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

Kylabelle said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

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.

Kylabelle said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

backslashbaby said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

maxmordon said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

What age is 7th grade?

Kylabelle said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Kuwi - how does tribal membership work? what is the Dawes Roll?

Marian Perera said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's a crying shame.

Alessandra Kelley said:

About thirteen.

Click to expand...

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.

maxmordon said:

That's a crying shame.

Click to expand...

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.

mirandashell said:

Kuwi - how does tribal membership work? what is the Dawes Roll?

Click to expand...

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?"

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.

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.

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.
...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Albedo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

blacbird said:

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

Click to expand...

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

kuwisdelu said:

Some tribes have always been bigger than others, and some have been unluckier than others.

Click to expand...

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 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.

frimble3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

frimble3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

---

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.

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!

bombergirl69 said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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!