2015, 10:39 PM
Can I ask why that is? Genuine question. I'm English and don't know much NA history apart from Westerns. Which are obviously not to be trusted.


Mostly because the Navajo tribe is by far the larger one. There are (I think) more Navajos around than any other NA tribe.

mirandashell
04-25-2015, 10:42 PM
There are a lot more of them.

Are Navajo Plain NA? Is that the reason why? I'm probably asking dumb questions.

Amadan
04-25-2015, 10:46 PM
Are Navajo Plain NA? Is that the reason why? I'm probably asking dumb questions.


No, American Southwest. The Navajo Nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation) is mostly mountains and desert.

mirandashell
04-25-2015, 10:51 PM
So.... bits the white people didn't really want?

backslashbaby
04-25-2015, 11:08 PM
Eh, the white people still took 9/10ths of it, but yeah, they didn't know about the oil, etc, way back in the day.

The Cherokee Nation is bigger than the Navajo.

mirandashell
04-25-2015, 11:10 PM
Why is the Apache Nation so small?

backslashbaby
04-25-2015, 11:26 PM
Dunno. I actually don't know much about the history out west. I'm from two tribes that were here in the Southeast (one still is and the other is now out west).

But tribes were and are very different, so size differences might not be all about the genocide.

mirandashell
04-25-2015, 11:28 PM
Ah I see.

You have to treat me as an alien as I know very very little about NA history or politics or anything really.

Chumplet
04-26-2015, 12:16 AM
I don't hate all the Sandler movies. I particularly enjoyed the ones with Drew Barrymore, and Mr. Deeds. Sure, they have slapstick comedy that can be a bit over the top, but so does The Simpsons.


The way this particular movie script was described is unsettling. I hope the production company makes significant changes.

Kylabelle
04-26-2015, 12:21 AM
The Navajo were/are a relatively settled culture. Sheepherders. The Apache were nomads and their culture relied on following game, mostly buffalo I believe, and setting camps in various locations at different seasons. Because they were not centralized and their culture valued fighting, they were much more vulnerable in the end, so they were nearly destroyed by the U.S. military. That's my understanding at any rate, and no doubt is a simplification of a much more complex reality. For instance, I also learned that most of the Plains tribes -- the nomadic hunters -- originated in more settled cultures east of the Mississippi but were driven west by the early European pressures on the land and on their survival practices which relied on a biosphere that became compromised.

Also, horses came along (with Spaniards? Gosh I have forgotten a ton of stuff here) and created the possibility of nomad life which had not existed before. But the Plains cultures were much simpler than the settled nations to the East (Cherokee, Iriquois, Ojibway, etc.) and the settled agricultural nations of the Southwest, such as Navajo.

Kuwi, I'm guessing you'll speak up if I got any important bits wrong in this. :)

mirandashell
04-26-2015, 12:29 AM
Thanks Kylabelle.

It's like Kuwi said on another thread, American history in Brit schools starts in 1492 and remains white-centric. So we are woefully ignorant about NA history and culture.

Chumplet
04-26-2015, 12:30 AM
Extensive study of the native peoples of North America should be an important part of school curriculum. I am one quarter Mi'kmaq, yet I know little of my own history.

kuwisdelu
04-26-2015, 12:32 AM
Some tribes have always been bigger than others, and some have been unluckier than others.

Kylabelle
04-26-2015, 12:34 AM
Miranda, it's the same here, or was when I was in public school. I sought out what I know.

Chumplet I completely agree. Let's see, Mi'kmaq is Pacific Northwest?

Chumplet
04-26-2015, 12:51 AM
Chumplet I completely agree. Let's see, Mi'kmaq is Pacific Northwest?

They're Northeast. Mostly the Maritimes and later in Maine.

Kylabelle
04-26-2015, 01:02 AM
Ah. I'm not so familiar with Canadian geography, or history either. Though to the original nations here, that boundary didn't exist, did it?

Chumplet
04-26-2015, 01:04 AM
Ah. I'm not so familiar with Canadian geography, or history either. Though to the original nations here, that boundary didn't exist, did it?

Generally not. My brother is Canadian, but due to his heritage he has additional rights while living in the States. There's paperwork involved, but not as much as non-Native Canadians.

Kylabelle
04-26-2015, 01:36 AM
My cousin, who is kind of the family historian, was telling me the other day that our grandmother used to say she had enough Cherokee to claim membership in the band. She knew the name of the people she (and we) were descended from, too, but as I only heard this once recently I promptly forgot the names. I'm terrible with names anyway.

But (the story went on) my grandmother always said, why would she want to claim membership in the band? It seemed to have no advantages, to her. And probably didn't.

maxmordon
04-26-2015, 02:11 AM
Extensive study of the native peoples of North America should be an important part of school curriculum. I am one quarter Mi'kmaq, yet I know little of my own history.

Here in Venezuela 7th grade History was nothing but the pre-hispanic civilizations.

Chumplet
04-26-2015, 02:24 AM
My cousin, who is kind of the family historian, was telling me the other day that our grandmother used to say she had enough Cherokee to claim membership in the band. She knew the name of the people she (and we) were descended from, too, but as I only heard this once recently I promptly forgot the names. I'm terrible with names anyway.

But (the story went on) my grandmother always said, why would she want to claim membership in the band? It seemed to have no advantages, to her. And probably didn't.

My grandfather gave up his status after being abused in a residential school. It wasn't until much later that he regained his status, and thus my mother, who had lost it by marrying a non-native.

The rules changed so much over decades. It wasn't until about 15 years ago that I was told I could apply for status, but never bothered because it wasn't to my advantage.

My siblings did, however, because they were both self-employed.

After years of letter-writing, I finally achieved status, but now I'm procrastinating about getting my "card."

backslashbaby
04-26-2015, 02:32 AM
That's cool, Max! We (my schools in NC and TN) learned a lot about local tribes and wars when they also involved whites, but my classes really skipped over a lot of the atrocities.


My cousin, who is kind of the family historian, was telling me the other day that our grandmother used to say she had enough Cherokee to claim membership in the band. She knew the name of the people she (and we) were descended from, too, but as I only heard this once recently I promptly forgot the names. I'm terrible with names anyway.

But (the story went on) my grandmother always said, why would she want to claim membership in the band? It seemed to have no advantages, to her. And probably didn't.

If she had no connection to her tribe, I can see that. But then again, a lot of younger folks do go looking for that connection, and I think that's great. Assimilation was used as a way to kill the cultures, so very often the broken connection is due to that.

My own grandparents moved away from his hometown to pass for white to get good jobs (both mixedbloods, different tribes). Then my mother wasn't allowed to tell anyone she was Indian while growing up :(

But when his grandkids were born, he couldn't stand it and did have us embrace our heritage :) It helped that it was the 70s by then, of course! I'm registered with his tribe, but it has nothing to do with any advantages; he was just happy that you could come out and be proud of being native by then in our area.

maxmordon
04-26-2015, 03:13 AM
That's cool, Max! We (my schools in NC and TN) learned a lot about local tribes and wars when they also involved whites, but my classes really skipped over a lot of the atrocities.



For us, it was very anthropological, though. You know, the Caribs lived here and here and were hunters, warriors and fishers and live in multi-family units. The Arawaks lived there and there and were farmers and fishers and lived in single-family units and so forth. Then the Spaniards came, wiped them out and the rest were assimilated (which isn't true).

Looking back, it was very dehumanizing. They taught us nothing about their culture beyond the fact some of them made pottery and the occasional legend which were presented as a mere curiosity.

Marian Perera
04-26-2015, 05:02 AM
Here in Venezuela 7th grade History was nothing but the pre-hispanic civilizations.

I grew up in Dubai and learned nothing at all about the country's history or culture. Because in school, we were taught about Britain instead.

mirandashell
04-26-2015, 05:02 AM
What age is 7th grade?

Alessandra Kelley
04-26-2015, 05:04 AM
What age is 7th grade?

About thirteen.

kuwisdelu
04-26-2015, 05:07 AM
My cousin, who is kind of the family historian, was telling me the other day that our grandmother used to say she had enough Cherokee to claim membership in the band. She knew the name of the people she (and we) were descended from, too, but as I only heard this once recently I promptly forgot the names. I'm terrible with names anyway.

There's no such thing as "having enough Cherokee to claim membership". You either are or you aren't. The Cherokee tribes don't use blood quantum to determine tribal membership. If you can show you are a direct descendant of someone on the Dawes Rolls, you are Cherokee and can enroll in one of the Cherokee tribes.

mirandashell
04-26-2015, 05:57 AM
Kuwi - how does tribal membership work? what is the Dawes Roll?

maxmordon
04-26-2015, 06:38 AM
I grew up in Dubai and learned nothing at all about the country's history or culture. Because in school, we were taught about Britain instead.

That's a crying shame.


About thirteen.

That's right. We saw three years of Venezuelan History, one year of World History and one year of a class that was nothing but how great Simón Bolívar was.

Marian Perera
04-26-2015, 07:02 AM
That's a crying shame.

Oh, that's just scratching the surface. The history textbooks had a couple of pages about Israel, and the school made sure we glued those pages together. We even had representatives from the Ministry of Education come to the classroom and inspect the textbooks to make sure we had no idea Israel existed.

kuwisdelu
04-26-2015, 07:51 AM
Kuwi - how does tribal membership work? what is the Dawes Roll?

It depends on the tribe.

Many tribes use blood quantum (i.e., proportion of blood), which IMO is another remnant of white oppression, through which fewer and fewer people qualify for tribal enrollment as people intermarry. Most tribes that use blood quantum use 1/4 blood, including Zuni (my tribe) and Navajo. A very few use 1/2 blood, and a few more use 1/8 blood. There are very few that use 1/16 or 1/32, despite these fractions being commonly quoted in pop culture.

Some other tribes (rightly, IMO) do not use blood quantum, and instead use lineal descent. This includes the three Cherokee tribes. The Cherokee tribes allow tribal enrollment if you can trace a direct ancestor to the Dawes Rolls, which are simply a census taken of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole tribes in 1893.

Edit: IMO, there is no such thing as being "part Indian". You either are, or you aren't. Tribal enrollment is part of that, but so is community involvement, IMO. Particularly considering how many Native Americans have 100% native blood, but not enough from any single tribe to qualify for enrollment. What is important is not the blood, but the heart. You can be Native American. Or you can have Native American ancestry. But you cannot be "part Native American". If you say that, I will ask "which part?"

aruna
04-26-2015, 09:43 AM
In British Guiana we hae British History and West Indian History at school. However, West Indian History was about the European conquest of the West Indies; we learned about the Caribs (aggressive) and Arawaks (peaceful) and how the lands were settled.
Today, the many tribes of Guyana have arrived at a certain amount of dignity and are not only given the appropriate acknowledgement but have their own Ministry (Ministry of Amerindian Affairs) and have MPs representing them in parliament. I am descended from one of the most prominent and politically active Amerindian families, the Allicocks. One of my great-grandfathers married an Amerindian woman.

frimble3
04-26-2015, 10:57 AM
In British Columbia, when I was in school (60's and 70's) all we seemed to do was the founding of Eastern Canada, ad nauseum.
John Cabot brought the cod fishermen, the French built forts, the English/Scots traded furs. It invariably ended at the building of Quebec City. The only mention of First Nations (Native Americans) was that they brought the furs to trade, and acted as guides. No mention of the Metis at all, which conveniently meant no one had to explain the Riel Rebellion.
The only mention of British Columbia was one sentence: Alexander MacKenzie completed the first overland crossing of Canada, and North America, in 1793.
He (supposedly) wrote his name on a big rock. This is noteworthy because he beat Lewis and Clark by a decade.
In the 12th grade (last year - we'd be 17 or 18) one lucky teacher got to fill us in on everything else:
the settling of the West, the Transcontinental Railroad, the Great Depression, WWI and WWII, and post war events. Rumor had it that this teacher drank. I am not surprised at all. Poor woman.

B.C. tribes, like the Haida, the Nootka, the Musqueam, got no mention at all.
Some of you may remember Chief Dan George, who was the 'TV and Movie' Indian before Graham Greene (the actor, not the writer) came along? His best known role was in 'Little Big Man'. He did comedies, but I can't see him putting up with Adam Sandler, either.

backslashbaby
04-27-2015, 12:36 AM
It depends on the tribe.

Many tribes use blood quantum (i.e., proportion of blood), which IMO is another remnant of white oppression, through which fewer and fewer people qualify for tribal enrollment as people intermarry. Most tribes that use blood quantum use 1/4 blood, including Zuni (my tribe) and Navajo. A very few use 1/2 blood, and a few more use 1/8 blood. There are very few that use 1/16 or 1/32, despite these fractions being commonly quoted in pop culture.

Some other tribes (rightly, IMO) do not use blood quantum, and instead use lineal descent. This includes the three Cherokee tribes. The Cherokee tribes allow tribal enrollment if you can trace a direct ancestor to the Dawes Rolls, which are simply a census taken of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole tribes in 1893.
...

Kuwi, the Eastern Band does have a blood quantum requirement, too, actually (1/16, I think). And they use the Baker Roll instead of Dawes, so that's 1924 or something.

regdog
04-27-2015, 02:48 AM
I'm really pissed with Netflix defending that crap as parody.
No, Space Balls is parody, what is being said and the names given the characters in the Sandler movie is racism. Big difference.

BenPanced
04-27-2015, 03:10 AM
People also pointed at Blazing Saddles as a prime example of racism in comments about this. No, it's a clever satire of racist ideas that are actually still prevalent today. Big difference.

blacbird
04-27-2015, 07:39 AM
The Sony leaks showed even the studio hates Adam Sandler movies, and the audiences have been staying home in droves for years. I don't see how much longer the 'Adam Sandler movie' can remain a thing in Hollywood, unless the guy's actually signed some sort of pact with the Devil.

This, emphasized. I have had the regrettable experience of watching two of three Adam Sandler movies, and they are about the most unfunny flicks I can imagine, for things touted as "comedies". A couple of years ago I had the unimaginably horrid experience of being obligated to take my 15-year-old niece, who was visiting, to one of his films (thanks to therapy, I forget which). She thought it was awful. Even ears ago, on SNL, I found him almost unwatchable, although the alumni of that show encompass several other equally dreadful performers (Rob Schneider instantly comes to mind). Sandler just plain makes me cringe. How in any universe has this guy continued to be on screen as long as he has?

caw

T Robinson
04-27-2015, 08:07 AM
This, emphasized. I have had the regrettable experience of watching two of three Adam Sandler movies, and they are about the most unfunny flicks I can imagine, for things touted as "comedies". A couple of years ago I had the unimaginably horrid experience of being obligated to take my 15-year-old niece, who was visiting, to one of his films (thanks to therapy, I forget which). She thought it was awful. Even ears ago, on SNL, I found him almost unwatchable, although the alumni of that show encompass several other equally dreadful performers (Rob Schneider instantly comes to mind). Sandler just plain makes me cringe. How in any universe has this guy continued to be on screen as long as he has?

caw

I feel better reading this thread. I have never been able to understand what people liked about Sandler. Totally not funny.

AW Admin
04-27-2015, 09:47 AM
Some tribes have always been bigger than others, and some have been unluckier than others.

It's also tricky because non-first nations peoples moved them forcibly to new homes in both the U.S. and Canada.

It's also tricky because of the usual issues of names; those of a group have one or more names for themselves; those not of the group have other names for them. The name with the most guns unfortunately usually wins.

It's also tricky because, despite the forcible removal of peoples, we still want to associate geography with ethnicity and heritage, instead of language.

It's also tricky because we seem to be losing first nations languages faster than we can even attempt to record them. Lose a language, lose a culture.

So to a linguist, Navajo and Apache are both speakers of languages from the Athabaskan (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40564/Athabaskan-language-family) language group. But that's (roughly) like saying the Welsh and the Irish are Celtic speakers; the languages have not been mutually intelligible for thousands of years.

L M Ashton
04-28-2015, 06:51 AM
In British Columbia, when I was in school (60's and 70's) all we seemed to do was the founding of Eastern Canada, ad nauseum.
John Cabot brought the cod fishermen, the French built forts, the English/Scots traded furs. It invariably ended at the building of Quebec City. The only mention of First Nations (Native Americans) was that they brought the furs to trade, and acted as guides. No mention of the Metis at all, which conveniently meant no one had to explain the Riel Rebellion.
The only mention of British Columbia was one sentence: Alexander MacKenzie completed the first overland crossing of Canada, and North America, in 1793.
He (supposedly) wrote his name on a big rock. This is noteworthy because he beat Lewis and Clark by a decade.
In the 12th grade (last year - we'd be 17 or 18) one lucky teacher got to fill us in on everything else:
the settling of the West, the Transcontinental Railroad, the Great Depression, WWI and WWII, and post war events. Rumor had it that this teacher drank. I am not surprised at all. Poor woman.

B.C. tribes, like the Haida, the Nootka, the Musqueam, got no mention at all.
Some of you may remember Chief Dan George, who was the 'TV and Movie' Indian before Graham Greene (the actor, not the writer) came along? His best known role was in 'Little Big Man'. He did comedies, but I can't see him putting up with Adam Sandler, either.
I went to school in various towns in British Columbia and Alberta in the 1970s and 1980s. I recall pretty much everything you mentioned, but we did learn about the Metis and the Riel Rebellion. There was a lot more we could have learned, like the history of First Nations people, which was barely mentioned at all, if that, even when we lived in towns with fairly sizeable First Nations populations or a reservation with First Nations students attending the same school that I attended. What a damn shame.

regdog
04-28-2015, 02:52 PM
People also pointed at Blazing Saddles as a prime example of racism in comments about this. No, it's a clever satire of racist ideas that are actually still prevalent today. Big difference.

Exactly, Mel Brooks is a brilliant satirist and comedian. Adam Sandler is an unfunny douche.

J.S.F.
04-29-2015, 03:17 PM
In British Columbia, when I was in school (60's and 70's) all we seemed to do was the founding of Eastern Canada, ad nauseum.
John Cabot brought the cod fishermen, the French built forts, the English/Scots traded furs. It invariably ended at the building of Quebec City. The only mention of First Nations (Native Americans) was that they brought the furs to trade, and acted as guides. No mention of the Metis at all, which conveniently meant no one had to explain the Riel Rebellion.
The only mention of British Columbia was one sentence: Alexander MacKenzie completed the first overland crossing of Canada, and North America, in 1793.
He (supposedly) wrote his name on a big rock. This is noteworthy because he beat Lewis and Clark by a decade.
In the 12th grade (last year - we'd be 17 or 18) one lucky teacher got to fill us in on everything else:
the settling of the West, the Transcontinental Railroad, the Great Depression, WWI and WWII, and post war events. Rumor had it that this teacher drank. I am not surprised at all. Poor woman.

B.C. tribes, like the Haida, the Nootka, the Musqueam, got no mention at all.
Some of you may remember Chief Dan George, who was the 'TV and Movie' Indian before Graham Greene (the actor, not the writer) came along? His best known role was in 'Little Big Man'. He did comedies, but I can't see him putting up with Adam Sandler, either.
---

I was born in Toronto in 1962 and in junior high and high school we were taught about the Metis, the Riel Rebellion, and the way that the Native Canadians and Americans were mistreated. I guess it varied from school to school and province to province. We did learn something about various tribes, but it was almost an afterthought.

Fortunately, my mother (American by birth) filled me in on the various tribes she knew about within North America. She always had an interest in Native Americans and passed that on to me. We used to make lists every year when I was small about which tribe lived where. It was quite a shock to find out that each year the list grew smaller and smaller.

bombergirl69
04-29-2015, 06:26 PM
Not a sandler fan at all and glad they walked off.

I don't know as there is a "right" and "wrong" about blood quantum. The Blackfeet (Pikuni, or southern Piegan) tribe, my husband's, uses 1/4 and has since the 60's. Enrollment comes with various "benefits" (I use that term lightly). Changing blood quantum requirements is a very hot potato on the rez (US anyway, i don't know about the Blood - one of the three tribes in Canada that make up the Blackfeet nation- policy) with both sides making valid points. People feel strongly on both sides.

And there are many tribal members who will say, "I'm Blackfeet (no question) but I'm also part...filipino, Kenyan, white," whatever (usually followed by "on my dad/mom's side").So if they were asked "which part?" that's how they'd answer (mom/dad). But people know families (some might call them clans - so "oh, he/she's a Heavy Runner/Boy/Running Crane/Little Dog" and they tend to know who fits where.

And then there are those who do not live on the reservation, who don't really feel connected, who might not share their heritage at all unless asked. They might say they are white(or whatever they feel they are) and add that their grandfather or someone was Blackfeet (or whatever tribe).People define themselves in all sorts of ways.

I think there are as many ways to do it as there are people!

And yes, education about Native Americans is sorely lacking, but is hardly helped with the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian telling my husband that he is "represented by the Sioux". He was disgusted (and not impressed at all with the museum).

A quick glance at Halloween costumes will give anyone a pretty good sense of how far we have to go in this area, but I suspect that is a topic for another thread! ;)

kuwisdelu
04-29-2015, 11:51 PM
And there are many tribal members who will say, "I'm Blackfeet (no question) but I'm also part...filipino, Kenyan, white," whatever (usually followed by "on my dad/mom's side").So if they were asked "which part?" that's how they'd answer (mom/dad).

My blood is 1/2, but I am Zuni, not half Zuni.

If one doesn't feel comfortable fully claiming an identity — if one only claims a fraction of an identity — then they should not claim it at all, IMO.

Conversely, I don't say I'm Polish or that I'm part Polish. I say I have Polish ancestry. If I ever become involved with and identify with the Polish community, maybe then I would start saying I am Polish. Right now I don't.

bombergirl69
04-30-2015, 04:01 AM
Yes, it's interesting. For the Blackfeet, if you are less than a 1/4, you are not recognized as Blackfeet but are considered a descendent. There are lots of things tied to being a tribal member , medical care (if you live on the rez), you can inherit land and so forth. There have been various movments over the years to reduce the blood quantum but I do not believe they will. But still, how we define our selves is interesting.

As far as Hollywood, I think recent commercial attempts have been pretty lame but of course there are lots of views on it! My husband and others who tend to be traditional were horrified by the Johnny Depp Dead Bird on the Head thing. Either the role is a meaningful Native role(at which point why would one not want to get an actual Native to play it), or it is such a travesty that no Native would play it, which raises the question of why anyone would.

But there are younger folk, less traditional maybe, who like Depp, saw the movie as more a Depp vehicle than anything about Natives, and didn't really care about the whole thing.

I guess there's room for all opinions!

maxmordon
04-30-2015, 04:26 AM
People also pointed at Blazing Saddles as a prime example of racism in comments about this. No, it's a clever satire of racist ideas that are actually still prevalent today. Big difference.

Among other things, the plot shows racism as ignorant, arbitrary and divisive enough to harm and leave defenseless the underpriviledged to the ruling class.

Also, it has a great commentary on how cowboy movies usually had Native Americans played by people of other races, usually actors of Mexican origin like Ricardo Montalbán and Anthony Quinn, with Mel Brooks as the Yiddish-speaking Chief. Though those movies also had thier own issue with the Mexican actors, I mean, the most famous Mexican character in a cowboy movie is a Polish-American.

Roxxsmom
04-30-2015, 06:54 AM
Blazing Saddles had some childish humor, certainly, and it made use of stereotypes and so on. But it was also making fun of racists and racism, not simply tossing those jokes out there for yuk yuks.

Even so, some of what was in that movie might not fly today, at least not as it was presented in the 1970s.

Sensibilities evolve and change. From the sound of it, the film Adam Sandler's working on has failed to take both of these things into consideration.

maxmordon
04-30-2015, 08:05 AM
Sensibilities evolve and change. From the sound of it, the film Adam Sandler's working on has failed to take both of these things into consideration.

From the sound of it, it feels like Sandler is stuck with the same sensibilities and type of humor from his glory days.

backslashbaby
04-30-2015, 08:08 AM
That was the first thing I thought when I heard about it: What effing decade does he think this is? I mean, I know folks are still woefully racist about NDNs, but this is incredibly tone-deaf even considering that.

And it bugs me when folks don't know what satire is, too.

I can see why so many actors thought it could be a good movie, because NDNs generally do like poking fun at themselves very much :) It definitely wouldn't have to be completely politically correct, imho, but it would have to be actual satire, or either inoffensively and legitimately funny. Sandler missed the mark by miles, which doesn't surprise me exactly. That he missed it in such a racist way actually does surprise me.

bombergirl69
04-30-2015, 03:10 PM
... because NDNs generally do like poking fun at themselves very much :) It definitely wouldn't have to be completely politically correct, imho, but it would have to be actual satire, or either inoffensively and legitimately funny. .

I think this is true, but I think it's one thing to poke fun at oneself and another to have "fun" (and i'm not sure that is the word i 'd use here) poked at one from someone else. This would not just apply here but to any situation, and gets at what people find funny and acceptable.

My husband (never politically correct!) can and does tell jokes about his tribe and there is a great deal of teasing. But if his white friends repeat the jokes, they sound terrible. It's awkward. What works is if the white friends tell self deprecating jokes themselves - something about white people.

I think satirizing one group, particularly when there has been a long history of abuse, is really tricky and this sounds atrocious, with no effort to correct what was going wrong. Sandler was unwilling to even talk to his consultant! Had hair in braids (inaccurate), people wearing buckskin (also inaccurate for that tribal custom), tipi constructed inaccurately - I can't imagine what Sandler was thinking but offending your consultant is not a good place to start!

LittlePinto
04-30-2015, 05:38 PM
Sandler was unwilling to even talk to his consultant! Had hair in braids (inaccurate), people wearing buckskin (also inaccurate for that tribal custom), tipi constructed inaccurately - I can't imagine what Sandler was thinking but offending your consultant is not a good place to start!

I've met some people who consulted on Hollywood films and they all had similar experiences: they were ignored if their knowledge contradicted what the production team's image of something. I suspect the production teams go in knowing exactly what they want (regardless of accuracy) and the sole purpose of hiring a consultant is to lend the film credibility.

I'm not saying that all production teams do this, of course, but I'm not at all surprised this consultant had that experience.

Twick
04-30-2015, 05:48 PM
My husband (never politically correct!) can and does tell jokes about his tribe and there is a great deal of teasing. But if his white friends repeat the jokes, they sound terrible. It's awkward. What works is if the white friends tell self deprecating jokes themselves - something about white people.

It's a basic rule of human nature that you can tell any scurrilous joke about yourself. The repetition of such a joke by someone else is not similarly excused.

If Hollywood cannot understand this simple rule (the difference between going "Duh! I forgot my keys! I'm so stupid!" and "You forgot your keys? Man, you're stupid.") it's no wonder they're having a hard time creating movies that people actually enjoy, because they have no idea of how human minds work.

Alessandra Kelley
04-30-2015, 06:53 PM
It's a basic rule of human nature that you can tell any scurrilous joke about yourself. The repetition of such a joke by someone else is not similarly excused.

If Hollywood cannot understand this simple rule (the difference between going "Duh! I forgot my keys! I'm so stupid!" and "You forgot your keys? Man, you're stupid.") it's no wonder they're having a hard time creating movies that people actually enjoy, because they have no idea of how human minds work.

It's not just Hollywood. The use of humor within a community of a socially weak group has been used for centuries as justification for cruel humor used by the socially powerful against them.

RedRajah
04-30-2015, 07:48 PM
Posted this link over in P & CE...

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/04/29/why-i-quit-adam-sandlers-movie-ridiculous-sixs-apache-consultant-speaks-160185

LittlePinto
05-02-2015, 07:30 PM
The production team hit bedrock and pulled out the jackhammer so they could keep digging.

Yes, they apparently had actors darken their skin with bronzer (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/native-american-actress-tells-msnbc-why-she-walked-off-adam-sandler-set/).

BenPanced
05-03-2015, 04:21 AM
More on that: a cellphone video has surfaced showing an anonymous producer telling the actors "If you are overly sensitive about it, then you should probably leave." (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/adam-sandlers-ridiculous-six-makeup-792582)

LittlePinto
05-03-2015, 04:36 AM
Yeah, also this production seems kind of questionable beyond the racism (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/04/29/why-i-quit-adam-sandlers-movie-ridiculous-sixs-apache-consultant-speaks-160185).


"I examined them and discovered one of the extras had a 60 pound hunting bow, and his arrow was a steel razor blade tip," Klinekole said. "He was pointing it at Danny and his vaqueros—if he would have slipped, he could have hurt someone or shot them dead with that arrow. Nobody was there to examine that stuff. The guy also told me he was shaking because he had to hold it 'for about five minutes'—how can you hold a bow for five minutes? It was a 60 pound bow!"

Live weapons? Really?

Wonder what the union would have to say about that. Not to mention OSHA.

Kitty27
05-04-2015, 03:03 AM
Good for them.


Adam Sandler is still doing the juvenile humor that has played out. I wonder how even he has a career.

Flicka
05-05-2015, 12:30 PM
It depends on the tribe.

Many tribes use blood quantum (i.e., proportion of blood), which IMO is another remnant of white oppression, through which fewer and fewer people qualify for tribal enrollment as people intermarry. Most tribes that use blood quantum use 1/4 blood, including Zuni (my tribe) and Navajo. A very few use 1/2 blood, and a few more use 1/8 blood. There are very few that use 1/16 or 1/32, despite these fractions being commonly quoted in pop culture.

Some other tribes (rightly, IMO) do not use blood quantum, and instead use lineal descent. This includes the three Cherokee tribes. The Cherokee tribes allow tribal enrollment if you can trace a direct ancestor to the Dawes Rolls, which are simply a census taken of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole tribes in 1893.

Edit: IMO, there is no such thing as being "part Indian". You either are, or you aren't. Tribal enrollment is part of that, but so is community involvement, IMO. Particularly considering how many Native Americans have 100% native blood, but not enough from any single tribe to qualify for enrollment. What is important is not the blood, but the heart. You can be Native American. Or you can have Native American ancestry. But you cannot be "part Native American". If you say that, I will ask "which part?"

Completely off-topic, but I was intrigued by this as I can relate to the whole issue of how to decide if you belong to an indigenous group or not since my father's family is Sami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people) (aka "Lapps" which is a derogatory term that should be avoided) and there are certain legal rights linked to being Sami (as the right to vote for the Sami Parliamentary which is in charge of Sami affairs), but other rights (such as hunting and use of land) are based on you actually being a member of a Sami village (which I think you can only become if you are Sami).

If I remember correctly, actually being Sami has nothing to do with blood (we are very vary of anything reeking of classification due to "race" here), but if you identify as Sami and one or two of your parents or grandparents spoke Sami you can register to vote and then you are technically Sami. The reason that it's grandparents and not just parents, is that the Sami culture and language was actively oppressed for a long time which meant that many children weren't taught the language or the culture (my grandfather had a brother who flat out denied being Sami due to being ashamed, even though other parts of the family were still living in traditional gĺetie in the summer when my father grew up). Then, if your parent has registered, you can too, so it will go on forever down the generations (if I remember correctly).

So just like you, we are either Sami or not. No "partly". But there's also a fair bit of resentment from people living the traditional lifestyle against usage by people who don't, or who live in the city, as they consider those of us who do as less genuine.

In my case, I'm technically 1/8, and since my father is active in the Sami community and very pro-Sami-rights, he has obviously registered to vote (his grandfather spoke the language, and while mine probably was taught it, he was given in fosterage to a Swedish family at 7 or 8 years old and wouldn't use it) so I can too, but I never got 'round to it. My older sister did though, and I have been a member of the Sami Association here in Stockholm. I do feel I should take more of an interest in the culture and learn the language even though the Southern Sami (to which I belong) language isn't actively used anymore, and much fewer retain the traditional lifestyle with reindeer herding than their Northern counterparts (due to them being further south and thus taking the brunt of the Swedish colonisation - the Sami village that lots of my ancestors belonged to is now inhabited by Northern Sami).

What is fascinating though is that when I have moved in the community, people can immediately place me into a context. "Oh, then you are related to X and Y and that makes us cousins, 7 times removed. But that's close by Sami standards!" And sometimes you get anecdotes about your ancestors you've never heard or info about them that you had no idea about.

Sorry for off-topic, but I was just intrigued by the comparison and wanted to share my experiences. :)

Cyia
05-05-2015, 09:36 PM
There are very few that use 1/16 or 1/32, despite these fractions being commonly quoted in pop culture.That's because these are the thresholds used by most universities and financial aid services for grants or scholarships. My great-grandfather was the last one in my family to identify as Native American (Apache and Commanche), but between my mother's ancestral bloodline (Apache, Commanche and Cherokee) and my father's (Nakota and other Sioux), I qualified for programs, even though I'm multiple generations down the line.

backslashbaby
05-05-2015, 11:29 PM
I have always been listed as "American Indian" by my mother, so I put it down when I get to choose my race myself (instead of someone looking at me and marking a box). I put white, too, now that there's an option for more than one.

But I made sure to mention in my college applications that I did not grow up disadvantaged by my race at all. I would never put in for an NDN scholarship or anything like that.

I also went to uni in England, and they had no option for mixed-blood white and NDN. It was weird seeing no option at all to cover Native Americans. I think I put Irish? I don't know; it was tough trying to choose, lol.

ETA: On my blood quantum, we aren't even sure for both sides (and different tribes). Then, amusingly, the 'white' my grandfather came from was Lumbee white, which really means a mixture of African-American, Native American and white due to the unusual racial characteristics of the county he grew up in :) Everyone back then was mixed with all three.

Cyia
05-06-2015, 05:33 AM
I have always been listed as "American Indian" by my mother, so I put it down when I get to choose my race myself (instead of someone looking at me and marking a box). I put white, too, now that there's an option for more than one.

But I made sure to mention in my college applications that I did not grow up disadvantaged by my race at all. I would never put in for an NDN scholarship or anything like that.


All of my scholarships and grants were economic or academic, but the "disadvantaged" class of aid was still offered, including stipend-paying head-start summer programs. Only one ivy-league school required proof/testimony of tribal affiliation beyond the initial application (Yale, if you were wondering). A lot of schools use broader language and looser requirements to pad their statistics.

kuwisdelu
05-06-2015, 08:49 AM
That's because these are the thresholds used by most universities and financial aid services for grants or scholarships. My great-grandfather was the last one in my family to identify as Native American (Apache and Commanche), but between my mother's ancestral bloodline (Apache, Commanche and Cherokee) and my father's (Nakota and other Sioux), I qualified for programs, even though I'm multiple generations down the line.

All of the ones I've seen, and the only such scholarships I've had, have required proof of tribal enrollment. I've never actually seen these ones that accept 1/16 or 1/32 of arbitrary tribal blood, but I suppose they must exist.

There is actually the opposite problem for many young Native Americans today who have 100% native blood, but not enough from any single nation to qualify for anything.

If frustrates me that so many people say "oh, I have such-and-such percentage of blood, so I could qualify for X if I wanted," because in most cases, my experience has been, no, no you can't. You have to be an enrolled member.

And it also creates problems for natives from smaller nations that aren't federally recognized.

Edit: There are of course those places and programs that will simply take your word for it. But I've never seen one that has its own separate and unique blood quantum requirement distinct from tribal enrollment.

Edit 2: I was wrong. I just did a search and indeed found several scholarships that allowed eligibility by blood quantum in lieu of tribal enrollment. But for all of the ones I found, the required blood quantum was 1/4.

Edit 3: Please forgive me if I am sounding testy. Blood quantum is a touchy subject for me.

Edit 4: I want to explain one reason the misconception bothers me. There is a misconception that there are all of these scholarships and fellowships and federal aid and other money and opportunities out there for anyone with a drop of Native American blood. There is a misconception that there is tons of money out there going to people who are 1/32 or 1/16, and all of these people are just getting a free ride or benefitting for nothing. None of that is true. There is money out there to support Native Americans in higher education. But it's hard to find people to give it to. It's incredibly hard. Because the students who could use it don't see a version of themselves in college, or in graduate school, or becoming a professional. And when they realize that could be them, they aren't prepared, because the schools and the system have already fail them. So the money goes to no one. I tried to turn down one such scholarship because I already had an NSF fellowship, so I didn't really need it, and I wanted it to go to someone who really needed it. The director of the program looked me in the eye and said if I didn't take it, it wouldn't go to anyone. There was no one else. He told me to take the money, and use it as an opportunity, to do things I could've have otherwise, and go out and show other young natives what they could do if they wanted to do it. So that's what I'm trying to do. I know it was meant with good intentions here. But that's just why it always bothers me so much when I hear people talk about scholarships and blood quantum in a certain way.

Cyia
05-06-2015, 10:19 AM
Edit 3: Please forgive me if I am sounding testy. Blood quantum is a touchy subject for me.

I don't blame you at all, and I actually hope that you're right about the guidelines being stricter now than they were when I graduated. Those grants are meant to serve a specific purpose and a specific underrepresented group of people. When schools allow the guidelines to relax so they can pad their percentages, then it's a safe bet that the intended recipients of the grants aren't the ones receiving them.


There is money out there to support Native Americans in higher education. But it's hard to find people to give it to. It's incredibly hard. Because the students who could use it don't see a version of themselves in college, or in graduate school, or becoming a professional. And when they realize that could be them, they aren't prepared, because the schools and the system have already fail them. So the money goes to no one. I tried to turn down one such scholarship because I already had an NSF fellowship, so I didn't really need it, and I wanted it to go to someone who really needed it. The director of the program looked me in the eye and said if I didn't take it, it wouldn't go to anyone. There was no one else. He told me to take the money, and use it as an opportunity, to do things I could've have otherwise, and go out and show other young natives what they could do if they wanted to do it. So that's what I'm trying to do. I know it was meant with good intentions here. But that's just why it always bothers me so much when I hear people talk about scholarships and blood quantum in a certain way.

That sounds a bit like the program I was offered (the one with the stipend). It was designed specifically so that incoming students could attend early (basically summer school before Freshman year) to make sure they had the basic skills to compete with students who had gone to schools that were better funded and better equipped. It was specifically meant for Latino, Native, and African American students from disadvantaged neighborhoods. I'm around 80% European-Caucasian and (12% cumulative Native American) and (despite my family's medical-related income hardships) came from one of the largest and wealthiest districts in my home state.

In this case, one of the sections on the application was a checklist of all nationalities/heritage in your family for X generations. They didn't vet the answers that I know of, and they didn't ask for proof of affiliation. They didn't even want to know specific affiliation, just generic "Native American."

I have to assume they were so generic in their questions for exactly the reasons you state - they didn't have anyone to give the aid to without relaxing the thresholds, but they also had to show that the aid was at least being offered.

backslashbaby
05-07-2015, 11:35 PM
Speaking generally (not about any posters here), I think folks who immediately jump to thinking about 'benefits' for Native Americans when they know so little about them otherwise is racist.

Same with jumping to ask/question a person's blood quantum. I can see tribes or other Native Americans thinking about blood quantum if that's their decision/thing, but people who know very little about NDNs really shouldn't be going there, imho. It bothers me that those two topics are some of the very first things many people will mention regarding NDNs.

That and that aggravating Cherokee Princess musing. Don't co-opt that from NDN criticisms and have that be one of the less-than-a-handful of things you know about natives!