Adam Sandler movie sparks debate over American Indian images

[MaeJoMTB]

. I'll bet most of you don't think "redskin" is derogatory. You know nothing.

Is it a bit like 'farang'?

[Jingthing]

. I'll bet most of you don't think "redskin" is derogatory. You know nothing.

Is it a bit like 'farang'?

Not really.

It is definitely derogatory and this caused a problem for a certain American football team ...

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. We do not need a members personal biography. Please confine your posts to the topic of the thread.

[impulse]

. I'll bet most of you don't think "redskin" is derogatory. You know nothing.

Is it a bit like 'farang'?

Not really.

It is definitely derogatory and this caused a problem for a certain American football team ...

Gosh, and here I've been thinking that being called a lumpy green fruit is at least a little derogatory.

To the OP, I think these guys may be smarter than most are giving them credit for. They signed an agreement to act in a movie. For whatever reason, they have breached that agreement- probably causing lost time and monetary damages to the filming.

Walk off because the script sucks (and because being associated with the turd will haunt the actors FOREVER), and there will be a lawsuit. Walk off because your Native American pride has been assailed, and I don't think there will be a lawsuit for breach of contract. Crazy like a fox. (Oops, am I allowed to say that?)

[sgtsabai]

Ok, try again. At least I have some background, aparantly not too many of our members do. Not PC bullshit, I'm very, very un PC and I understand the problem as best I can with the little information available. I'm pretty sure I'll be hearing from some of friends back in New Mexico etc. with more information. Wow, somebody studied the Dine' Nation in college, I'm impressed, not. I'm sure you took a field trip to the res, probably even met some tribal members. If these actors felt the script was demeaning then it was their right to walk off the set. I'll bet most of you don't think "redskin" is derogatory. You know nothing.

[Jingthing]

I agree the producers won't take any action against the walkouts.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[2fishin2]

modern Reservation = casino and trailer park full of drunks and drug addicts. Calling someone redskin is akin to calling a black person a nigger. Not accepted unless person of same race does it. This movie is a satire. The people knew what they were getting into before they started. They Re just trying to put themselves in the news....

[sgtsabai]

2, how do you know? Where you there, did you read the script, are you American Indian? I think not. Have you been to the res? Do you even know any Indians?, I think not. "Calling someone redskin is akin to calling a black person a nigger." Yes, you are correct there. Indians do not call themselves redskins to each other.

[2fishin2]

I have been to reservations in new mexico and north dakota. They are sad places. I liken them to ghettos of inner cities. They are what they are, I didnt make them that way our government and their own leaders did.

[sgtsabai]

I have too, New Mexico (lived there for many years), South, not North Dakota that is. I grew up in the south, the racist south, I had never seen such poverty in my life when I went to the res in S. Dakota and I had seen it, I thought. In Nebraska and South Dakota, Indian women are regularily snatched off the streets and raped, nothing is ever done. Life is hard when you believe you have no future. Hence the drug and alcohol problems and yes it is rampant. People have died in the Dine' Nation trying to stop the liquor sales. Their "leaders", yea you should have known Dick Wilson.

[2fishin2]

Indian reservations are very sad places indeed and I completely understand where you are coming from. I wish they had leaders that would lead them out of such desolate conditions.....

[Johpa]

Nothing to do with political correctness. It is all about reclaiming dignity. A classic technique for dehumanization is to portray a group of people in a negative and denigrating way, like the Nazis did the Jews. Genocide, broken treaties ... the American Indians want respect ... just like you folks out there.

I get that. But signing up to act for an Adam Sandler film and expecting respect towards others is a bit far fetched. The guy makes a living spoofing humanity, although perhaps not with the same class as Mel Brooks. If you want to highlight disrespect then best to aim your actions towards a mainstream non-comedy film that utilizes stereotypes that lack dignity and not a film that makes no pretenses towards dignity of any sort. A film whose goal is to take the piss out of everyone should be able to take the piss, and it seems literal in this film, out of Native Americans as well. Otherwise we enter the realm of protesting against cartoon characterizations of someone's imagined prophet. Besides, plenty of good films with positive representations of Native Americans: Dead Man Walking and Smoke Signals are two that come to mind.

And a nod to sgtsabai for introducing me to the term Wasi'chu. I live in a region dominated by Native American isolate languages, the Salish languages, and had never encountered that term before.

[MaeJoMTB]

I don't see the harm in people dressing up in traditional ethnic costumes.

Videos, movies or just for fun.

I mean if you wanted to dress up as a Morris Dancer, Celt or Viking no problems from me.

Why would anyone object?

Edited April 26, 2015 by MaeJoMTB

[Jingthing]

Based on the script samples this is gonna be a really really crappy movie ... but I'm curious if it will be one of those so bad it's good movies or just bad bad.

[F430murci]

Jeez, the extras were free to leave if not happy. They did and I would have to based on extra pay rates.

If you think this script is offensive, don't go see this movie.

If you don't like Adam Sandler, don't go see his movies.

If you like Adam Sandler and are not hyper sensitive about a ridiculous movie that has the word ridiculous in the title and uses grade school pubescent level jones, go see it.

Holy cow otherwise!

[sgtsabai]

Johpa, it is a Lakota word. I knew a lot of Jicarilla Apache, worked with their game and fish, guided on the res but never heard the word. They knew it, but I think they had another word, probably even worse...lol. Once in the middle of the res (kinda' like Sakhon Nowhere expect there was no other residence) I was taken to an old man's residence. I was allowed by him to see his "medicine" room, a privilege. He spoke no English, but did speak Spanish. On his door was AIM.

[sgtsabai]

Sorry, execpt, no spell check, no edit.

[Berkshire]

Although I'm sympathetic to the Native American community for past injustices, they sadly have very little power or support today. People just don't care. Americans don't want to be constantly reminded that the founding fathers (read white folks) nearly exterminated an entire race of people. Every once in a while, a movie like "Dances with Wolves" would come out and the public would be enamored about Indians and their cause...for a time. Then everyone forgets. Adam Sandler probably thought he was doing these folks a favor by providing jobs. He could have easily hired non-Indians. But after this, I'd think Hollywood would be apprehensive about hiring Native Americans. Not that there are many opportunities out there to begin with.

I have to admit some of the female names they used in the movie is pretty funny. "Beaver's breath?" Pretty low, but funny.

[Jingthing]

Everything you ever wanted to know about Adam Sandler movies but were too bored to ask?

This may come as a shock to some of you, but Adam Sandler does not make very good movies. Sandler is taking heat this week after several Native American actors walked off the set of “The Ridiculous Six” because of racist and misogynistic jokes in the film.

But see, nobody’s really going, “I’m shocked an Adam Sandler movie was full of cheap, unoriginal jokes that punched down and play into antiquated stereotypes.” And that’s because Sandler, for the past two decades, has been one of the most consistent producers of that kind of content.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-three-types-of-adam-sandler-movies/

So those actors, they really didn't know who they were working for?
Hard to believe.

[sgtsabai]

What matters is that when they saw the script is was not what they expected or could work with. Perhaps this article will help just a little bit in your lack of understanding. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30375-suicide-on-the-great-sioux-nation?tmpl=component&print=1

[Jingthing]

What matters is that when they saw the script is was not what they expected or could work with. Perhaps this article will help just a little bit in your lack of understanding. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30375-suicide-on-the-great-sioux-nation?tmpl=component&print=1

It's just a dumb movie. Nothing to do with your link.

[sgtsabai]

Oh but you are so wrong. Didn't read the article did you?

[Jingthing]

Oh but you are so wrong. Didn't read the article did you?

Nothing about Adam Sandler in the article.

[sgtsabai]

No, there isn't. It explains some of the feelings of Native Americans, which explains a reason why the actors walked off the set. If you can't understand the article, then you don't understand Native Americans. I lived with the Lakota, I understand.

[Jingthing]

No, there isn't. It explains some of the feelings of Native Americans, which explains a reason why the actors walked off the set. If you can't understand the article, then you don't understand Native Americans. I lived with the Lakota, I understand.

Congratulations.

I think you're just trying to hijack a very limited topic, a dispute on a movie set, into propagandizing your agenda. That's OK I suppose, I would tend to support that agenda, but I also support the right to make movies, even very dumb ones.

[sgtsabai]

It is larger than just a dispute on a movie set, but the dispute is very related to the larger problem. I don't have a problem with Sandler making another dumb movie, I have a problem with people bad mouthing the actors who upon reading the actual script elected to quit as is their right. No propaganda in that article, just sad facts. We just don't see things the same way. Some folks refuse to see the big picture.

[thaibeachlovers]

Although I'm sympathetic to the Native American community for past injustices, they sadly have very little power or support today. People just don't care. Americans don't want to be constantly reminded that the founding fathers (read white folks) nearly exterminated an entire race of people. Every once in a while, a movie like "Dances with Wolves" would come out and the public would be enamored about Indians and their cause...for a time. Then everyone forgets. Adam Sandler probably thought he was doing these folks a favor by providing jobs. He could have easily hired non-Indians. But after this, I'd think Hollywood would be apprehensive about hiring Native Americans. Not that there are many opportunities out there to begin with.

I have to admit some of the female names they used in the movie is pretty funny. "Beaver's breath?" Pretty low, but funny.

Quite right too.

What arrogance the US has to criticise other countries for their civil rights record when the US government STILL won't uphold the rights of Native Americans. Let's remember they won't give back the Black Hills despite the Supreme court saying it belongs to them.

They care more about the rights of women in Afghanistan than they do about their own indiginous peoples. Blatent hypocricy.

[impulse]

What arrogance the US has to criticise other countries for their civil rights record when the US government STILL won't uphold the rights of Native Americans. Let's remember they won't give back the Black Hills despite the Supreme court saying it belongs to them.

They care more about the rights of women in Afghanistan than they do about their own indiginous peoples. Blatent hypocricy.

Not correct.

The Supreme Court said it was taken illegally, and the USA owed them compensation for it. They did not tell them to "give it back" because that would violate the rights of hundreds of thousands of current residents that have invested billions of dollars to improve the property they bought in good faith. History is full of cases where governments (not just the USA) have taken property for various purposes, like military bases, freeways, rail and pipeline right of ways, etc. In the US, there's a mechanism in place for those who claim their property was taken illegally. (Unlike the Lakota who stole the very same land from the Cheyenne by force and offered them no recourse)

The government paid compensation as the Supreme Court specified (around $100 Million, if memory serves) and the tribe rejected the payment. It's been sitting in an escrow account collecting interest and is worth a little less than a billion dollars now. No small amount for a tribe that numbers around 70,000, many of whom live in abject poverty on reservations which are rated the poorest areas in the country.

But their leaders would rather hang on to the delusion of a lifestyle that can't possibly work given today's population density, than to use those funds to improve their peoples' lives today, realistically, with cold, hard cash.

Edited April 27, 2015 by impulse

[thaibeachlovers]

What arrogance the US has to criticise other countries for their civil rights record when the US government STILL won't uphold the rights of Native Americans. Let's remember they won't give back the Black Hills despite the Supreme court saying it belongs to them.

They care more about the rights of women in Afghanistan than they do about their own indiginous peoples. Blatent hypocricy.

Not correct.

The Supreme Court said it was taken illegally, and the USA owed them compensation for it. They did not tell them to "give it back" because that would violate the rights of hundreds of thousands of current residents that have invested billions of dollars to improve the property they bought in good faith. History is full of cases where governments (not just the USA) have taken property for various purposes, like military bases, freeways, rail and pipeline right of ways, etc. In the US, there's a mechanism in place for those who claim their property was taken illegally. (Unlike the Lakota who stole the very same land from the Cheyenne by force and offered them no recourse)

The government paid compensation as the Supreme Court specified (around $100 Million, if memory serves) and the tribe rejected the payment. It's been sitting in an escrow account collecting interest and is worth a little less than a billion dollars now. No small amount for a tribe that numbers around 70,000, many of whom live in abject poverty on reservations which are rated the poorest areas in the country.

But their leaders would rather hang on to the delusion of a lifestyle that can't possibly work given today's population density, than to use those funds to improve their peoples' lives today, realistically, with cold, hard cash.

Hmmmm. Just checked with wikipedia and you are right about the compensation. The documentary I saw was wrong, but the article also says

In August 1876, Congress enacted a bill cutting off appropriations "made for the subsistence" of the Sioux, unless they ceded the Black Hills to the United States. A commission headed by George Manypenny presented the Sioux with a new treaty and they signed, under threat of starvation.^[11] But only a few leaders signed, not the 3/4 majority of all Indian males on the reservation as required under the Fort Laramie Treaty

What a dispicable government and shame on the Supreme court for not righting that wrong!

They did not tell them to "give it back" because that would violate the rights of hundreds of thousands of current residents

All of which are ILLEGALLY occupying the land. But, as we see all the time, the US government only respects the treaties it wants to.

Unlike the Lakota who stole the very same land from the Cheyenne by force and offered them no recourse

You are ignoring the fact that that was customary back then, and there was no treaty between the Lakota and the Cheyenne as there was with the US government. Seems like the US government is in the habit of violating it's own treaties.

Edited April 27, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[impulse]

Hmmmm. Just checked with wikipedia and you are right about the compensation. The documentary I saw was wrong, but the article also says

In August 1876, Congress enacted a bill cutting off appropriations "made for the subsistence" of the Sioux, unless they ceded the Black Hills to the United States. A commission headed by George Manypenny presented the Sioux with a new treaty and they signed, under threat of starvation.^[11] But only a few leaders signed, not the 3/4 majority of all Indian males on the reservation as required under the Fort Laramie Treaty

What a dispicable government and shame on the Supreme court for not righting that wrong!

They did not tell them to "give it back" because that would violate the rights of hundreds of thousands of current residents

All of which are ILLEGALLY occupying the land. But, as we see all the time, the US government only respects the treaties it wants to.

Unlike the Lakota who stole the very same land from the Cheyenne by force and offered them no recourse

You are ignoring the fact that that was customary back then, and there was no treaty between the Lakota and the Cheyenne as there was with the US government. Seems like the US government is in the habit of violating it's own treaties.

If your argument and your criticism of the USA hangs on things that happened in the 1800's, long before anyone alive today was even born, it's pretty weak.