Another response to the Stereotype of the Month entry on the Orthodox Wannabe League:

Rob's reply
Who said the discussion was over? And who said it was private? <g>

I addressed the issue of contacting people who stereotype Indians in another Stereotype of the Month entry. Here's the exchange:

As for your opinion that I've mischaracterized the wannabes of the Wannabe League—despite the fact that they called themselves wannabes—it's worthless. When you can point to specific mistakes in my analysis, please do so. I'll be glad to explain why I and every Indian who's seen the Wannabe League thinks it's stereotypical.

The debate continues (6/13/02)....
>> You're absolutely right, I'm unwilling to prove that to YOU. <<

No kidding. More broadly, you're unwilling to prove anything to anyone, as far as I can tell.

>> You seem to be the most stereotypic-minded explorer of stereotypes. <<

This childish insult might bother me, except it's completely devoid of content. Amazingly, you've yet to utter a single factual statement in your several messages. Do I care that you can't or won't back up your unfounded opinions with anything resembling a fact? Not in the slightest.

Your content-free hot air moves me about as much as any hot air does. Namely, not at all.

>> You seem not to hear what other people say or write. <<

An unfounded opinion. The evidence, including the many words of praise I've received (The Fans Speak and The Web Fans Speak), proves you wrong. In your case, there's nothing to hear, since you're too afraid to back up your opinions with facts or arguments. One can't "hear" hot air that has no substance.

>> You "do not deal with" stereotypes, you just fling the labels around. <<

Another unfounded opinion. The evidence, including the many words of praise I've received (The Fans Speak and The Web Fans Speak), proves you wrong.

Correspondent Al Carroll (Mescalero Apache) offers the following comment (7/11/02):

>> You take another one's site and upload it at your server, paste a photo stolen from another site under the lines about "unscrupulous idiots". <<

"Stolen" is the wrong word, since US copyright law lets me use others' words and pictures for the purpose of criticism. "Borrowed" would be better.

There's no necessary connection between your Wannabe League picture and the "unscrupulous idiots" quote from Z Magazine at Indian Wannabes. But since you called yourself the Wannabe League in writing—a point none of you wannabes are brave enough to address—I think it's fitting. Don't you?

>> And then you ask for "proving what I believe". I'm not _obliged_ to prove that to you. <<

Then what are you wasting my time for? Did I ask you to contact me? No. Feel free to disappear if you have nothing to give except insults.

You're not "obliged" to prove your position, and I'm not obliged to keep your insults private. Looks like we're even, eh?

>> You tempted the folks into hatred with your biased citations and comments. <<

Wrong. Native Americans have been aware of and concerned about the wannabe problem for decades, long before I joined the scene. The only tempting done was by whichever wannabe wrote the following lines:

A better example of the wannabe mentality is hard to imagine. This blatant wannabe statement has tempted several Native people to respond. Repeat: The statement tempted them, not me.

Al Carroll adds:

Lengthy communications = a wall?
>> We don't want to argue to a wall. <<

Walls in the US generally don't write long replies like I do. Russian walls may be different.

>> We do our work and live our lives. You may live yours as you wish. <<

That's one of the more ironic claims I've heard. I didn't contact you wannabes, but several of you contacted me. If you want to live your life and let me live mine, stop sending me your unsolicited insults. Stop wasting my time with hot-air opinions you can't or won't defend.

>> I can prove to you anything if only you prove to us that you started to "deal with" the problem. <<

The only "problem" I have is with people who stereotype Indians. In particular, people who stereotype Indians as living in the bucolic past of the northern Plains, as the Wannabe League does. You haven't identified any other "problem." All you've done is wasted my time with unfounded opinions.

I'm dealing with this problem by documenting it. What other "dealing" do you expect me to do? Will it make you feel better if I start a campaign among Indians to condemn your wannabe practices? I doubt it.

>> And this startup begins wanting to know who is your virtual correspondent, with talking privately, eye to eye, not at the boxer ring. <<

You didn't start with "wanting to know me." Your first message (see above) was full of insults. As far as I'm concerned, you forfeited any right to a considerate response with your unprovoked attack.

Maybe you don't have etiquette in Russia, but in the US you don't attack someone and then ask for a polite conversation. When you attack me, I'll defend myself with any tools I choose. That includes publicizing your nasty messages so the world can see them. So they can see how utterly devoid of substance they are.

Don't like it? Tough. I didn't ask you to insult me. Go live your own life and stop sending me "private" messages filled with unfounded criticism. I'm interested in facts and evidence only, not your unsubstantiated opinions.

>> I started once to write the answer, but decided not publish it -- because it was written in the same style as your posts, and I don't like it. <<

But you do like accusing a complete stranger of falsehoods, mistakes, and other shortcomings. With a "style" like that, who cares why you're afraid to respond further? You've already done the damage with your initial attacks—the ones I've posted to show how empty they are.

>> Besides, I was sure that this was in vain -- you would cut the text into the atoms of meaning, compiling something that can be nit-picked at and publish it as another example of wannabe's imbecility. <<

It would be in vain because I've documented the stereotyping in detail. As I noted previously, your site says:

As almost any Indian could tell you, this is a classic wannabe statement. You dream of living like "Indians," which is what wannabes do.

The notion of Indians living in tepees, wearing fringed or beaded clothes, and riding horses is three stereotypes in a row. Three strikes and you're out. The picture shows a wannabe wearing a stereotypical Indian chief headdress—a fourth stereotype as well as a misuse of sacred feathers. Four strikes and you're way out. Hit the showers, friend, because you lose.

Wannabes called themselves wannabes!
Most important, the site was labeled the "Orthodox Wannabe League" before someone changed it. Deal with that fact and not your hurt feelings, or whatever else is going on in your little head. I'm not here to make people feel good about their stereotypes, I'm here to note the stereotypes. Period.

Since this is my message, I've sent a copy of it to several Native people, supporters, and groups. They can visit my writeup and judge for themselves whether the Wannabe League is stereotypical. If you're lucky, they'll share their opinions with you.

These well-informed adults are more than competent to understand your words and pictures without help. That you think I "tempted" them shows how deeply in denial you are. Rather than put your condescending claim in their mouths, let's ask them whether I "tempted" them. My money says they can see the stereotypes as clearly as I can.

When the first Native person writes me to defend the Wannabe League and say it isn't stereotypical, I'll consider it. So far, you're outnumbered infinity to zero (zero Natives, that is). Again, your opinion that you know more than me and the Native people who have seen your site isn't worth the pixels it's written with. It's worthless.

And again, if you don't want me to point out your abject failure to back up your claims, stop writing me. I didn't ask you to write me in the first place, and I'm not asking you to write me again. Either stop quivering and shivering and present your case, or get lost...amscray...vamoose...hit the road, Jack...make like a bee and buzz...don't let the door hit you on your way out.

I'm not offering you a private conversation about my "problem." If you want to discuss your problem—your tendency to insult anyone who points out the stereotypes in your beliefs—I'll consider it. Those are your only options.

Rob Schmidt
Publisher
PEACE PARTY

Russian says website "tempted" Natives to hate wannabes
As I said, I e-mailed my Wannabe League response to correspondents to see if it had, indeed, tempted them to hate wannabes. Some responses (posted 6/13/02):

More comments from Al Carroll (7/11/02)

The debate continues (11/7/02)....
>> I sent Mr. Schmidt a private e-mail where I told him that he is wrong with OWL <<

Yes, if you call attacking my integrity the same as telling me I was wrong. And who knows whether your message was really private—whether you didn't blind CC it to a hundred people? The only real privacy you have on the Net is if you keep your opinions to yourself.

>> The addition of some explanations to our English page did not help -- the author ignored them <<

No, I never saw them. And you never pointed them out to me, as you well know. If you thought I checked your page every day for changes, you were sadly mistaken. I reported on the stereotypes at the time and then forgot about them.

>> He went on using the "winner-loser" terminology and deployed a copy of our old page at his server, claiming that by deleting the page we must have agreed to the critique. <<

No, what I claimed is:

Nowhere did I suggest you agreed to my critique. I said US copyright law permitted my critique whether you agreed to it or not. Learn to read English better and I won't have to keep explaining it to you.

>> However, because Mr Schmidt promised to publish our "friendly chat" online <<

Readers can judge for themselves whether your initial attack:

was friendly or not. I'm guessing they'll say it wasn't.

>> "We didn't change the name -- we did change the translation of the group (Rus. "Indianists" -- first "wannabes", ignorant about derogatory connotations of this word, and then to "Wablenica"). <<

You didn't change the name, you changed the translation—which gives the name in English. Sounds like semantics to me.

But congratulations for being the first wannabe to admit you called yourselves wannabes at one point. That's what I noted in my original posting. The fact that you were ignorant of the word's connotations doesn't excuse the inherent stereotyping. Many people are ignorant of the stereotyping they do.

My purpose isn't to read your minds and judge your intent. It's to document your words and actions as I see them. That's what I did.

>> A good half of a Russian version of an OWL index page is a hoax and a parody on a wannabe stereotype, that is easily understood by Russians. <<

Uh-huh, sure it was. Well, since you didn't explain which half was a "hoax," and no real Indian got the message, your so-called parody failed miserably. Next time get help from a native (or Native) English speaker before you try parodying Native stereotypes.

>> However we object that those problems deal with us, so responding to the attempts to blame us in all the sins of wannabes we can say that <<

After untangling your syntax, I gather you think I accused you of every fault listed on my Wannabes page. No, I didn't. I accused you of the specific faults noted in my original posting. No more and no less.

Wannabes do headdresses, not ceremonies
>> we do not "sell [nor buy] a sweat lodge ceremony for fifty bucks" and do not participate in any native ceremonies; <<

Your picture shows wannabes wearing a feather headdress. You either got the feathers in a Native ceremony or you mocked Native traditions by getting them some other way. Your choice.

>> we are not those who are "discontent with their religion, and everything around them", wishing to "cast aside all inhibitions and stride back into the wilderness" <<

My Wannabes page doesn't define exactly what a wannabe is. Rather, it gives examples of wannabe behavior. Those examples aren't all-inclusive. You don't have to dislike your religion or stride into the wilderness to fit the general wannabe profile.

>> Actually, O.W.L's English page did read unequivocally that we are Orthodox Christians <<

"Indian" is an ethnicity, not a religion. What religion you are has nothing to do with what ethnicity you are. Like a wannabe, an Indian can be an Orthodox (Russian) Christian or any other religion.

Indians don't all live in the bucolic past. They don't all worship the Great Spirit or whatever. Some are card-carrying Christians; others are agnostics or atheists. That you don't understand even this basic point shows the depth of your problem.

>> Another stereotype that triggered Rob's biased analisys, supported by his Russian-speaking informants, is the readiness to consider anybody who is interested in Indians to think only about wearing fringed leather suit, headdress, and war-paint all the time, greeting anybody with lifted right hand and "How". <<

You wrote it. I just reported it. Here, read your own words for the umpteenth time:

I didn't say you wanted to wear headdresses or warpaint. Your made-up claim is irrelevant to my actual claim. Showing your lack of integrity, you're inventing straw-man arguments to distract the reader from what you actually wrote.

>> Yuri Kotenko is called a megalomaniac because he was titled "Principal chief of all nations" and "Chief Assiniboine of All Russia" at Russian version of O.W.L. site. <<

"Is called"...by someone else, not by me. I reported the stereotypes and the reactions to them. Like any journalist, I don't necessarily agree with everyone I quoted. This seems to be another thing you don't understand.

>> Everybody here in Russia knows that "Principal chief..." was an attribute of Stalin and "..of All Russia" is a suffix to a Patriarch title. B.W.Hall and all those who trusted her research became victims of a hoax, easily exposed by fluent Russian speakers. <<

Hall's point was that Kotenko claimed to be Chief Assiniboine, not that he claimed to be Chief. It's you who failed to understand the point, not Hall.

>> There are no Indian tribes in Russia -- even the make-believe ones. <<

Yes, we know that. Does Kotenko know it? He's the one who claimed to be chief of the Assiniboines in Russia. Repeat: It was his claim, not mine or Hall's.

>> Moreover nobody would even think about any nomination for a presidency in any of the Indianist groups as Rob has suggested to be the motive of Natasha Renkova's defense of OWL. <<

Hall said, "Maybe she's running to be elected the chief of her mock tribe." One, Hall qualified her statement with "maybe." Two, it was clearly a sarcastic remark—to us native English speakers, at least. Three, like any journalist, I don't necessarily agree with everyone I quote.

So you've failed to indict Hall and you've also failed to indict me. And you've stretched to an extremely minor point in your attempts to indict us. Readers should wonder why you're picking on such minor points while ignoring the major points I and others raised.

Through the looking "glasses"
>> Yet another stereotype of looking at the whole world thru the glasses of American "democracy". <<

If it were a stereotype, it would be Hall's, not mine. But it's not a stereotype. Rather, it's another example of your poor command of English and your poor debating skills.

>> I think that here I could comment Rob's remark: "I've yet to hear any Native person claim an "Indianist" a brother." Here's an example: during his sixth trip to Russia in June 2001 Scott Mommaday said after a meeting at the Moscow Institute of Foreign Languages with a group of Russian Indianists (Yuri Kotenko was among them too): "You are real Indians". <<

One, you spelled Momaday's name wrong, which calls your credibility into question. Two, considering how many false statements you've made so far, you may be lying about this too. Three, if Momaday said, "You are real Indians," he probably meant it figuratively. Four, he didn't claim you were brothers, so my statement remains accurate.

Some of my readers may know Momaday personally. If they do, I hope they'll check with him and verify this alleged quote.

>> Talking about the photo of the folks wearing a cowboy hat and feathered headdress -- that was a joking snapshot made at home some 15 years ago <<

Uh-huh, sure it was. You're a serious organization, but you put a joke photograph by itself on your main page. What for...to convince everyone how serious you are? R-i-i-ght.

Well, since there was nothing indicating it was a joke, I and everyone else took it as a real example of stereotyping. And I reported it as such. Next time I suggest you label your jokes more clearly if you don't want them to be a Stereotype of the Month entry.

>> First, I'd like to object to the use of the term "wannabe" -- at least when arguing with us. <<

Until this posting, none of you "Indianists" have admitted that my initial posting was correct. That is, that you called yourselves wannabes and I merely reported the fact. If you're now repudiating the wannabe label you applied to yourself, I may stop using it.

>> Its derogatory connotation together with inadequate etymology turn it into a stereotypic cliche used to put a label on the event, not to "deal with" it. <<

As you noted several times on this page, "My intent is to document the stereotypes more than to 'deal with' them."

>> I wonder why should I argue or prove something to a person who calls me "wannabe" implying "unscrupulous idiot, running around calling himself a medicine man"? <<

I used the term you used for yourselves. If you don't want others to call you wannabes, don't call yourselves wannabes. It's just that simple.

>> We had some problems translating Russian term "Indianists" into English and chose once "wannabe" unaware of the stereotypes attached to it <<

Again, you admit you used a term that's loaded with stereotypes. I merely reported your use of the stereotype-loaded term. So what's the problem? You're criticizing me for pointing out your mistake. You're confusing the messenger with the message.

>> The main stereotype associated with learning is that an unknown person undoubtedly and by default learns the subject without proper respect and knows it superficially and twistedly. <<

By putting a picture of someone in a headdress on your main page—which you claimed was a joke or "hoax"—you haven't shown the proper respect for sacred feathers. Few real Indians would make a joke of wearing feathers, and certainly not that prominently. Thanks for continuing to prove my point, not yours.

Wannabes emulate Plains Indians
>> Mr. Schmidt freely uses the words "Indian" and "native" ("living like an Indian", "Indian ceremonies"), but attacks anybody who does not specify which tribe is meant. <<

You call yourselves Indianists and refer to studying Natives in general. Yet every comment and picture shows you emulating Indians from the northern Plains. There's little or no evidence you know other Indian tribes exist.

When all the evidence supports the conclusion and none contradicts it, I feel free to state the conclusion as fact. As I told Serguei, "Your Wannabe League stereotypes Indians as living in the bucolic past of the Northern Plains."

Here's a statement about Germany's Indian "hobbyists," who sound a lot like your Indianists. Are there any differences between them and you? If so, what?

"Far from the reality"...in other words, stereotypical.

>> Mr. Schmidt's strategy is invincible <<

Thanks, but my readers already know that. Would I use a strategy if it weren't invincible? Maybe, but probably not. <g>

>> In fact, Russian Indianists are "into" several dozens of North American tribes (N.B.: Tlingit including). <<

Too bad none of that was on the page I criticized. I said that page contained stereotypes, not your entire organization. If you hadn't presented your OWL in a stereotypical way, I wouldn't have criticized the stereotypical presentation.

>> The initial indication that we are interested in Assiniboines is ignored <<

You wrote "In 1997 ã. the leader of Moscow Assiniboines Is^ta S^ic^a (Yuri Kotenko) granted us an autonomy with the name 'Orphans'. This was a name of subbands splitting form a maternal Sioux bands." Untangling the syntax, as usual, you implied you are "Lakota" and "Assiniboine" tribes. I didn't ignore it, I used it as an example of your being wannabes.

>> Mr. Schmidt writes "I don't recall OWL limiting itself to imitating the Lakota people" and concludes "Implying all Indian people follow the Lakota pattern is a stereotype".

I didn't write "follow the Lakota," I wrote "follow the Lakota pattern." All northern Plains tribes follow the Lakota pattern—tipis, chiefs, headdresses, and so forth—so my comments included both "tribes."

>> I don't want to turn my notes into extensive analysis of Mr. Schmidt's stereotypes. <<

Good, because you're not doing too good a job of it so far. You've all but conceded that my critique was accurate and your attack on my critique was unfounded.

>> We consider rural (yes, "bucolic", Rob!) life more natural. No need to list its virtues. My friends consider the pre-rez lifestyle of (yes, "Northern Plains", Rob!) Indians deserving admiration (not neglecting its flaws too). <<

Although you just mentioned the Tlingit, you seem unaware that they traditionally lived by the sea, built lodges (not tipis), and hunted seals and whales. How much of that lifestyle have you studied and adopted? None that I can tell from your site and our debates.

When you say you want to study Indians, you keep confirming that, to you, "Indians" means Plains Indians. So I was right all along. Your Wannabe League stereotypes Indians as living in the bucolic past of the Northern Plains.

>> Again, it was hard to express and even harder to translate into English what is felt. Perhaps the verb "dream" is inadequate to express what was meant. <<

What's the point of having an English version if not to communicate your intent to English speakers? Having this version risks the possibility that real Indians, and stereotype hunters like me, may come across your site. If you don't want to take that risk, I suggest you stick with the Russian version.

>> Most people have known us from Mr. Schmidt's caricature digest that is based on a single paragraph. <<

I posted your entire English page for the reader's inspection. Nothing in the whole page contradicts the paragraph I've quoted repeatedly. The rest of the page talks about your Christianity. As I've explained, "Indian" is an ethnicity, not a religion. So your religious discussion doesn't address the stereotypes.

In short, I didn't caricature you. You caricatured yourselves.

Wannabes don't seek enrollment, but have their own tribes
>> The most intricate issue is what to do with a guy who says that he feels red heart inside. Of course he does not seek any enrollment in some of the tribes. <<

Again, it's you who have claimed membership in "Lakota" and "Assiniboine" tribes. You don't seek enrollment in American tribes, perhaps, but you've invented copycat Russian tribes so you can be members of them.

>> He reads about dark sides of the native life style but feels that the tribe he chose to study is his inalienable relation <<

Sounds like a wannabe to me....

>> The reason for an English page was to find Native Christians and Christian Indianists abroad). <<

Again, if you understood how real Native people feel about wannabes, you would've been more careful. Instead, you called yourselves wannabes and still talk like a wannabe.

You say you respect real Natives...but in general, they don't respect you. That's true regardless of what Momaday said or didn't say. Indians don't want non-Indians claiming to be "them" in their hearts or anywhere else. What part of that don't you understand?

>> So what is this "inner Indian"? A crime, sin, or rather, "illness", "disaster"? OK, will you be satisfied if the Indianist simply shuts up and stops talking about his red soul (most really do not talk)? Or will you demand the official and sincere renunciation of his thoughts and feelings? <<

"You don't see me contacting the Wannabe League and haranguing their members. Unlike Renkova [or you], I'm content if the wannabes do their thing while I do mine."

>> Needless to say that Mr.Schmidt's page and his fans' e-mails (e.g. suggesting to set up a page describing Russians consuming gallons of vodka and playing ice-hockey) are grossly off the point. <<

Actually, every one of my comments has been directly on point. Because my point is what I say it is. As for my "fans," you can criticize them all you want. Like any journalist, I don't necessarily agree with everyone I quote.

>> Reading all that stuff we feel something like you would perhaps feel, reading at some Russian site that bluecorncomics is a homosexual site ("blue comics" unequivocally means that in Russian :-)) <<

A "blue comic" could mean the same thing in English. Luckily, the word "corn" is between "blue" and "comics," so no one will make that ridiculous connection.

>> But the most off-the-point are the accusations of OWL in stealing or exploiting Native religion. <<

Since I didn't accuse you of that, your criticism of me is off the point. Apparently you didn't understand the difference between my opinions and others' when you attacked me "in private."

>> Even if someone somewhere desacralizes the rites -- it is his problem, your spirituality remains immaculate. <<

Your thinking on the theft of spirituality is as shallow as your thinking on the definition of Indian (i.e., "a native of the Northern Plains living in the bucolic past").

By stealing or desecrating rites, you're affecting Native culture as a whole, not individual Natives. You're contributing to the public's ignorance of and antagonism toward Native religion. That in turn affects the decisions of the public and their representatives in government. And that affects individual Natives. It inhibits their ability to practice their spirituality freely, without interference.

>> Sure, there is a danger of distortion, mythologization, and falsification of history, traditions on TV, in the books etc. aiming at their "cleanup" or defaming -- actually it is a universal process, occurring almost always and almost everywhere. <<

Yes, and you're contributing to the danger, as far as I can tell. That makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Wannabes can't harm Native spirituality?
>> We are certain that you either have spirituality or do not have it. Nobody can alienate it from you. You can lose it yourself. Even if someone somewhere desacralizes the rites -- it is his problem, your spirituality remains immaculate. <<

"The process is ultimately intended to supplant Indians, even in areas of their own culture and spirituality. In the end, non-Indians will have complete power to define what is and what is not Indian, even for Indians. We are talking here about a complete ideological/conceptual subordination of Indian people in addition to the total physical subordination they already experience." (Pam Colorado, Oneida)

>> I fully support the Lakota's objection to the selling of their religion.... but I DO NOT support their claim to "owning" spiritualism in any form, just as I do not support racism in any form. <<

I've never heard of Tom McClure (Cherokee). His quote on spiritualism is generic. It doesn't address whether you can steal or "share" someone else's spirituality. It merely suggests everyone can have their own version of spirituality.

In contrast, the statement of the Lakota elders is specific and clear. Yet you disagree with them? Where does the part about your respecting Native beliefs come in? Here's one Native belief you clearly do not respect.

Repeat: Natives are telling you not to use or abuse their spirituality and you're doing it anyway. I call that disrespect, not respect.

>> You cannot be an Indian because you were not raped, infected with smallpox, fought by the govt, starved, and frozen! (And if I were?) <<

If you were, you'd understand Indian cultures better and you'd be less likely to imitate them stereotypically.

>> If you're rich -- then you'd better help those on the rez instead of being "into Injuns". If your income is lower than that at the rez...(as for the most of those in Eastern Europe). Well.. How you live is largely irrelevant to the issue of stereotyping. <<

As long as you're not living in a way that stereotypes Indians, of course. But I didn't say anything about your income levels. If others did...like any journalist, I don't necessarily agree with everyone I quote.

>> If you are interested in all the native culture -- you are into Pan-Indian medley mass-art stereotype. <<

Interest is one thing. You can be interested in as many tribes as you want. You aren't just interested in Indians, you're claiming them as your "inalienable relations." In other words, you wanna be them.

>> If you learn Lakota -then it's a Hollywood stereotype of the most popular tribe. -Ah, Assiniboines? <<

Yes. In other words, your Wannabe League stereotypes Indians as living in the bucolic past of the Northern Plains. Which includes the Lakota and Assiniboine tribes. If you were interested in something other than your stereotypical view of Indians, you'd study the Yurok and Muscogee and Lumbee and Abenaki cultures along with several hundred others.

Sorry, you haven't convinced me that an "Indianist" is something other than a wannabe. I'd say they're synonymous. Until you do convince me, "Orthodox Wannabe League" remains the best English translation of your group's name.

If you want more Native people to dismiss you Indianists as wannabes, keep it up. Every time I debate you people, you fall further and further behind. And I couldn't care less whether you like my "win-lose" terminology or not. You keep trying and you'll keep losing.

Another note (1/4/03)
>> one thing that would do a big credit to you -- in my eyes -- would be a couple of lines sorta "However, check the latest update of their stand on stereotypes and wannabes -- "Indian Wannabes, O.W.L., and Stereotypes" -- and judge for yourself" <<

The "update" is mainly a copy of Connie's previous message to me (above) without my comments interspersed. But she's added one section that deserves a fresh response:

Relatives live their own lives. They don't dress like you, move into your home, or adopt your name. To use your analogy, if wolves started pretending to be eagles, I'm guessing the eagles would object.

In fact, many Native legends have this as a theme. Coyote disguises himself as another animal to gain some advantage. He's inevitably found out and sent packing, his scheme having failed. The other animals don't accept his pretending to be one of them.

Moral of the (Native) story: Don't be someone you're not. Be satisfied with who you are.

You're not. But if you were, you still wouldn't be an Indian.

Again, I didn't raise the issue of your income level, so I don't know why you keep going on about it. It continues to be irrelevant to my original point.

"Your Wannabe League stereotypes Indians as living in the bucolic past of the Northern Plains. Which includes the Lakota and Assiniboine tribes. If you were interested in something other than your stereotypical view of Indians, you'd study the Yurok and Muscogee and Lumbee and Abenaki cultures along with several hundred others."

There continues to be no evidence that you're interested in "all the native culture." If you have such evidence, feel free to provide it. If you're into the Lakota Indians only, maybe you should call yourselves Lakota-ists. Then your "dream" wouldn't be quite as stereotypical.

If you're asking me what you should do...well, I'd suggest you not "dream" of a couple of Northern Plains tribes. And not "dream" of a pan-Indian mishmash. Dream of the vast variety of Indians as they were then and are now. Study and respect that vast variety.

Rob

Related links
Indian wannabes and imitators

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .