In honor of the 4th of July...

...I wanted to share a Boondocks comic strip with you all.

But I couldn't find it. Anywhere. And I've been searching online for quite a while.

So here is the next best thing: a synopsis.

Huey Freeman is the older brother of the family, a quick-witted, elementary school socialist. His younger brother Riley is a self-styled gangster rapper, and the two are being raised by their traditionalist grandfather.

Huey and his family deal with yuppie neighbors, a classmate who thinks that all African Americans are either rappers or basketball players and a school principal whose idea of racial sensitivity training involves having teachers watch 1970s blaxploitation films.

The strip is frank and honest in dealing with political issues. In one installment, Riley complains about having missed the neighborhood Fourth of July barbecue. "I can’t believe Independence Day came and went and nobody told me," he says. Huey responds: "I bet millions of African slaves said the same thing a couple hundred years ago."

The visuals help, but you get the point, right?

I am, right now, sporting my very first...

...motorcycle shirt. Seriously. I opted for the dealership logo rather than the Victory Cycles logo because I have no bike knowledge and I didn't want to look like a total idiot if someone came up and asked me, "do you ride?" But at least I can say that I bellydanced for the Biker Bash!

Which I did, and it was a hoot. I was expecting something a bit more raucous, sort of Sturgis-y, but really it was just moms and dads and kids. It was actually a benefit to raise money for a camp for kids with cancer, so there were also some older men who were members of a local volunteer organization that sponsored the kids' camp. Oh, and the cheerleaders in halter tops and cutoffs washing the bikes - but that sort of goes without saying, doesn't it?

So, we danced, had a brat, danced some more, and came home. Somehow, I managed to refrain from buying this band's t-shirt:












Not that the band wasn't good, but...
Sigh.

Girls Gone Wild: The Scoop.

OK, so here's the good, the bad, and the ugly about this whole thing.

I found out last Tuesday, via Dakota Women, that a local club, the Lava Lounge (the same place that brought Warrant here - insert eyeroll), had invited Girls Gone Wild to help kick off their Wednesday night Ladies' Nite.

Now - I am on principle against the sort of "hot body" contests that bars usually hold. The reason for this is that I think they're sad. I think that women often (but not always) enter them because they desperately need to be affirmed. I suspect that women with a lot of self-esteem and with a lot going on in their lives have better things to do on a Tuesday night than strut around for a bunch of drunk, not-so-good-looking (only important because they still get to impose ideals of beauty on women) boys and men. I also don't like beauty pageant type events, though I will say that the environment of the overall bar culture disturbs me far more than does the activity. And I'll add that, given the sorts of bars that hold these events, and the harassing behavior I've experienced there myself - in part, I feel, as a result of the way such events encourage male patrons to view female patrons as meat - I do think that such events make for a generally hostile environment for women.

So far, I've sounded like an anti-sex work feminist, though I don't count myself in that category. Context is everything. I could see, for example, events like this becoming less hostile in a variety of settings and incarnations, like the "best lingerie" contest I saw in the early '90s in which women were competing against a very beautiful drag queen.

Anyway. I've never protested these kinds of events because, whatever I may think about the reasons behind some of the women's consenting, the fact is that they are freely consenting and that they are usually coming with friends to the bar and hanging out with friends during the night. They know what to expect from the bar scene, and there are bouncers and cops around should their services be needed. This doesn't mean there is no risk of rape or assault - that risk is always there. But as these things go, events like this are fairly tame and the rules are generally understood.

What's different about GGW is that they manipulate women by getting them drunk and by taking them, one at a time, onto the tour bus. Once there, without their friends to support them, they can be intimidated and coerced into the soft porn we see advertised on cable. They can also be raped. If they are drunk or underage - both happen regularly - they cannot legally consent, anyway. And all of this has happened on the tour buses. I won't go into the details of why Joe Francis is the Devil, but you can easily find this out for yourself. Clearly, GGW is different. GGW poses a danger to women. And, further, Joe Francis and his cronies get rich off of their films, while the women who are filmed get t-shirts or caps.

And so I did everything I could to stop them from coming here. I had the advantage of knowing that, in the past, communities had been successful in convincing bars not to bring GGW to town. So, I sent out a mass email with the above links, urging everyone to call the Lava Lounge and tell the owner what GGW was really about and asking him to cancel the event.

(I was surprised, by the way, to find that not only the owner, not only the city officials, but many of the individuals on my email distribution list had no idea what GGW was beyond an organization that filmed women taking off their shirts. This is not ok. Adults should be educated about popular culture and not assume it's a "kid thing" that we don't have to know about.)

I also called the Lava Lounge. Then I called City Hall. I emailed council members. I talked to the Mayor's Chief of Staff. I called the Dean of Students at my school. I lectured my students about the difference between GGW and the average wet t-shirt contest. I emailed the press with links to the GGW exposes.

I was feeling pretty good about this effort: I knew that others were also making phone calls, and I also knew that people would likely have a strong reaction once they read the links I'd sent. But the next day, there was an interesting shift in the "movement." My original email had been forwarded, and I ended up on a distribution list of some religious folks. Here is a portion of an email call to action I received:

I am more than willing to go to the Lava and pray. The event apparently does not start until 9:00. An effective method maybe to emulate the red LIFE tape we use at the abortion clinics, only use blue tape and write the word "PURE " Silent prayer meetings versus vocal protests have a lot more power in this type of confrontational situation…I know I can rally the Bound4Life intercessors who have been praying at Planned Parenthood all winter; anything over 25 degrees is balmy to them and they will probably enjoy a change of scenery.

I believe that when men, especially, come to events like this and act in prayer and purity, it is extremely powerful against the forces of darkness. I personally believe this is important enough for churches to consider ending their functions this evening in time to get over to the Lava and pray before 9:00.

When we stand as Bound4Life outside Planned Parenthood with red tape on our mouths with the word LIFE ; we are holding a prayer meeting, not a protest. The enemy does not know what to do with this, because the tape on our mouths prevents us from entering into verbal jousting, and we are appealing to Heaven for the young women and their children in the abortion clinic. In the same way if we hold a silent prayer gathering at the Lava, it will cause the kingdoms to collide in the heavenlies, but will afford us protection on earth because we will not be drawn into a carnal battle of words.

There are a couple of problems with this response, aside from the obvious issue that it is based on a belief system that most people do not share. First, it is oblivious to the fact that many of those already acting to oppose this event were pro-choice, and that such a response would completely alienate them - in other words, this is not an example of a coalition effort. Second, I find it disturbing that this response was based on an affirmation of women's so-called "purity" and not on a refusal to allow women to be assaulted and raped. And third, I find it distressing that the word "enemy" is used in the way it is, as if we are not dealing with people with whom we can enter into dialogue but rather with instruments of evil.

This kind of response isn't surprising: it's a standard Christian Right response to the sex industry. But what I wanted to focus on in preventing GGW from coming was the danger of rape and assault and the manipulation of consent. I did not want to have anything to do with a reaction that would judge women who might want to participate - or any women who worked in the sex industry - as impure or immoral. I didn't want to focus on the women at all but rather on GGW as an industry. And I certainly didn't want to paint the bar owner as immoral or evil, particularly when he hadn't yet had much time to consider the information we had only just given him.

By the end of that day, as it happens, I got the news that the Lava Lounge owner had decided to cancel the event due to community concerns. This is significant for a few reasons. First, it should remind us that it's possible to change people's minds through conversation - even rational, respectful dialogue. I don't know what kind of interactions he had with, say, the religious community (who were further concerned that this event was happening during Holy Week) or with city officials (who were concerned that the bar is located next to a daycare (that would be closed during the event - I was not concerned about either of these issues). But I do know that he heard from some of us in the feminist community that this could place women in danger. He also heard that he'd be liable for rape if it occurred on his property.

Second, the fact that we, random activists with no special political power, were able to help influence this outcome means that we have more power than we think we do to make things happen. We didn't just call and email and protest: we got the event cancelled.

Third, while I don't know how much I personally had to do with this, I feel like the steps I took are at the least one model for how to organize quickly, a model that anyone can use: 1) disseminate information about the problem and a solution to everyone in your immediate circle; 2) make your own complaint to the controlling party; 3) contact relevant officials; 4) contact the press; 5) contact any other authorities who might have power to help or who represent the target group (e.g., college officials, etc.); 6) once the situation has been resolved favorably, use the same steps to thank the controlling party.

And fourth - I'm glad it never got to the point of a public protest. Had that happened, though, I'd like to think that some of us could have launched our own protest by installing ourselves inside the club as advocates and insisting on the right to accompany every woman who wanted to bare her breasts into the bus.

Way to go, Sioux Falls!

UPDATE: Thanks to Pandagon, some good "how-to" information for those trying to keep GGW away.

Also, dig this quote from Indiana activist, Liz Ladd, about GGW: "Porn is a business and its workers should be contracted while they're sober and paid with money, not T-shirts, hats and underwear." YES!!!

Bear Butte Update: April 9 deadline

From Bear Butte International, an update, action alert, and all the background information you could want:

April 9, 2007 is the deadline to submit letters OBJECTING to the proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to divest its easement interests in the Bear Butte Lake National Wildlife Refuge, turning the management of the Refuge entirely over to the State of SD, the Bureau of Land Management and private landowners.

This alert is asking citizens, tribal nations, organizations and allies concerned about the protection of Bear Butte and adjacent Bear Butte Lake to OBJECT to this plan by the APRIL 9TH DEADLINE.

This Alert contains:
1) THE ISSUE
2) PROPOSAL TO DIVEST THEMSELVES OF THE REFUGE
3) HOW TO COMMENT
4) SAMPLE LETTER - CUT AND PASTE
5) HOW TO GET THE EA DOCUMENT
6) BACKGROUND DATA ON BEAR BUTTE LAKE NWR


1) THE ISSUE

Bear Butte Lake is both a State Park and a National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). A 1967 agreement executed between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the SD Game Fish and Parks Department (SDGFP) allows for SDGFP to manage the Refuge. However, because the management goals of the SDGFP are recreational in nature and therefore, not compatible with the USFWS Refuge System, the USFWS Refuge System believes it makes sense to divest itself, rather than enforce its own singular mission, which is to manage the area for wildlife conservation. These conflicting management purposes date back to the 1950's, when no tribal input was solicited. In fact, the planning team that ran the divestiture model to determine whether Bear
Butte NWR should be considered for the proposed divestiture did not include tribal consultation at its March 30, 2005 meeting.

The Refuge was created in 1937, when the USFWS acquired conservation easements from the State of SD, the War Department (now the Bureau of Land Management - BLM) and private landowners. The Refuge was established 'for the purpose of water conservation, drought relief, and migratory bird and wildlife conservation purposes. Following establishment, however, incompatible uses such as boating, camping, picnicking have been permitted and supported', reads page 33 of the Draft EA.

The USFWS has 374.20 easement acres and no fee title lands. The majority of the dam, on the western side, is on BLM land, while the remainder is on State owned land. Three small BLM parcels lie within the Refuge Boundaries, while the private lands border the boundaries. The USFWS 'has not enforced its easement rights for many years, neither has it made its right known' (page 53, Appendix E of the Draft EA).

To date, Tribal interests in preservation of this cultural resource have not been properly solicited and are not documented in the Draft EA. As well, the document proposing divestiture fails to mention the current controversy around inappropriate development near Bear Butte in Section 5 of the EA (page27). This section outlines effects common to all alternatives, including Environmental Justice issues. In fact, this section closes: 'Within the spirit and intent of EO 12898 (President
Clinton's issuance of the Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Population and Income Populations), no minority or low-income population would be impacted by any Service action under the two alternatives presented in this document.'

The timing of this proposed divestiture could not be worse in terms of the larger issue of protection of Bear Butte and its adjacent resources, including Bear Butte Lake. Due to effects of drought other factors that have not been studied, the Lake was completely dry many times during this past Winter 2006/2007 and for quite a long time. We are calling for a complete Environmental Impact Statement along with objections to this proposed divestiture.


2) PROPOSAL TO DIVEST THEMSELVES OF THE REFUGE

The USFWS believs that the SDGFP, via its promotion of the recreation uses of the Lake, prioritizes recreational use over wildlife. The mission of the USFWS is to protect wildlife; it allows for recreation related to wildlife on its refuges, but when conflicte arise, WILDLIFE, NOT RECREATION is the USFWS priority.

For example, they believe that the recreational uses at the Lake prevents whooping cranes, an endangered or threatened species, from using the area.

The USFWS doesn't think a park managed for recreation should be a refuge and want to walk away from the Bear Butte Lake NWR - GIVING UP THEIR EASEMENTS.

The planning document for the USFWS, called an Environmental Assessment (EA), proposes only two alternatives:

1. Continue the status quo, or
2. Divest themselves of the Refuge


3) HOW TO COMMENT

Comments are due in writing and postmarked by April 9th, 2007 to:

Michael Spratt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225-0486

michael_spratt@fws.gov

Questions can be addressed to:
Michael Spratt, micheal_spratt@fws.gov, (303) 236-4366, or
Tom Koerner, Tom_Koerner@fws.gov, (605) 685-6508, lacreek@fws.gov


4) SAMPLE LETTER - CUT AND PASTE [Note: using original language will give your letter more weight, but better this one than nothing! - PF]

Date

Michael Spratt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225-0486
michael_spratt@fws.gov

Cc: Rep. Stephanie Herseth Stephanie.herseth@mail.house.gov
1823 W. Main St.
Rapid City, SD 57701
Sen. Tim Johnson elli_wicks@johnson.senate.gov
405 E. Omaha, Suite B
Rapid City, SD 57701


Dear Mr. Spratt,

I, ______, am submitting this formal objection to the proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to divest its easement interests in the Bear Butte Lake National Wildlife Refuge, turning the management of the Refuge entirely over to the State of SD, the Bureau of Land Management and private landowners. I am urging the USFWS to maintain their presence and enforce their Refuge System mission to manage the area for wildlife conservation.

The USFWS EA is "thin" in many areas, including it's proposed two alternatives. The EA should propose another alternative, insisting that the State of SD change its management of the Lake and the Lake's surroundings to decrease the impacts of recreation to wildlife. The Draft EA provides insufficient documentation of the existance of confllcts between recreation and wildlife. While the EA provides data on the State Parks infrastructure and policies, it does not provide data on the Parks
actual patterns of recreational use or actual wildlife data - except to list species that occur there. For example, the EA says, "Documentation of bird occurrence and use is not well-developed for this refuge." But ironically, it is documented that recreation adversely impacts wildlife.

Native American cultural protections under Federal laws, require consultation with Native Americans regarding environmental justice and protection of historic/cultural resources. As State laws in this area are much weaker than the superior Federal regulations, the removal of the USFWS, a Federal agency, will seriously threaten the protection of Native American interests. In fact, tribal consultation on this Draft EA did not occur at the March 30, 2005 meeting, nor was it sought, or included in the
document.

When Federal government plans a project, gives money for a project, or permits a project, NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) is invoked. If the area affected has "Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas." an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed (40 CFR 1508.27 (b) (3)).

I am requesting an EIS on the Bear Butte NWR divestment plan of the USFWS as future development of the area may involve federal dollars and plans. The State of SD is planning to build a highway by-pass around Sturgis to drop traffic from I-90 to the eastside of Sturgis. The recent flurry of commercial rally-related development near Bear Butte is in anticipation of this new by-pass.

With the National Wildlife Refuge status, in addition to the National Historic Landmark at Bear Butte, both on Highway 79, there exist compelling arguments for an EIS rather than an EA on the proposed by-pass or other future projects, which may involve federal dollars.

Highly controversial and culturally inappropriate development that currently threatens Bear Butte is not mentioned or portrayed within the "Environmental Justice" section of the EA. Part of Bear Butte and most of the lands immediately under its slope remain in private ownership. At the crux of the issue are the no zoning policies of Meade County, the local governing body, and the impacts of unregulated bike rally development on Native American interests. These critical Environmental Justice issues are not mentioned within the Draft EA and need to be considered in the proposed divestiture of the USFWS.

If the USFWS divests its interests the remaining federal regulating agency will be the BLM, which is a "multiple-use" agency. I PREFER THE USFWS, rather than the BLM and private landowners, as a federal land manager in this most special area and hope you will give my comments favorable consideration.

Sincerely,



5) HOW TO GET THE EA DOCUMENT

Here is the link to download the draft EA.

The link to the EA on the USFWS regional webpage.


6) BACKGROUND DATA ON BEAR BUTTE LAKE NWR

On the eastside of SD Highway 79, just a few miles northeast of the town of Sturgis, lies Bear Butte, revered by tribes across North America as one of the most sacred mountains. In geological terms, Bear Butte is a laccolith geologic formation, a bubble of magma that did not reach the volcanic stage. Bear Butte rises some 1,253 feet above the plains and sits at an elevation of 4,422 feet on the northeastern edge of the sacred Black Hills. Today, the mountain is owned by several Native Tribes, the State of South Dakota (as a State Park) and various private landowners.

Just to the west of Bear Butte, across Highway 79, lies Bear Butte Lake, which sits in one of the drainages that flow off of Bear Butte. The drainage of Bear Butte Lake is tributary of Spring Creek. Spring Creek flows around the northside of Bear Butte and joins Bear Butte Creek, about 6 miles east of the Mountain.

The Lake was once a natural lake, or prairie pothole. A dam was built along its southwest side and the natural lake/pothole is now augmented with additional surface water runoff now collected by the dam. The Lake has a surface are of 180 acres and a maximum depth of 13 feet.

There was once an artesian well near Bear Butte, which was used to supply additional water to the Lake via an easement that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service held to pipe water into the lake. In 1987, the engineering on this well failed, was not repaired and thus this ground water no longer augments the surface water of the Lake.

The Lake supports an artificial fishery of introduced fish, which periodically die off when the lake shrinks, yielding low oxygen and high temperatures.

The Lake provides for shore birds and waterfowl and is especially important habitat for them during the spring and fall migrations. Due to drought conditions, the Lake has been completely dry many times during the winter of 2006/2007.

Saving Bear Butte: How you can help and why you should care.

(I'm cross-posting this at Dakota Women, as well.)

I had the privilege on Saturday of hearing a panel of Native American women activists talk about their lives and their work on behalf of Sioux and Lakota communities. I hope to be blogging about their efforts from time to time, helping to spread the word about what they are doing and how you can help.

Anne White Hat, a member of the Sicangu Lakota Nation, shared with us her struggle to save Bear Butte from developers. Bear Butte is sacred ground. Sacred ground means something different, I think, in Western culture, in which "sacred ground" is often loosely translated as, "this is land that has meaning, and it would be nice if we could preserve it, but sometimes we just have to develop it."

No.

In a First Nations context, sacred ground is sacred. As in, it is left alone. As in, it is integral to spiritual practice. As in, you do not despoil it: you protect it.

I think many non-Native people may need to work hard to imagine an analogy that will allow us to understand what this means. The problem is, Western culture is based on movement. We very often do not keep land in our families, much less our communities, from one generation to another. We have sentimental ties to the land, but we don't have the same kind of spiritual ties to it. Buildings - churches, synagogues, etc. - are generally the center of our spiritual practices. And buildings can be rebuilt, remodeled, and moved.

Land cannot. Sacred ground cannot be moved, rebuilt, or remodeled. It can be protected, or it can be destroyed.

Bear Butte is a place where people go to pray and meditate. Prayer and meditation, by their nature, need quiet and stillness. But Bear Butte is located six miles from Sturgis, SD, the home of the infamous Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, making it a prime location for developers.

And, since Bear Butte has no zoning regulations whatsoever, the sanctity of Bear Butte is threatened by developers who want to build a giant biker bar and outdoor theater for concerts:

Arizona entrepreneur Jay Allen originally planned to name his venue “Sacred Grounds” and to erect an 80-foot statue of a Native person outside the bar. He boasted in March 2006 on his web site that the re-named Sturgis County Line will provide “hundreds of acres to party… in a safe haven, free from a policed environment, that’s what I’m talking about! … over 150,000 s.f. of asphalt for semi-tractor trailors… 22,500 s.f. of… ice cold beer… kick-butt music & oh yea, hot hot women!”[1] The 600-acre complex will include an outdoor amphitheater with space for 30,000 people, where “the largest music acts known to mankind” will perform less than a mile from the base of Bear Butte.

In case it's not clear from that quote exactly what this means for Bear Butte, let me tell you that the concerts at Sturgis - which are a few miles away - can already be heard clearly from Bear Butte.

The good news is that we can make a difference. Visit the Bear Butte International website to find out how you can take action by contacting SD Governor Mike Rounds (and, for SD residents, your legislators), donating to the cause, or helping to educate others about this important issue.

Anne asks that if you contact the Governor or your SD legislators, please stress that this is not just an issue for Native Americans. I found the following language from an earlier action (urging the Meade County Commission to establish a buffer zone around Bear Butte, which it failed to do), and it's a good model for helping us make the point that the integrity of Bear Butte is a concern for all Americans:

Bear Butte is a Sacred Place to many American Indian peoples such as the Lakota, Arapaho, Ponca, and Cheyenne and many more Tribal Nations. Bear Butte is a place of prayer (church), a place to learn tribal way of life (school), and a place of healing (hospital) to these Tribal Nations. Laws exist in America to protect churches, schools, and hospitals and most governments protect the integrity of such places.

From the perspective of the South Dakota citizenry Bear Butte is a National Historic Site, a State Park that holds much Cultural Relevancy for many Plains Indians Tribes, that Bear Butte Lake is a National Wildlife Refuge. Bear Butte should be protected from further destruction that will come with the development of more campgrounds, bars, amphitheaters, saloons and the heavily trafficked highways that inevitably become part of such developments.

Bear Butte, as a State Park and National Historic Site, and Bear Butte Lake as a National Wildlife Refuge, are a concern to many American citizens. The attitude of wanting integrity for such places is not limited to the American Indian People who hold Bear Butte as sacred. It is a concern of many other people as well.

Anne White Hat also had another specific suggestion for those who wish to help. The National Wildlife Refuge that currently protects Bear Butte Lake is planning to divest and give the land to the state of SD. Please, contact LaCreek National Wildlife Refuge and urge them not to do so at this time, as this will certainly mean the end of Bear Butte and the beginning of widespread development:
LaCreek National Wildlife Refuge
29746 Bird Road
Martin, SD 57551
605-685-6508
e-mail: lacreek@fws.gov
Website: http://www.fws.gov/lacreek/

And please, spread the word. Link back to this post, link directly to the Bear Butte International site, but please help me get the word out. This is a fight that can be won if enough people pitch in to help. We often feel like there is nothing that we can do to prevent injustice, to make change happen, and there are opportunities all around us. This is one.

Chief Illiniwek RETIRING!!!

Oh, this is the best news I've gotten to post in some time. A while back, I blogged about the U of Illinois' unpleasant tradition of using a Native American mascot. Well, as of now, that tradition is history:

"To members of the campus community,
A decision has been made regarding the Chief Illiniwek tradition. For more information, go to: www.uillinois.edu/chief...."

Which says... [NOTE: it doesn't anymore; it's been updated. But the following information is still correct.]

Chief Illiniwek Will No Longer Perform

NCAA to lift sanctions on Illini athletics

URBANA—The University of Illinois today announced that Chief Illiniwek will no longer perform at athletic events on the Urbana-Champaign campus after this season’s last men’s home basketball game in Assembly Hall on February 21.

As a consequence, the University will immediately become eligible to host post-season National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) championship events.

In a February 15, 2007, letter to the University, the NCAA stated that "[o]nce this action is taken, the university will be immediately removed from the list of institutions subject to the NCAA Executive Committee’s policy regarding Native American mascots, nicknames and imagery at NCAA championship events. Continued removal from the list is conditioned upon the university’s future non-use of ‘Chief Illiniwek’ and the related Native American imagery in connection with university
athletics.

"Assuming the announced changes are affected and assuming such use does not reoccur, the university will be in full compliance with the policy," the letter stated. "Accordingly, the policy will not preclude the university from hosting or participating in NCAA championship events, should the university be otherwise eligible."

The NCAA letter was signed by Bernard Franklin, senior vice president for governance, membership, education and research services.

U. of I. Board of Trustees Chair Lawrence C. Eppley said today’s announcement marks a critical step toward finishing the work of the consensus process. "This step is in the best interest of the University and is consistent with the Board’s previously stated goal of concluding this year its consensus process regarding Chief Illiniwek. Among our objectives was recognizing the goal of having high integrity athletic programs and student athletes who have the opportunity to compete at the highest levels," Eppley said.

"We made and met many friends through the consensus process. And while people differed on their opinions of the Chief, the overwhelming majority of those voices put their love for the University ahead of their opinion on the Chief," Eppley said.

"The Chief Illiniwek tradition inspired and thrilled members of the University of Illinois community for 80 years," Eppley said. "It was created, carried on, and enjoyed by people with great respect for tradition, and we appreciate their dedication and commitment.

It will be important now to ensure the accurate recounting and safekeeping of the tradition as an integral part of the history of the University. We also have the responsibility to work together to capture and put to good use the goodwill created by the tradition and to maintain other great traditions like the Three-In-One for decades to come."

The Chief Illiniwek tradition began in 1926 in conjunction with the Marching Illini, the nation’s premier marching band. Criticism of the tradition intensified in recent years, although the symbol and iconic halftime performance remained popular among alumni and the public. The Board of Trustees’ consensus process for resolving issues regarding Chief Illiniwek was underway when the NCAA Executive Committee established its policy in August 2005. During two rounds of appeals by the University to the NCAA over its policy, the NCAA rescinded its objection to the names "Illini" and "Fighting Illini" but retained Illinois on its non-compliant list because of the Chief Illiniwek name, logo and the performance. The University exhausted the NCAA appeals process last April and since then has been banned from hosting NCAA championship events on the Urbana campus.

For more writings on this and on race-related issues at UIUC, check out this blog. See also this one - note that the Oglala Sioux have requested the return of the "Chief's" outfit, which is in fact a Sioux outfit.

I think that this is perhaps a more important moment than many people realize. When I first came to Native American Studies, I remember thinking that some of the ongoing struggles in which Native peoples are engaged were, simply, unrealistic. I mean, you can't really change nations, can you? And then something like this will happen - the right pressure is finally brought to bear, and the University is forced to end a tradition that it fought tooth and nail to protect, that it insisted had nothing to do with religious desecration. Thanks to the NCAA who have forced the University (among others!) to abandon its racist "tradition"; to Charlene Teters, who put herself in the line of fire to fight against the use of Native American mascots, not only in Illinois, but nationally; to Jay Rosenstein, who documented her struggle; to the Oglala Sioux who have demanded the return of the Chief's "authentic" outfit; to all the activists who have persevered until now. This sets a precedent. This is a moment that helps us believe that change is possible, that struggles for sovereignty and the honoring of treaty rights can succeed.

Bloody Brilliant Breastfeeding Blog

Over at The Lactivist, I read about new proposed legislation in Wisconsin to make breastfeeding in public a right (as opposed to simply not illegal) and to levy a fine against those who harass a breastfeeding mother. Somewhat ironically - because, frankly, some of the biggest lactivists I've ever met have also been conservative Christian feminists - the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin has said of breastfeeding, "Just because something is normal and natural — it doesn’t mean we have to condone [it]."

(So - Christians Against Breastfeeding? Interesting.)

The Lactivist wrote what I'm coming to see is a consistently excellent response, from which the following is excerpted:

Am I the only one getting a little sick and tired of this "done with discretion" crap?

There are two issues at play here...

1.) Who gets to define discretion? To me, discretion means that I don't stand on a chair and scream "HEY EVERYBODY! I'M GOING TO BE PULLING MY BREASTS OUT NOW!" before I nurse. To others, it means "covering up" with a blanket or nursing cover. To others, it means pulling the shirt down to cover most of the breast. To others, it means that you shouldn't be able to tell the baby is nursing unless you stick your head up the mom's shirt. To others, it means "don't leave your house you hussy!"

2.) When did people lose the ability to look away? I see a lot of things in public that I don't like. I see teenagers wearing clothes so small that I can tell when the last time they cleaned their belly button lint was. I see women shoving themselves into clothes four sizes too small. I see men that need to invest in belts and suspenders to avoid showing us their own little grand canyon when they bend over. I see people with mullets.

You know what I do? I look the other way. I don't have the right to "not be offended." I have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's it.

Now beyond that, I really, really REALLY want to know where this magic land is where women "whip it out," "flop it out" and "hang it out" for all the world to see while they nurse. Granted, I live in a state with fairly low rates of breastfeeding, but I have never, ever EVER in my life seen even a smidgen of breast while someone was nursing in public. Not once. (Ok, truth be told, I have a hard time seeing moms nurse in public period...)

Every time I read one of these "done with discretion" comments I go back to that early Lactivist post where I wrote about the women that apparently nurse their children while standing on top of the bar with a tassel attached to the other breast shouting "hey everyone!! look at me!! I'm nursing!!!'

I just don't see it folks...

I'll add that I *have* seen breasts in public - sometimes mine. But in South Dakota, which is actually pretty pro-breastfeeding, in my experience, the breasts are never whipping, flopping, or hanging out. At most, there is the tip of a breast which is partly obscured by the baby's head. And many women cover the breast and baby with a blanket - which I think sucks, because the baby gets hot and sweaty and because sometimes one needs to see what's going on in order to ensure a proper latch - but they do it, anyway.

Which doesn't mean that I haven't heard of (I've never seen myself) the occasional brazen boob sighting. Honestly? I think that's fine. If boobs are ok to see in late-night commercials, the front page of newspapers in some countries, on HBO, at the beach, or at bars and clubs, then they're damn sure ok to see glimpses of in public places when they're being used for their natural purposes.

Now, before I get comments about how disgusting breastfeeding is and how breasts are obscene and all that, let me remind you that if you really believed that breasts were obscene, you'd be picketing the mall for selling tops that easily reveal more boob than does a breastfeeding mom. And frankly, in a world where I have to see what kind of underwear the strangers around me are wearing, I would much rather see a baby being nourished by a breast.

Here's what I think: I think the people who object to breastfeeding in public (and sometimes anywhere, because it grosses them out) can't handle the cognitive dissonance of breasts sometimes being sexual and sometimes being maternal. It's the madonna/whore split all there in one body part. And then there are also people who associate any liquids in the body with filth, and so the idea of someone drinking milk that comes from a human breast literally disgusts them. I'm pretty sure, though, that these same people drink cow milk and eat yogurt, ice cream, and cheese, so I'm not really swayed by that argument.

And then, I think that women who have internalized the notion that nice girls must always be modest have issues with the whole public breastfeeding thing. To them, it seems indefensible to purposely be in a position where one might catch a brief glimpse of boob. Some such women are, I sometimes think, perhaps the same women who police other women's behavior and their own, the ones who are comfortable calling other women "sluts" and "whores" if they perceive them as threats or as having stepped out of line. And others are just profoundly uncomfortable with what, to them, feels like it should be shameful.

I'll take this one step further. There are a lot of things we encounter in public that make us uncomfortable. It's one thing to be uncomfortable when confronted with something new that challenges our understandings of social conventions or of biological norms. Now, I'm not equating breastfeeding with a disability, but I do think it's interesting that able-bodied people often have similar reactions to both, particularly when some sort of impropriety is assumed.

Here's a (weird) example. I had a short-lived (because she refused to continue it) discussion with a woman who insisted that farting was entirely controllable and that it was just rude for someone to allow themselves to fart. (Don't even ask how we got started on this conversation in the first place. No, it was not because I farted.) I pointed out that in many cases, people have no control over this sort of thing - people who have had part or all of their colon or intestines removed, for example. People with Crohn's Disease or Irritable Bowel Syndrome. She never responded to this - I don't know why. Perhaps it offended her sense of decorum to even have such a conversation in the first place. But essentially, her sense of decorum left outside all of the people I've just described. These are, then, people whose very bodies thus become shameful and disgusting as a result of societal ignorance and intolerance.

What we immediately think of as gross or disgusting often says more about societal norms, assumptions, and expectations than about whether whatever it is - two people of the same sex kissing, conjoined twins, women with hairy legs - is actually gross or disgusting.

No, I'm not saying that breastfeeding is the same as farting. But I am saying that breastmilk, according to all research, is not just *good* for babies, but it is the *best* food for babies. The World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatricians have stated that newborns should be *exclusively* breastfed for a significant time, and that they should be breastfed for at least a year, and that breastfeeding should continue after that for as long as it is mutually desired (the WHO says that it is beneficial for children to breastfeed for SEVEN YEARS). Given this, and given the fact that we as a society readily accept breasts in both sexualized (popular culture, fashion) and unsexualized (visual art) contexts, it is time for us to get over our prurient obsession with the breast. Particularly when it comes to breastfeeding.

Ah, the Abortion Wars are back!

Thanks to CHAD for the continued reporting on what's heating up in SD this legislative session. Get ready for more legislation designed to control women's uteruses.

Man, I hope the rest of the Leg is too smart to go down this road again.

But there is an opportunity to do something about it. Thursday, February 1 is the second annual Women 4 Women Day in Pierre. There are free buses leaving from Sioux Falls and Rapid City. If you want the opportunity to lobby your elected officials - and lemme tell ya, last year I was really intimidated about approaching them, but this year? This year I'm spittin' mad and ready to give them a piece of my mind! - then join us!

(So who's going? I'm bringing my knitting - who's with me?)

I beat City Hall!

Bean's daycare has several 10-minute parking spots in front of it for the convenience of parents who are loading and unloading their charges. I park there twice daily for this purpose.

The parking around the daycare is usually not too crowded. There are several metered spaces on both sides of the two streets (the daycare is on a corner). But for running in and out, obviously, it would be preferable to park in one of the 10-minute spots.

The problem is, there are all kinds of five-year-old things that can cause delays: the child not wanting to leave, the child refusing to put on his/her coat, the child needing to go to the bathroom.

All of which happened on one particular day, and so when we got outside, I found a parking ticket on my windshield. What was especially aggravating about the ticket was that it was given at exactly *eleven* minutes - which suggests to me that the meter person stalked my car and hung around for exactly eleven minutes just in order to catch me.

Since those spaces are meant to be helpful to parents, I was annoyed. I can understand if a car has been there for a half hour, but eleven minutes?

So I went to City Hall.

Contesting tickets is an interesting business. While I was there, I met two other contestors. One was clearly angry and had a 'tude. I don't recall the exact nature of his traffic crime, but I believe it involved turning right on red where there was no right on red allowed. His position was that the traffic ticket policies in this city were terrible and needed to be completely overhauled. He said several times that he loved living here except for the tickets. (Which kinda made me wonder just how many tickets he'd gotten in the couple of years he's lived here.) Not surprisingly, he did not get his ticket waived.

The other contestor was an elderly man who came along with his wife. He had been in a traffic accident and was told by the police officer who responded to park his car at the side of the road. He was sitting with the officer in the police car when the meter person came by and ticketed his car. Also not surprisingly, he *did* get his ticket waived.

(Tangent: For some reason, this man felt compelled to tell me, more than once, that the person who hit his car was a "drunk Indian." I think he thought it was a joke, and he half-whispered it the way that white people here do when they say "Indian." Like an Indian might hear them, and then they might be embarrassed for having said something racist. And then they'd have to get angry because they don't like being embarrassed, and of course they aren't racist; it's just a simple truth, isn't it, that the Indians here are always drunk.

Effing white people.

So he said that the cops arrested the "drunk Indian," because apparently there were laws against being a drunk Indian. And I suggested rather strongly that perhaps the laws were against being drunk and applied to everyone, which was the only thing I could say at that moment that wasn't a profanity. I am terrible at situations like this - I admit it. I need to practice telling people off without resorting to screaming profanities in City Hall, which would have probably gotten me kicked out. The only other thing I could think to do was not to crack a smile at his "joke" but to look at him, stonily, and without comprehension as to why on earth such a racist comment would be funny.)

So then it was my turn. I went in, and I had to stand at a podium in front of a fancy court bench and swear to tell the truth, and then I had to explain that while I was parked for eleven minutes and not ten, I felt that perhaps a little leniency was in order for those parents who parked there and who had the task of wrestling the little monsters out to the car. I wanted to make a point, I said. Secretly, I was hoping that my point would be heard 'round the city and that the new policy would be not to ticket any cars in front of the daycare. Instead, they made an exception for me and waived my ticket, essentially warning me that I should be careful not to park for longer than ten minutes next time. So I did not effect lasting social change, but I did get to keep my $5. (Yes - $5. What can I say? It was the principle of the thing.)

A woman playing Division I football? Day-um!

I don't usually do this, but the announcement for this book excited me so much that I had to share it with y'all:

Still Kicking: My Dramatic Journey As the First Woman to Play Division One College Football
by Katie Hnida

Editorial Reviews

It took just 1.28 seconds to make history.

On August 30, 2003, Katie Hnida became the first woman ever to play and score in NCAA Division I football. The struggle to get to that groundbreaking moment took eight long years, a journey filled with dogged commitment, horrifying setbacks, and finally, remarkable triumph.

Fate came knocking for the 14-year-old Hnida in the unlikely form of a torn thigh muscle -- an injury that would drive her off the soccer field in search of another outlet for her athletic talent. She found football and with it gender-defying success. The same day Hnida's high school classmates voted her homecoming queen, she donned her helmet and pads and kicked six extra points in the homecoming game.

When she is recruited to play for the University of Colorado Buffaloes, her great dream is realized, and she seems set for glory on a much larger stage. But upon arriving in Boulder, she begins a tour of hell inside the University of Colorado's football program, a hell that culminates in Hnida being raped by a teammate. It is here that the story truly begins.

Katie is physically and emotionally devastated. She leaves the university and begins climbing her way back to who she was and what she wanted. She learns to speak about what happened to her and to push through harrowing flashbacks of violence. The very thing that drew her into the darkest days of her life will ultimately save her: football.

She sends 80 kicking tapes to 80 Division I schools and is invited to visit several top football programs. But it is the blue-collar, no-nonsense team that wins her trust: the University of New Mexico Lobos. Under head coach Rocky Long, Hnida continues her long road to recovery through hard work and the will to never give up. She is not only accepted by her teammates, she also finds herself part of a team
that's a family.

In Albuquerque, Hnida is reunited with her dream. Under a true leader, she blossoms. Her teammates are teammates, supporting and encouraging her to reach her goal. And with just seven minutes and 20 seconds to go in a game against Southwest Texas, the history-making extra point kick is made in under two seconds, changing everyone's ideas about what is possible.

I don't know about you, but I just put this on my Amazon wishlist. What I think is particularly exciting is that it has a happy ending, and truthfully, we don't see nearly enough of those. I was, sad to say, not at all surprised to read about the rape. I'm frankly surprised that it didn't happen while she was in high school because when women move into traditionally male arenas, historically, men react with violence. But to know that she not only was able to move past her own trauma but also to both find a place on a Division I team AND to be truly accepted there - wow. I can't wait to read it.

And I hate football.

(NOTE: For more on Hnida, check out Ken's post - with links - on After Atalanta.)