"The Progressive Curmudgeon" may have journalistic history, but I think he's making a mistake on this one. **UPDATED**

****UPDATE**** Mr. James has only now added in my comment on his blog.

*****************

On a previous post, I had a reader named Franco leave a comment for me regarding an article on the blog "The Progressive Curmudgeon." One of the articles accuses Sarah Palin of saying some very serious racial epithets. (I'm not going to cut-and-paste anything from the article or link to it because of the accusations it makes, you guys can find it and read it yourself.) Franco asked me what I thought about it.

My first response to Franco in the comments:

If you are talking about the "racist epithets" article, I don't know. I've never heard anyone make that claim and I've lived here 25 years and have lots of Valley friends. Also, her husband is part Yupik...enough to be a member of the Native Corporation. That's no proof, of course, as people can justify anything in their heads. However, it would make the use of those epithets rather ironic.

I'm seriously considering asking my brother-in-law. He's one of the leaders of Alaska Right-to-Life, was an ardent worker on her campaign, writing on some of her speeches and dragged all of his kids out to carry signs for her during the election. I would hope he wouldn't want to so strongly support someone who is racist.

So I went to the "Curmudgeon" and read everything. I even posted. The results ended up in the second comment:

Franco:

I wrote a comment on that article. I said that I was a Dem and if I could prove something like that was true, I'd post it in a heartbeat. However, in the 25 years I've lived in Alaska, of all the folks I know in Wasilla and the rest of the Valley who know Sarah Palin and including my bro-in-law, leader in Alaska Right-to-Life and worker on her campaign, I've NEVER heard ANYTHING about Sarah expressing racism in any form.

I also mentioned that his article was quite misleading regarding Alaska politics. I told him that many of the old guard, hard-core Republicans hate her. Some because she exposed Randy Ruedrich's inappropriate use of State resources (which she should have) but also many die-hard Conservatives because she's not a real conservative. She espouses conservative stances on social issues, yet while in either office never did anything to further them. She espouses conservative fiscal values but has run up the debt and increased spending both times in office. So his insinuation that she is "in" with the Repugs is wrong, which makes his article somewhat suspect to me.

Interestingly enough, he didn't print it. I did not write the comment anonymously unlike the others who criticized him so anyone reading it would be able to find their way to me and my blog. Also, all other disparaging comments printed (other than being anonymous) were also written by McCain/Palin lovers. I guess he knew their questions would be viewed as less-credible.

Additionally, he seems to have taken a lot of what he's saying straight from Anne Kilkenny's wonderful email-turned-call-to-action which has gone viral all over the internet. Anyone can use that sucker and sound like they know what they are talking about for awhile...until they try ad-libbing.

Do I understand anonymous sources? Obviously...all folks have to do is read the blog the last week and a half to know that. Is there a Lucille? Maybe...although I've NEVER heard anyone use the term "Aboriginal" up here to describe someone of Alaska Native descent. Even if there is a "Lucille," we don't know for sure that she is telling the truth.

Other things I find suspect:

In the 25 years I've lived in Alaska, I've worked in Prudhoe Bay, have spent time in Fairbanks, Kodiak, Juneau, Barrow and all over the Kenai Peninsula. I've worked in Construction for most of my career which is the reason for my...errrr...salty language. I have never heard the terms: "Aboriginal" (I explained that before), "Arctic Arab" or "Sambo" in reference to Alaska Natives or black folks. As I've heard a number of epithets in my time, especially those directed towards me since my daughter is black, I'd probably have heard that one before.

(Regarding "Sambo"--that's wayyyyy out of Sarah's and my generation -we're roughly the same age.)

Now, here's a disclaimer: his articles could all be true. His anonymous source could be real. His information could be attained from people who know what they are talking about.

However...while I went forward with the comment from McHugh Pierre about the McCain people coming to Alaska without naming my extremely-credible-source, that was with information that was not-at-all damaging to anyone on a personal level. (It annoyed McHugh, but who didn't enjoy that?) This information is not something I would ever take public without verification...it is very personally damaging to Governor Palin and I'd better be ready to back it up.

So, like I said, this could all be true and maybe someone will come forward who has experience with other examples of this behavior. However, for many of the reasons I previously stated I wouldn't be surprised if we never hear a peep.

Since I wrote this comment I've made contact with some other Valley friends. Realize, some of these folks have had close connections to either Sarah or her kids for many years. (Yes, he got that part right, they are scared...I wrote about that HERE and for Firedoglake.) The information I get from them is that NO ONE has EVER heard Sarah use racial epithets or anything like that. As much as they might like to see Sarah lose her VP nomination, they (like me) won't support lies which tarnish the whole Progressive movement.

I also have another reason for writing this: I refuse to have my credibility damaged by someone making claims that may be geared solely to "grab the limelight." Yes, Alaska is hot right now and it's amazing how many new blogs have sprung up both within and outside of Alaska. Suddenly, all kinds of folks are "Alaska experts" or "have a good friend with information." I welcome them...whatever it takes to get more folks in the blogosphere, I'm all for it.

However, I won't tolerate folks who don't know what they are talking about smearing the rest of us with bad journalism...and bad journalism can happen from folks who once had good reputations. I would rather waste valuable writing time posting this on the blog to distance myself from the "Curmudgeon" than be thrown into the same category next time I post legitimate information on all-things-Palin from a credible anonymous source.

(Photograph courtesy of "The Progressive Curmudgeon.")

Alaska Blogs are dispelling the Sarah Palin "myths" running rampant across the MSM and the blogosphere

I've seen an amazing amount of misinformation making it's way across both the MSM and the blogosphere since Friday's announcement of the Palin pick for McCain's VP running mate. Luckily, Alaska blogs are on the case.

1) When I heard Rachel Maddow, after an excellent analysis of the VP pick, display some confusion on the facts regarding the Mike Wooten issue I posted an open letter in an attempt at providing clarity.

2) There have been conflicting "rumors" of Sarah's "gay-friendliness" all over the web. Bent Alaska is on the case:

The national LGBT media recognizes her opposition to equality and civil rights - except the Log Cabin Republicans (gay republicans, believe it or not) who think she is a wonderful choice.

And the fringe elements are joining the fray.

In these reports, I found only two LGBT Alaskans quoted (both in the same article by Gay City News):

Some press reports following the McCain campaign announcement have repeated the right-wing rhetorical flourish that has Palin declaring that she has gay friends. That softer image is not what some Alaskans saw.

"That's just completely wrong," said Allison E. Mendel, the attorney who brought the 1999 [partner benefits] case. "She spoke on radio programs all throughout the campaign saying, 'I want a constitutional amendment, I think these things are only for a man and a woman.' ... I don't think she's ever said a friendly word about gay people, that they ought to have health benefits like other people do or anything along those lines."

On AIDS issues, Palin simply has no record at all.

"There is not a lot to speak of for AIDS policy because she hasn't done much," said Trevor Storrs, executive director of the Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association. "She's never been given the opportunity to address our situation here because it has never been put before her."

"She has done very little to address the major epidemics," he said.

I want to add that one of the issues folks point to as her "gay-friendly" stance was her decision to veto the bill which would have blocked gays from recieving equal health benefits from several agencies. However, the explanation doesn't match up,per the ADN in 2006:

In the first veto of an administration that isn't yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

Advice from her new attorney general said the bill passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional, she said.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a prepared statement released by her administration Thursday night.

That doesn't sound "gay friendly" to me.

3) Much is being made of Todd Palin's "Eskimo-ness" and it has actually been stated outright that his percentage of Inupiat blood makes the Palin family "Alaska Native" friendly. Per Alaska Real's Writing Raven:

But this is the kind of stuff that concerns me about the Todd Palin mentions (from the Baltimore Chronicle):

Married to a native Eskimo, and with four mixed-race children, she can expect to appeal to many non-white American voters, on whose support the Obama campaign is counting.

I cannot stress enough - Sarah Palin has done nothing for the Alaska Native community - a community that includes her own children.

Any venture into the Alaska Native community has been superficial at best. I can't even take issue with her Alaska Native policies, because she has NOTHING of substance. She has ignored Alaska Native people from before she took office as governor - an act all the more harmful because it is her own children's heritage she is not acknowledging.

The only thing I know she's "done" for Alaska Native people - fire them. Or not hire them in the first place. The more recent one is Walt Monegan. I absolutely don't believe she fired him because he was Native - I believe she fired him because he wouldn't fire her ex-brother in law- despite the investigation that had already been done on him, with findings and reprimand.

So far, from the phone calls and hits on my blog, it seems that media across the country are at least curious enough to research some of these facts. I only hope that these and other "myths" can be nipped in the bud before the McCain Campaign can imprint them as "fact" on an Alaska-ignorant public.

Barack Obama's "Backstage with Barack" Campaign--one of the 10 folks is an Alaskan!

The Obama Campaign had a fund-raising drive where if you donated $5.00 or more within a certain time frame, your name would be put in the hat to be selected as one of 10 folks to be backstage with Barack Obama before his historic speech at Invesco Field a week from Thursday.

One of those folks selected is an Alaskan!

Per the email:

Holly Miowak Stebing of Anchorage, Alaska

Holly, a 20-year-old Alaska Native Inupiaq, is spending her summer break from Stanford University at the First Alaskans Organization interviewing native elders about their experiences with segregation. Holly is passionate about improving healthcare access for Native Americans, and protecting Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling. The 2008 presidential election is Holly's first as a voter. She says: "This was the first campaign I felt I needed to support. I don't have a lot of money, but I donate what I can because I believe in [Barack]." She will attend the convention with her mother who is the first Native American woman to pass the Alaska bar.

Writing Raven from "Alaska Real"-- Real Native Myths and Legends #4

Here is the next installment in the important series by "Alaska Real" blogger Writing Raven. Raven will be blogging with me from the Democratic National Convention in Denver and will provide a much-needed viewpoint from one of Alaska's First People.


Indians and Eskimos

Indian. Eskimo. Native American. Tribe. Clan. People group. First Nations. First Peoples. American Indian. Indigenous. It's dang confusing sometimes, I know, and I've grown up with all these terms. I have some sympathy for every (non-Native) friend I've ever had who has worked up to (usually unsure of how to approach it) asking me, "So… what do you call yourself?"

There are actually many different forms of this question, but it boils down to, "How on earth do I say what you are?" I know there are those who will argue we should be "color-blind" and not look at a person's culture. I disagree. I think we should honor and celebrate a person's culture, we would be robbing them of a huge part of who they are not to – we just don't have to judge a person by their culture. It's also just a reality – having to define someone's background is not going anywhere.

Kind of reminds me of a discussion I had about this topic in high school, and my "African-American" friend was asked how to address his race. He said, "We're 'Black' now. But I'll let you know if it changes."

If you ask the government, they would consider me from the "Indian" people group (as opposed to "Eskimo" or "Aleut". On a federal document I am "American Indian or Alaska Native." On my Certificate of Indian Blood, I am from the Tlingit "tribe."

If you ask me, I will tell you I am Tlingit or Alaska Native, depending on where I am and who you are. I will not say the Tlingit tribe – no such thing. There's also no "Tlingit Nation". I won't tell you I am Indian – as far as I'm concerned, Indians are from India. I won't tell you I'm Native American, and I won't tell you what tribe I'm from – as far as I know, I have no tribe.

Much of the problem stems from trying to group an entire continent's worth of culture into one identifiable group. Even here in Alaska, the cultures are incredibly diverse. I have a Yup'ik friend that I share values and experiences with as an Alaska Native woman, but when it comes to so many other cultural values, she seems to be speaking another language (though, often times, she quite literally IS speaking
another language.)

There is also the problem of Native people only just being able to define how they were called by the general public in the last generation or two, and so it seems quite changeable, and no two people agree on the perfect way yet.

Last year at the World Eskimo Indian Olympics (WEIO,) one of the assistants came to get our dance group, "We need the Indian groups!" A dozen sets of furrowed brows and he quickly answered, "Hey, if I have to be Eskimo, you have to be Indian!" Fair enough. Point is, even our own institutions are outdated in the terms we use.

But all the background and why and how aside, there still remains the issue of, "What do I call you?"

The simplest answer I can say is, "Just ask."

I have often wondered if this is not a very "polite" thing to do outside of Alaska Native cultures. Maybe the sensitivities of being PC or a Western etiquette – but generally when I am asked it is with an embarrassed tone, usually an apology. A "I'm sorry if this is rude, but…" Recently, a friend of mine described a non-Native woman who was offended when a Native woman asked her race.

Although I am generally loathe to group such diverse cultures into one "group think," my own experiences in my culture and other Native cultures in the state is that the first thing you want to do is get to know someone's background. As an example, a dialogue of me meeting another Native person:

"Nice to meet you – so where are you from?"

"Akiachak."

"That by Fairbanks?"

"Bethel area."

"Cool – you know John James?"

"Yeah, he's my cousin."

"Sweet."

And we switch. I threw in my own lack of geographical awareness in there for realism. But basically, I now know where he's from (and can deduce his 'people group' from that,) and who his general family is. Actually, if it were really real, we would find out all the different people we know and/or are related to in common. Many times we will ask and talk directly about what racial background we are from.

In short, the "polite" or friendly thing to do in the culture I know is to introduce and let your own background be known. Many Native people who are born in urban areas will identify themselves as being "from" whatever village or rural area their family is from. I was delighted to meet a man "from Klawock" last Summer, very near where I was born, but then he said, "Oh – but I've never been there." I have a feeling as more and more Native people are born in Anchorage, this will become even more common.

I believe the Tlingit people have elevated introductions to an art. My Yup'ik friend is fond of telling me that "Tlingits complicate everything!" Maybe true, but there are some pretty solid reasons behind it.

Do you know that scene in "Lord of the Rings," where the trees are talking amongst themselves all day, and when they finally talk to the Hobbits, you find they've only just introduced themselves? I believe that this must have been based off of a traditional Tlingit celebration. You introduce pretty much your whole background and
genealogy. Basically, when I begin my speech, you should know my name (or names,) my parents, my teachers, my grandparents and great-grandparents, my moiety, clan and sub-clans, where I am from – or my family is from, and where I live now. And that's the short version.

Although I cannot tell you what all Native people would like to be referred to as – even between my siblings and I this would vary – I can tell you it doesn't hurt to ask. Of course, basic politeness applies here too. I don't suggest a "So what's your racial make-up?" or questions at times that would be ethically inappropriate - job
interview anyone?

A few tips:

-Start with asking where they are from. It wouldn't hurt if you knew
(in general) where people groups were from.

- Don't ask anyone if they are "Eskimo." Really. I mean it. The few people who are okay with being identified by others as such will let you know in good time, but this will lose you more respect than it will gain. And don't assume because one person of that background prefers to be called "Eskimo" the next is. A friend and I will joke around, calling each other "Eskimo" and "Indian," but I made a mistake thinking I could joke like that with another coworker - she did NOT appreciate being called Eskimo, although from the same background as my friend.

- As an Alaska Native person, the above also applies to the word "Indian." From what I understand, in the Lower 48 this can be a pretty common identifier, but not so popular up here.

- Don't attach a "tribe," "clan," "nation" or other grouping word when asking. I get asked a lot if I am from the Tlingit tribe, or what tribe I am from. Federally, this is correct. There are people groups in the U.S. which embrace the word. But no Tlingit person I know identifies themselves this way. Likewise, there is no Tlingit clan. I DO belong to a clan, as well as a house and a moiety, but the same will not be true of every Alaska Native culture.

Basically, just see how the person identifies themselves, and treat them with respect. You do not have to do things "traditionally" - most Native people do not address or introduce traditionally, unless in a formal setting, and do not expect that of you. But to "gain friends and influence Native people," showing a respect for their individuality as a person, and within a culture, will go far.

--Writing Raven

From Writing Raven--Real Alaska Native Myths and Legends #3 - What's a "traditional" Native?

Here is the next installment in what I believe to be an important series by "Alaska Real" blogger Writing Raven. Raven will be blogging with me from the Democratic National Convention in Denver and will provide a much-needed viewpoint from one of Alaska's First People.


The news about the slaughtered caribou brought out the usual - anti-Native hate, calls for an end to subsistence and "special rights", I don't know how many upstanding citizens dragging alcohol into the mix - something not mentioned in the case thus far, except by those spewing ignorance.

But one thing always gets brought up eventually, and that is the idea that "if they want to be traditional, then they need to go back to bows and arrows." One less enlightened man a few weeks ago put it as needing to go back to "making fires out of caribou dung."

Now, I will confess something. This is something that many Native people struggle with. There are many expectations about what you should be as a Native person, from without and within.

Be traditional - not "too traditional" - assimilate already! - just be "American" - why don't you dress in buckskin?

Some of the irony of the situation is that from the non-Native crowd, there is a constant mixed message. Native corporations are the most open to vicious attack for their successes - how dare they succeed? Yet corporations are the government requirement, not the Native neccessity. Hate comments about "needing to go back to the village" can be soon followed by "if things are so tough in the village, then move out!" Even the well-intentioned, friends and colleagues, can encourage this sort of dichotomy by having expectations about what a Native person should be, versus what they are.

But this kind of confusion is not something exclusive to non-Natives. This is maybe most confusing within the community. Be proud of your culture! But be more American this way... Learn your language! But don't think you're better just because you can. How come you don't know your culture? But your Western education should come first.

It's not always as clear cut as saying it so, as few few things are. It can be as subtle as a supervisor asking a group of us what we would do if an Elder gave us a very expensive gift at work. My look of panic was not the only one. You don't dare refuse a gift from an Elder! But this is not Western corporation practices.

The idea that you must succeed in two worlds is not new, nor is it going to go away anytime soon. But we can get rid of this cut and dry vision of what it means to be a "traditional" Native person.

It does not mean going back to "bow and arrow" days. If this is what someone really wants, it goes both ways. Not every great invention came from the Western mind. In fact, I'll make the next person who says this to me a deal - I will start encouraging the "old days," no snowmachines, no rifles, no electric heat - if they will fulfill two requests. Two requests for a whole lifestyle here, it's a good deal.

First, the agricultural products that we had in the "old days" are ours and ours alone. That means we own the patent/license/whatever to tomatoes, potatoes, turkey, rubber, chocolate! No Hershey's syrup. No peanut butter and jelly, because no peanuts. And it might literally mean the shirt off their back, because no cotton.

Second, if we don't receive the benefit of Western invention, we take back the benefit of our invention. Here in Alaska alone, that means no kayaks, snowshoes, moccasins. Not to mention popcorn.

Now, this isn't a serious claim, it is only meant to highlight the absurdity of demanding people "turn back the clock". I don't want to take back tomatoes (especially since the Tlingit and Athabascan people didn't have a lot to do with that) and I don't think that my wanting to honor my traditions means I need to do away with the Internet.

Bottom line is, the learning and invention and benefit went both ways. We were not a "primitive" people, who would never have survived without Western intervention. But the history of American would be much changed - in fact quite a bit briefer - with the knowledge and skill of the "First Peoples."

As to what a good "traditional" Native person is, the minute you spot one, let me know. The most honorable, respectful Native people I know drive cars and speak English as good or better than traditional languages. It is their drive to keep traditional lines open, to remember the values of ancient times and apply them to a modern world that makes me - and others - admire and respect them.

Our ancestors did not sit and dream of a world in which everything stayed exactly the same (despite some TV movies that say otherwise). They were innovators themselves. They dreamed of children, and grandchildren, and grandchildren's grandchildren that were healthy, that knew the Earth for what it was and respected it, that treated others with respect due to them. And this is how we respect them - by pursuing just that, fighting for it, expecting and hoping that it will come.

--Writing Raven