Tweet
************************************************** ***********
This Message is Reprinted Under the Fair Use
Doctrine of International Copyright Law:
_http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html_
(Donate to the Legal Information Institute)
************************************************** ***********
FROM: _http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/living/36628054.html_
(Discovery?s ?America?s First Nations? sparks debate | Indian Country Today | Living)
Discovery’s ‘America’s First Nations’ sparks debate
By Gale Courey Toensing
Story Published: Dec 26, 2008
Story Updated: Dec 26, 2008
AKWASASNE, N.Y. – The Discovery Channel’s documentary film about the
Haudenosaunee has sparked a controversy over historical accuracy, racial
stereotyping, tone and intent.
The film was aired twice over the Dec. 6 weekend under the title “America’s
First Nations” and has generated a long string of comments at Discovery’s
forums Web site at _www.community.discovery.com/eve/forums_
(http://www.community.discovery.com/eve/forums) .
Originally called “First Nations: In Their Own Words,” the name change
reflected the new direction the film took after the original production was
turned in, said a Mohawk writer who was hired as the technical consultant for the
film.
“The final version is not a film in our ‘own words,’” said Doug
George-Kanentiio.
The original production team crafted 55 hours of raw film into a 43-minute
episode that told “the great and complex story of the Peacemaker, also known
as the Prophet, who brought the spiritual message of the transformative power
of hope and the Great Law of Peace to the Iroquois peoples,” George-Kanentiio
said. What ended up as the final version, he charges, “destroyed the story
and in its place created a film which is full of distortions, lies and
violence.”
But Darren Bonaparte, a Mohawk historian and author from Akwesasne, had a
minor speaking part in the film and said he liked the final production.
“There were things I would have done differently, but overall it was okay,”
he said. “People have been complaining about the violence and gore but I
think they really just wanted it to be a feel-good Indian fairy tale. That’s not
the story I’ve always heard. It takes a lot of guts to show how dark those
days really were before the confederacy was established.”
The film’s original version, George-Kanentiio said, depicted the war between
the tribes before the appearance of the Prophet, and told the stories of
Hiawatha, a man torn and sickened by violence and conflict; Tadodaho, the
sorcerer; and Jikonsaseh, the woman leader who represented evil.
“Then the Peacemaker comes and we showed how he transforms each one from
evil to good and the message is universal: no matter how evil or depraved we may
be there’s always hope that we can change,” George-Kanentiio said. “And the
Prophet gives them more than the moral teaching; he gives them a government
to establish this to make sure it will be preserved. And we showed how the
Iroquois Confederacy influenced the world and we can see that in so many ways:
democracy, ecology, women’s rights and things of that nature.”
The executive who had backed the project and funded it with almost $50
million was fired, and a new production company, Half Yard Productions, and a
non-Native writer were brought in to re-edit the film.
“And they wanted to take it from what our understanding and vision was and
make it into an action film for Discovery’s new target audience – 18- to
30-year-old males,” George-Kanentiio said.
He was appalled at the final version.
“Of the 43 minutes [of the film’s length], 38 minutes were violence. They
were showing cannibalism and beheadings. It was almost all fight scenes and
little or nothing about the characters. We had included an oblique reference to
cannibalism because it is part of the story, but it was more to emphasize
the change that took place in the human beings. It wasn’t central and they made
it central and it obscured everything else,” George-Kanentiio said.
But Bonaparte has a different take on the matter.
“Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but our own oral traditions talk about
cannibalism and violence,” he said. “I hope the complaints don’t deter any
future projects they may be contemplating.”
As word spread and the film became controversial, Discovery posted a
statement at its forum Web site, accusing George-Kanentiio of “false allegations.”
The statement says that George-Kanentiio was consulted “every step of the
way,” and the directors “incorporated” his comments, but he says that’s not
true.
“I had no part in the decision to show human remains, did not agree to the
use of special effects, knew nothing about the skulls prior to their being
used and had no input in the final editing at all.”
The Discovery Channel statement notes that two independent experts approved
the film, including Dr. Robert Venables, a renowned retired professor of
American Indian studies at Cornell University.
His response to the statement?
“Ha!” said Venebles in disbelief.
“What they’re saying is a total lie. I did not approve this film,” Venables
told Indian Country Today. “I put a lot of time in. I watched the film, I
took notes. I made comments on everything, including the music. I did
everything I could to alert them to what was wrong with the film. I even pointed out
geographic stupidities in it.”
Venables said he told the producers he had hoped the film would be something
that could be shown to Iroquois youth and others.
“And I said I can’t say that now. It’s too flawed. There are so many
mistakes that I can’t recommend it to be shown to anybody,” Venables said.
According to him, the most egregious error was eliminating all reference to Iroquois
spirituality from the story.
And, Venables said, he was particularly irked by the fact that Discovery
asked non-Native scholars to review the film.
“Why does it take two white scholars to give the Good Housekeeping seal of
approval?” asked Venables. “Why didn’t they ask Jake Swamp, a highly
respected spiritual leader of the Mohawk Nation, or someone like him? They had a
white point of view of this incredible history to start with and that white point
of view was secular and didn’t involved Native spirituality. They didn’t
want to mention that and it’s a shame.”
This Message is Reprinted Under the Fair Use
Doctrine of International Copyright Law:
_http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html_
(Donate to the Legal Information Institute)
************************************************** ***********
FROM: _http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/living/36628054.html_
(Discovery?s ?America?s First Nations? sparks debate | Indian Country Today | Living)
Discovery’s ‘America’s First Nations’ sparks debate
By Gale Courey Toensing
Story Published: Dec 26, 2008
Story Updated: Dec 26, 2008
AKWASASNE, N.Y. – The Discovery Channel’s documentary film about the
Haudenosaunee has sparked a controversy over historical accuracy, racial
stereotyping, tone and intent.
The film was aired twice over the Dec. 6 weekend under the title “America’s
First Nations” and has generated a long string of comments at Discovery’s
forums Web site at _www.community.discovery.com/eve/forums_
(http://www.community.discovery.com/eve/forums) .
Originally called “First Nations: In Their Own Words,” the name change
reflected the new direction the film took after the original production was
turned in, said a Mohawk writer who was hired as the technical consultant for the
film.
“The final version is not a film in our ‘own words,’” said Doug
George-Kanentiio.
The original production team crafted 55 hours of raw film into a 43-minute
episode that told “the great and complex story of the Peacemaker, also known
as the Prophet, who brought the spiritual message of the transformative power
of hope and the Great Law of Peace to the Iroquois peoples,” George-Kanentiio
said. What ended up as the final version, he charges, “destroyed the story
and in its place created a film which is full of distortions, lies and
violence.”
But Darren Bonaparte, a Mohawk historian and author from Akwesasne, had a
minor speaking part in the film and said he liked the final production.
“There were things I would have done differently, but overall it was okay,”
he said. “People have been complaining about the violence and gore but I
think they really just wanted it to be a feel-good Indian fairy tale. That’s not
the story I’ve always heard. It takes a lot of guts to show how dark those
days really were before the confederacy was established.”
The film’s original version, George-Kanentiio said, depicted the war between
the tribes before the appearance of the Prophet, and told the stories of
Hiawatha, a man torn and sickened by violence and conflict; Tadodaho, the
sorcerer; and Jikonsaseh, the woman leader who represented evil.
“Then the Peacemaker comes and we showed how he transforms each one from
evil to good and the message is universal: no matter how evil or depraved we may
be there’s always hope that we can change,” George-Kanentiio said. “And the
Prophet gives them more than the moral teaching; he gives them a government
to establish this to make sure it will be preserved. And we showed how the
Iroquois Confederacy influenced the world and we can see that in so many ways:
democracy, ecology, women’s rights and things of that nature.”
The executive who had backed the project and funded it with almost $50
million was fired, and a new production company, Half Yard Productions, and a
non-Native writer were brought in to re-edit the film.
“And they wanted to take it from what our understanding and vision was and
make it into an action film for Discovery’s new target audience – 18- to
30-year-old males,” George-Kanentiio said.
He was appalled at the final version.
“Of the 43 minutes [of the film’s length], 38 minutes were violence. They
were showing cannibalism and beheadings. It was almost all fight scenes and
little or nothing about the characters. We had included an oblique reference to
cannibalism because it is part of the story, but it was more to emphasize
the change that took place in the human beings. It wasn’t central and they made
it central and it obscured everything else,” George-Kanentiio said.
But Bonaparte has a different take on the matter.
“Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but our own oral traditions talk about
cannibalism and violence,” he said. “I hope the complaints don’t deter any
future projects they may be contemplating.”
As word spread and the film became controversial, Discovery posted a
statement at its forum Web site, accusing George-Kanentiio of “false allegations.”
The statement says that George-Kanentiio was consulted “every step of the
way,” and the directors “incorporated” his comments, but he says that’s not
true.
“I had no part in the decision to show human remains, did not agree to the
use of special effects, knew nothing about the skulls prior to their being
used and had no input in the final editing at all.”
The Discovery Channel statement notes that two independent experts approved
the film, including Dr. Robert Venables, a renowned retired professor of
American Indian studies at Cornell University.
His response to the statement?
“Ha!” said Venebles in disbelief.
“What they’re saying is a total lie. I did not approve this film,” Venables
told Indian Country Today. “I put a lot of time in. I watched the film, I
took notes. I made comments on everything, including the music. I did
everything I could to alert them to what was wrong with the film. I even pointed out
geographic stupidities in it.”
Venables said he told the producers he had hoped the film would be something
that could be shown to Iroquois youth and others.
“And I said I can’t say that now. It’s too flawed. There are so many
mistakes that I can’t recommend it to be shown to anybody,” Venables said.
According to him, the most egregious error was eliminating all reference to Iroquois
spirituality from the story.
And, Venables said, he was particularly irked by the fact that Discovery
asked non-Native scholars to review the film.
“Why does it take two white scholars to give the Good Housekeeping seal of
approval?” asked Venables. “Why didn’t they ask Jake Swamp, a highly
respected spiritual leader of the Mohawk Nation, or someone like him? They had a
white point of view of this incredible history to start with and that white point
of view was secular and didn’t involved Native spirituality. They didn’t
want to mention that and it’s a shame.”
Comment