On Thursday (April 23, 2015), Vince Shilling, writing at Indian Country Today, broke a news story that was quickly picked up by social media sites (like Gawker) and then news media, too (like CNN, and in the UK, the Guardian).
Shilling's story is about Native actors walking off the set of Adam Sandler's new movie, The Ridiculous Six, because of the ways the script denigrates Native women and mocks Native culture via the names created for Native characters and in the dialogue: Never Wears Bra (in an earlier version of the script, her name was Sits on Face), Strawberry Tits, Stiff In Pants.
People are outraged. I am, too.
Though not as crude as the ones in the script, I've seen that same sort of thing in children's books. Here's some examples:
In Russell Hoban's Soonchild, a couple is expecting their first child. The man's name is "Sixteen Face John" because he has sixteen different faces, all with their own names. They are described in the first chapter. His first face is his (p. 3):
Hi face, the one he said hello with. Face Two was What? Face Three was Really? Face Four was Well, Well. Face Five was Go On! Face Six was You Don't Mean It. Face Seven was You Mean it? Face Eight was That'll Be The Day. Face Nine was What Day Will That Be? Face Ten was It Can't Be That Bad. Face Eleven was Can It Be That Bad? Face Twelve was I Don't Believe It. Face Thirteen was I Believe It. Face Fourteen was This Is Serious. Face Fifteen was What I'm Seeing Is What It Is. Face Sixteen was What It's Seeing Is What I Am.He's a shaman from a long line of shamans (p. 6):
His mother was Stay With It and his father was Go Anywhere. His mother's mother was Never Give Up and her father was Try Anything. His father's mother was Do It Now and his father's father was Whatever Works. His mother's grandmother was Where Is It? and his father's grandmother was Don't Miss Anything. His mother's grandfather was Everything Matters and his father's grandfather was Go All The Way.And... his wife's name is No Problem. Her mother's name is Take It Easy. Her friend is Way To Go. Soonchild was published in 2012 by Candlewick Press.
In Me Oh Maya, Jon Scieszka makes fun of Mayan names. His much-loved Time Warp Trio travels to the midst of a Mayan ball court where an "evil high priest" named Kakapupahed stands over them. They try not to laugh aloud at his name, which they hear as Cacapoopoohead. Me Oh Maya was published in 2003 by Viking.
None of this is new to children's literature. Some of you may recall titles from your childhood like Indian Two Feet and Little Indian and Little Runner of the Longhouse.
I find these attempts to come up with Native names troubling and problematic in so many ways. Equally troubling are the ways they are described. Hoban's book, for example, got starred reviews from Publisher's Weekly who noted his use of "slapstick" in tackling "the big questions" about life. Booklist, meanwhile, called it profound and offhandedly glib.
Sandler has, thus far, issued no response to Native people regarding his script and reaction to it. The film Sandler is making is slated to air on Netflix. A spokesperson for Netflix did reply (as reported by Vulture) by saying:
"The movie has ridiculous in the title for a reason: because it is ridiculous. It is a broad satire of Western movies and the stereotypes they popularized, featuring a diverse cast that is not only part of — but in on — the joke."
In other words, they're telling the world that Native people are in on the joke. Rather than listen to Native voices, they defend what they're doing.
I contend that children's books are part of the problem. Things given to young people matter. Giving them books that poke fun of Native names pave the way for the creation and defense of what we see in Sandler's movie.
I'll be back with an update if Sandler or Netflix issue any statements, but carry this with you as you select--or weed--books in your library: Names matter. Nobody's names ought to be fodder for satire or humor, whether it is by Adam Sandler or Jon Sciezka.
Beverly Slapin was unable to make the comment option work, so, she wrote to me by email and asked me to post this on her behalf:
"This is outrageous! Sounds like an "Eskimo" version of "Who's on First?" Except this is racist rather than humorous. If Russell Hoban is capable of any shame, now would be time for a public, heartfelt, apology--and a recall of this book. And it might be a good time for the major reviewers to start paying attention, instead of exacerbating the problem of racism in children's literature. One might think that, after all the work you and others have done in the field of critical multiculturalism, some of it would have sunk in. Maybe some of it has. It's not enough."
--Beverly Slapin
And, a follow up from Beverly Slapin:
"Sorry, Debbie. I hadn't realized that Russell Hoban is no longer capable of apologizing in this life. Still, Candlewick Press and the major reviewers could use a good education--not that we haven't tried. Don't know if shouting helps: THE PRACTICE OF TRIFLING WITH INDIGENOUS LIVES, HISTORIES, LANGUAGES, NAMES, AND BELIEF SYTEMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCING GLIB AND FUNNY CHILDREN'S BOOKS IS RACIST AND OBSCENE. STOP IT!"
While I am completely inexperienced in the world from which you lay these charges against Hoban, I think I understand their gravity. So please accept that my defence of Hoban, and of the story, is made with the greatest respect.
I don't know if my argument holds up for sure, but I do know that Russell Hoban was not racist, on any level.
The novel is not based on Inuit stories. That's the main problem with this critique. Of course non-Inuit readers (who are the expected audience of the book, as
you note) might make this assumption. In doing so, the risk of Inuit culture being defiled through such assumptions into careless parody, or any kind of simplification, is real. And I agree that with Soonchild, this risk is significant.
But in the broader context, I don't think it makes sense even to speak of such risk in this way. For surely it is self-evident that a culture should not be protected from stupidity by the negation of another culture. The negated culture here being Hoban's work - a product of his life in the US and UK in modern and postmodern times - and the stupidity being in the readers who think that Hoban's story has anything seriously to do with real Inuit culture. That stupidity has to be attacked, not this brilliant story of love, responsibility and enthusiastic engagement with the imagination, the world and all the mystery in between. The story itself, in the way its content sediments into form, is incompatible with cultural insensitivity in the world in which it is written. Those who, through ignorance, find a way to make it compatible, are the ones who need dressing down, not Hoban.
If the tables were turned and the risk placed on Hoban's culture, I would argue exactly the same thing (and I'm sure Hoban would too). I feel I can say so, and make this argument in general, even from my limited experience, because the connection between stupidity and lack of imagination is the one thing of which I'm sure. Boycotting or burning books like Soonchild is NOT the way out of this.