Native Actors Walk off Set of Adam Sandler Movie After Insults to Women, Elders

BenPanced said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Roxxsmom said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

backslashbaby said:

... 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. .

Click to expand...

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!

bombergirl69 said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

bombergirl69 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Yeah, also this production seems kind of questionable beyond the racism.

"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!"

Click to expand...

Live weapons? Really?

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

Good for them.


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

kuwisdelu said:

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?"

Click to expand...

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 (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 gåetie 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.

There are very few that use 1/16 or 1/32, despite these fractions being commonly quoted in pop culture.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

backslashbaby said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Cyia said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

kuwisdelu said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!