US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Leftists Rape Indian Barbie Doll (english)
12 Mar 2003
Modified: 13 Mar 2003
A BARBIE DOLL dressed as an American Indian will be stripped of her buckskins if Professor Patricia A. McCormack has her way. McCormack, Professor of Native Studies at the University of Alberta, launched the nasty attack on Mattel’s Native Barbie early last month.
“They are always dressed up as these beautiful Pocahontas-type princesses.” said McCormack. “They do not have a Native American vet, lawyer or school teacher.”



McCormack wants Indian dolls dressed as white people, not as traditional Indians. But Mattel has sold over a million Native Barbies since 1993, so it’s a great opportunity for Leftists to humiliate Indians.



McCormack’s February lecture, “Deconstructing Barbie,” was in women’s interest, since women are most vulnerable to the temptation to feel victimized. In classic Leftist form, ‘Superior white woman nobly campaigns for poor Indian woman, teaching Indian to feel victimized by doll’s dress.’



These modern Leftist campaigns for Indian causes are as devastating to Indians as the historic military campaigns of George Armstrong Custer. Leftists pretend to honor Indians, while destroying any respect America may hold for us, and any we hold for ourselves.



Leftists, assaulting any cherished aspect of Americana, here decry the beloved Indian-style clothing, presuming Indians are harmed by it. McCormack wants Barbies dressed like modern Indian women in modern professions. The doll’s traditional Native dress is unfairly limiting, she claims. “It’s a stereotyped toy,” she said, and as a reinforcement of false ideas of “nativeness,” the doll’s Indian dresses are as dangerous as bows and arrows, tepees and totem poles.



It sounds like McCormack doesn’t want Indians to be Indian.



The Indian Barbie dress is the woman’s counterpart to the men’s Indian warrior mascot controversy. With academic sophistry, McCormack strikes race and gender issues in one fell swoop. Now, if we’re to believe McCormack, anything symbolizing Indians is evil. Anything that a non-Indian can pick up, see, wear, or imitate, as “Indian,” is degrading to real Indian people. McCormack thinks a doll dressed in traditional Indian clothes is psychologically crippling to modern American Indians, leaving us incapable of social progress in modern America.



McCormack thinks Indians are dependent on dolls’ clothing for our identity. McCormack believes Indians cannot think independently. She apparently believes Indians have no will, and no vision, and therefore, Indians are safe only in the arms of career Leftist Indian lovers, most of whom are white females, like her.



Susan Berry, Curator of Ethnology at the Provincial Museum of Alberta, thinks the traditional Indian dress is an improper focus of museums, and that curators should include items which reflect Indians in modern life.



So, an Indian in a three-piece business suit belongs in a museum? Are Indians just historical artifacts for display, no matter what we wear? Leftists here belie their own prejudice, beyond anything the KKK could ever articulate.



I didn’t hear anyone object to the fabulous display of traditional Indian dress paraded before the world at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.



Indian dress and dance are precious to everyone.



At our modern pow-wows Indians don’t come together to wear Ralph Lauren (even if we could afford to). We don’t come together to show off new auto-mechanic tools, or new vacuum cleaners. We come together to display our traditional Indian clothing, dance, and music.



Modern Indian pow-wows are often competitive. At these supreme social events, there’s often prize money awarded the best buckskin dress, and the best dancer



Magazines like Whispering Wind (www.whisperingwind.com), one of the more authentic Indian journals, featured an entire article (Vol.31 No.4) on making jingle cones for jingle dresses. Wind focuses on traditional dress and customs.



But white women like McCormack and Berry want Barbie stripped of her Native dress. Ironically, in her Alberta University bio, McCormack claims she’s interested in “how Aboriginal peoples represent their cultures and histories and draw upon their traditions to maintain their distinctive identities in today’s world.”



How does an Indian Barbie in a lawyer’s suite help maintain our distinctive identity?



Well, if that Indian lawyer persuaded Mattel to share the profits of Native Barbie with real Indians, it might. Tribes might invest in Indian schools, in abuse recovery programs, better healthcare, and most importantly, in economic development and independence.



But no dress, no dollars. Leftists like McCormack are always content to lament, and worse, happy to take away opportunities for Indian people to cash in on all these so-called abuses.


NOT LONG AGO, it was common for journalists and statesmen to advocate the total physical extermination of Indians as a race. Of course, it didn’t happen. The extremists were overruled and the Indians were spared.

But spared for what purpose?

In reading some of the statements of America’s 19th century racial jihadists, I confess that I am sometimes struck as much by their prescience as by their cruelty.

Take L. Frank Baum. Best known as the author of the 1900 classic The Wizard of Oz, Baum was also a frontier journalist, writing in the Dakota Territory in the 1880s.

On learning of the assassination of Sitting Bull, December 15, 1890, Baum condemned all remaining "redskins" and called for their annihilation.

He wrote, "The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in later ages of the glory of these grand Kings of forest and plain…"

Baum’s words were cruel. Yet, ironically, they echoed the sentiments of many Indian warriors who preferred death in battle to a life of dependency on the reservation.

Even today, many Indians take that stand.

Over 190,000 living Indian military veterans testify to the fact that many still choose the warrior’s life over a meaningless existence in perpetual dependency. Indian census figures are far from reliable, but that’s about one out of seven of us still opting for action.

What of the rest of us, who live on reservations or in urban ghettos? What about our alcoholism, drug abuse, diabetes, domestic violence, and homicides? We generate the worst statistics of any group in America. Is this all to be written off as the fruit of oppression and poverty? Are these social problems to be blamed on America? Are Leftists with their "blame-the-white-man" philosophy the only voice that Indians will hear?

Baum’s epithet, "miserable wretches," is an arrow that pierces my heart, because it is true to a great extent. But I’ll not "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee," while I’m still alive and kicking.

I’ll not wallow in abject resentment as long as I’m breathing. Warriors don’t wallow.

"They all have to be killed or maintained as a species of paupers," said General William T. Sherman in 1867. Cruel words, like Baum’s. But also prescient. Perhaps Sherman had seen the Indian "wretches’ on the reservation. As a man of war himself, perhaps Sherman sensed that warriors don’t do "dependency" well.

In 1868, when House Representative James Michael Cavanaugh of Montana said, "I like an Indian better dead than living. I have never in my life seen a good Indian…except when I have seen a dead Indian," maybe he too, in some twisted way, understood the nature of Indian pride, and its utter unwillingness to relent.

I don’t think it is dependency that Indians want. It is our past life we cling to, a past that can never be again. We live in our own memories.

This is what the Leftists don’t understand. They teach Indians that we have a right to dependency, to a government-funded fantasy. They would like us to be "miserable wretches," "a species of paupers." They think they are helping, by teaching us the language of complaint, grievance, beggary and victimhood.

But those of us who still remember our warrior ways would rather be dead than to speak that language.

Leftists are working against any hope of improvement in future Indian life. But too few Indians seem to realize this, or they are too deeply sunk in their dysfunctional lives to care.

I say Indians have a choice: we can remain "wretched" dependents on treaty promises, or our tribes can become financially solvent, independent American corporations. We can exist in the memory of the white man as a great warrior, as a government-funded museum piece or a mascot, or we can live up to our traditions, take responsibility for ourselves, and become true warriors in the modern age.

The words of L. Frank Baum and William T. Sherman have too long hung over our people like a curse. Only through our own efforts can we break that curse. Only thus can we shed the mantle of victimhood and reclaim our right to exist.

Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

with advocates like these... (english)
13 Mar 2003
'nuff said