Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New version of PETER PAN - suggestion request

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New version of PETER PAN - suggestion request

    Hi, I am currently preparing a new stage version of the Peter Pan story for production in schools and children's theatres.

    I thought I would nip the issue of the dated and rather thoughtless portrayal of the "Native Neverlandians" in the story as originally written by J. M. Barrie in the bud by opening the discussion with genuine tribal performers of the present day as to how scenes which feature the characters should be addressed BEFORE publishing anything rather than afterward. And I wonder if anyone here might want to put forth any comments or suggestions on how they should be portrayed and what they should do to paint a more appropriate cultural picture especially for school performances, which is where the play will probably be most often done. The idea, obviously, is to eliminate "Ug-a-Wug" and other ridiculousnesses and stereotypes from past versions of the story and replace them with material that at least suggests some kind of historical authenticity even if the show is presented in a fanciful way.

    Here is the essential action of the story in the version I am preparing.

    While flying to Never Land Wendy's brothers John and Michael see Wendy shot with an arrow. They incorrectly assume when they encounter members of the local native tribe on the ground that they are responsible for the shooting. However the point becomes moot when the boys and Princess Tiger Lily are captured by Captain Hook and his pirates.

    The boys and Tiger Lily are chained to Marooner's Rock, at the edge of the sea, and left as bait to try and catch Peter Pan. Peter and Wendy rescue the three with the help of two of the Indians on the shore who imitate the sound of the crocodile and scare Captain Hook away. John and Michael now realize they prejudged the Indians wrongly and apologize.

    The apology is accepted and to honor Peter and the children for helping rescue Tiger Lily, the Indians say they will make them all honorary members of their tribe and give them honorary tribal names, which they do, calling Peter "Flying Eagle," Wendy "White Flower," the other children "Fast Canoe," "Little Wolf," "Brave Arrow," "Red Feather," "Yellow Feather," "Dancing Bear," and, jokingly, the loudest Lost Boy "Screaming Monkey." The Indians and children then dance together and have some fun as Peter Pan and Wendy move off into the forest to see if they can catch a glimpse of the fairies.

    Here are some of my questions:

    1) OF WHAT TRIBE SHOULD THESE PEOPLE BE MEMBERS? In the original they are called the Pickanninnies and that ain't gonna happen. I establish in the play early on that what is seen in Never Land are things and people which no longer exist on Earth and haven't been seen there in a long time. Types of people or animals there have either become extinct or are now part of history; there Pirates coexist with medieval knights and cave men and Vikings etc as well as fairies, dragons and sea serpents. This suggests the tribe that live in Never Land should be either a real one which ceased to exist before c. 1900 or a fantasy tribe with a made-up or mythological name. What would be preferable and if a historical tribe could be used, any suggestions for which one might be colorful or interesting?

    2) USE OF NAMES? Three Indians are identified by name in the script, two men who are at the moment named Big Hawk and Little Panther, and one little girl who is Tiger Lily. I know these names are corny but are they offensive in any way and if so what might they be changed to? My feeling is that it would be nice to have their names not be stated in English but in first in their native language then translated to Peter Pan etc. What would be the translation of these names in native form?

    3) NAMING CEREMONY/DANCE & MUSIC? Does or did any actual ritual exist for admitting honorary members to a tribe or is this just baloney? If so does any actual reference material exist to such a ceremony or are there dances which are still done to serve such a purpose? Does music exist which could be incorporated into the show? Sorry if I sound ignorant but I'm trying to bring some authenticity to this thing if possible.

    4) APPEARANCE? What would be anyone's suggestion as to what the "Native Neverlandians" should look like? The play is set in 1900 but these characters could be from 100 or 200 years before; time doesn't progress in Never Land.

    OK well that is a start, I guess. I will be interested to hear what anyone might have to say about all this & thanks in advance for anyone's opinions or contributions.

  • #2
    Do away with the naming ceremony. We do not give names to outsiders on a whim.
    Wanjica Infinity No One

    Comment


    • #3
      OK, I can do that, & I appreciate your comment -- tho the action isn't entirely arbitrary -- Peter Pan has defended and rescued the Princess from Captain Hook at this point so it would be appropriate at least to show in some way that this action as well as the action of the Indians to imitate the crocodile and help drive away Captain Hook have resulted in the two groups teaming up and becoming allies against the Pirates, whom they will later work together to defeat. I thought that the idea of giving names would allow the feeling to get across that the children were going to be accepted by the adult Indians and be able to "play along with the big boys" as well as the names being something obviously easy to "give" to them onstage but if that comes off as too quick & dirty I understand.

      The idea is to leave kids who have seen the show with the idea that the Indians were pretty awesome, which must be shown by how they dress and what they do or say or sing, (probably things these kids or the kids in the audience have been exposed to before) -- and to also show that despite what they may have thought at first when they saw them at the beach with bows and arrows, that they are "good guys," as opposed to the Pirates who are also colorful and somewhat exotic in their appearance -- but bad guys. If what I have suggested isn’t going to be acceptable, can you suggest a more appropriate sort of probably historical ritual or dance that could be used to suggest the newly gained mutual respect between children and the Indians which might show the Indians in a better light and also be interesting for the audience to watch? As I mentioned I am not at all opposed to the idea of including an adaptation of an authentic activity in a native language, or fantasy version of same, which could be a dance, song, or some other sort of activity I know nothing about but would like to, especially if it might be thought of as something positive if it appeared on a junior high school or children's theatre stage, which is where whatever is decided to be included in this script will show up.

      What do you think of actually making the two speaking Indian characters actually be the narrators of the story? Would it be more appropriate, then, if they were inclined to refer to Peter Pan as "Boy Who Flies Like a Bird,” for example, informally, as opposed to this sort of thing being a formally-bestowed name? I’d kind of like to still see the obnoxious lost boy still be called a screaming monkey or something similar if possible, because he deserves it. :)

      Comment


      • #4
        By the way there is something I perhaps should point out in all this and that is that most of the objectionable material that's been seen by many over the years in versions of the Peter Pan story do not appear in the original material which is what I am working with. The very objectionable musical number in the animated Disney movie was solely the invention of the Disney company, and isn't in the original material, and the ridiculous "Ug-a-Wug" dance in the Broadway show of the 1950s the invention of the writers of that production. Both the Disney film and the Broadway show were made during a time in which stereotypes were apparently the thing. In the original play the Indians may be presented in a fashion that shows a fair amount of ignorance of genuine culture by the author but they are neither heavily stereotyped nor silly; they are primarily depicted as allies to the Lost Boys in their fight against the invading, offensive Pirates, and I am thinking that sort of relationship can be portrayed sincerely and possibly with some humor but not crossing the line into mockery. Tiger Lily has a crush on Peter Pan, also, which he is too dense to pick up on, but nothing comes of that. Anyway the original play from 1904 doesn't include the offensive material that was added to the movie and musical that came out in the 1950s; that's not at all my starting point here, or any sort of reference point to me at all. If anything in the original show the Indians are rather quiet and undeveloped, mainly they are there because they look interesting. They don't say much because I would suggest the author didn't really know HOW to develop them or present anything about them in any greater detail. Which is the issue I'm trying to address here.

        Comment


        • #5
          This is an illustration of how the Indians in PETER PAN were portrayed BEFORE Disney got ahold of them:

          http://www.flickr.com/photos/2467174...57624615031276

          Here is Tiger Lily also:
          http://www.flickr.com/photos/2467174...57624615031276

          Comment


          • #6
            I think I have made a decision and that is to develop what will be essentially a new character, Little Panther, who will take a more active role in all the proceedings, from the first encounter with the boys till the end in which he will team up with Peter Pan and have an active role along with Tiger Lily in defeating the Pirates, who he is going to explain are plundering the land and stealing their food and provisions. And also now trying to attract sea serpents to the waters to prevent them from fishing. It's far more logical to have some of the Indian characters more directly involved in defeating the pirates at the end since they are adults or teenagers and the Lost Boys little children. The scene does not work very well with just the little boys fighting the big pirates as it is usually performed. Yes, Peter will still be rescuing his friends at the end but if he is also helping the Indians win their battle the victory will be two-fold, and the Indians will also have dramatically resolved the indignity of having had their princess captured earlier. If the Indians are really the Never Land natives it is their land and Tiger Lily their ruler, Peter should be shown as someone helping them protect their country, not the other way round. Peter is only "captain" of a few homeless little boys, that's all.

            Comment


            • #7
              I believe you are acting out of good intentions, and you sincerely want to do this right. But, I'm going to answer rather harshly. I think you need to listen to the silence that has greeted your request. In my opinion, it is trying to tell you something about what you asked.

              This silence is not tacit approval. In my opinion, it is something much more complicated.

              Let me start with how the request sounds from my side of this exchange. Here is what I heard: I am going to depict Native people/culture as a form of entertainment for the dominant culture; so you need to show me how to do it correctly.

              Note the absence of a question mark in the last sentence in that paragraph. It is not poor grammar. You didn't ask us what we thought about the use of our people -- or more exactly caricatures of our people -- in the telling of this story. After offering a bunch of opinions about what *you* think is offensive, corny or stereotypical, you requested our cultural patrimony. Is it possible that what we find offensive is the presumption that our cultures can be appropriated for whatever purpose the dominant culture sees fit?

              Rather than considering making these characters the Neverland equivalents of Oppalompas, you insist on depicting Indian people as severed from modernity -- "…people which no longer exist on Earth…" -- and exotics -- "…which must be shown by how they dress and what they do…" Please consider that Native people deal with the consequences of judgements about our authenticity based on the erroneous perception that "real Indian" people belong to the past or that they must be the buckskin clad other. As long as we are exotic aliens with feathers growing out of our heads, we're not your colleagues, neighbors or fellow citizens.

              Correctness of depiction is not the issue. Rather trivialization is. Would you consider depicting Peter undergoing a bris to make him an honorary member of the "tribe"? Of course not. Questions of good taste aside, it would be disrespectful because it makes light of a sacred ceremony. Ask yourself why that line exists for Judaism but not for Native cultures? Is it because our ceremonies aren't seen as "real" like those of the Abrahamic faiths? Is it because our ceremonies belong to a dead past owned by dead people? To depict adoption in this context is trivialization.

              Your coming here clearly indicates you are a writer of conscience. Please, consider whether or not your desire to depict Native people with a few authentic touches in this context is helpful or hurtful. Try to look at this with the eyes of a Native child.

              Comment


              • #8
                How about don't make them Indians? If it's Neverland, and its imaginary (and obviously by the name pickaninnies they weren't based on any real tribe but a stereotype) make them a fairy tale tribe. You mentioned before, you could make them Vikings.
                Cariblanguage.org

                Comment


                • #9
                  OLCHemist, I appreciate your reply and your straightforwardness. And I admit my general ignorance of at least contemporary Indian culture, as I really have no Native friends around here to consult with about anything. However I think you misinterpret my purpose to a degree. I am not at all intending to produce a script to be used only by the "dominant culture." Yes, it was originally a play produced in England by a Scottish author with no thought of ethnic issues at all when he wrote it. It’s essentially a melodrama and he added Indians to it to try and make it more exciting, not to reflect any sort of contemporary truth. I don’t want to repeat his mistake. I would like to see a script that would be produceable by ANY group and that includes tribal ones or mixed groups as well. PETER PAN is the most-requested title of interest at the moment by schools and isn't going to go away so my thought has been if I’m to keep the title in publication that the right thing to do would be to deal with the Indian characters in a way that the original author did not and certainly not and also not in a way that other musical-writers have which has been to CELEBRATE stereotypes instead of trying to eliminate them and replace them with something realistic.

                  So please don't confuse my attitude with James Barrie's, who wrote in a time where melodrama and stereotyped characterizations of races and nationalities was at a kind of all-time height. I'm not trying to repeat his mistake. I'm trying to eliminate it, while still allowing the play to be a fantasy for children about a land where characters can interact with both people of past history good and bad as well as outright fantasy creatures such as fairies and mermaids. I brought up the idea of the children being given names as I was looking for something in the scene which would demonstrate appreciation and could be musically and visually entertaining and maybe a little humorous too with the obnoxious kid being given a funny name. If that is offensive I'm glad to take it out. I originally thought it might be nice to replace the awful musical numbers in what’s been done before with something that at least suggests authentic historical tribal dances or activities. I wasn’t so much asking for someone to give me something as I am trying to be educated a little as to what “authentic” might be and where to look for it. Maybe it was wrong to think that that would be the right way to go, though.

                  If it's true that a step back has to be taken and the question that needs to be asked is "Can ANY version of PETER PAN be done that won't offend?" and the answer is no then I am stuck with a problem because as I say the story isn't going to go away and I have customers waiting in line for me to release a new script of the title so my decision up to this point has been OK, well if it's going to be done I'd like to see a version that ANY group could do and possibly one that might rock the boat a little for "dominant culture"-minded people either producing it or in the audience who would expect to see Ugh, How and scalp-um paleface stuff -- and present a tribe which may be fictional, and may be colorfully dressed, but which is not a stereotype and may in fact actually suggest a historical tribe that WAS colorful and interesting in the past, without portraying them in an offensive or ridiculous way. Is there really no way to depict a historical/fantasy version of a native tribe in this story that won't grate on people's sensibilities? I've been working on the script all day and have tried to make this new character Little Panther into an equal one with the rest in the drama, not Peter's sidekick, not stupid, and not a prop. He's a member of a tribe on an island who is upset that a bunch of thieving pirates have been raiding their stores of food and it's established that Peter Pan and the fairies help him and his Princess sometimes, and sometimes they help Peter Pan, usually in problems which involve the Pirates. Is that still somehow offensive? My feeling about leaving the Indians out altogether is that if that is done it's like saying they don't get to play at all; that the truth is there are Anglo-culture stories and fantasies and Indian-culture stories and fantasies and the two should not mix, and that the one shouldn’t even be seen by the other culture’s children. If I am really just that out of touch and that's really the state of things, OK, I can have the characters be ancient Celts or Vikings or South Sea Islanders or something instead but couldn't the script then be condemned for excluding Indians altogether? Personally I think that something like the musical OKLAHOMA is far more offensive than the basic story of Peter Pan because it excludes Indian characters entirely; in that little world named with an Indian name and which was supposed to be an area that was not to be intruded upon, they don’t even exist. The settlers stomping around and declare at the top of their singing voices "You know we belong to the land" offends me and I am only 1/32 Oneida and perhaps that doesn’t even qualify me to be personally offended but regardless I want to get as far away from that sort of complete bull**** as possible no matter what group is being exploited. And all of this suggests to me that the Indians in Peter Pan need to be FIXED -- reworked, reimagined, re-costumed, renamed, whatever, but not eliminated.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Storyland Theatre View Post
                    OLCHemist, I appreciate your reply and your straightforwardness. And I admit my general ignorance of at least contemporary Indian culture, as I really have no Native friends around here to consult with about anything. However I think you misinterpret my purpose to a degree. I am not at all intending to produce a script to be used only by the "dominant culture." Yes, it was originally a play produced in England by a Scottish author with no thought of ethnic issues at all when he wrote it. It’s essentially a melodrama and he added Indians to it to try and make it more exciting, not to reflect any sort of contemporary truth. I don’t want to repeat his mistake. I would like to see a script that would be produceable by ANY group and that includes tribal ones or mixed groups as well. PETER PAN is the most-requested title of interest at the moment by schools and isn't going to go away so my thought has been if I’m to keep the title in publication that the right thing to do would be to deal with the Indian characters in a way that the original author did not and certainly not and also not in a way that other musical-writers have which has been to CELEBRATE stereotypes instead of trying to eliminate them and replace them with something realistic.

                    So please don't confuse my attitude with James Barrie's, who wrote in a time where melodrama and stereotyped characterizations of races and nationalities was at a kind of all-time height. I'm not trying to repeat his mistake. I'm trying to eliminate it, while still allowing the play to be a fantasy for children about a land where characters can interact with both people of past history good and bad as well as outright fantasy creatures such as fairies and mermaids. I brought up the idea of the children being given names as I was looking for something in the scene which would demonstrate appreciation and could be musically and visually entertaining and maybe a little humorous too with the obnoxious kid being given a funny name. If that is offensive I'm glad to take it out. I originally thought it might be nice to replace the awful musical numbers in what’s been done before with something that at least suggests authentic historical tribal dances or activities. I wasn’t so much asking for someone to give me something as I am trying to be educated a little as to what “authentic” might be and where to look for it. Maybe it was wrong to think that that would be the right way to go, though.

                    If it's true that a step back has to be taken and the question that needs to be asked is "Can ANY version of PETER PAN be done that won't offend?" and the answer is no then I am stuck with a problem because as I say the story isn't going to go away and I have customers waiting in line for me to release a new script of the title so my decision up to this point has been OK, well if it's going to be done I'd like to see a version that ANY group could do and possibly one that might rock the boat a little for "dominant culture"-minded people either producing it or in the audience who would expect to see Ugh, How and scalp-um paleface stuff -- and present a tribe which may be fictional, and may be colorfully dressed, but which is not a stereotype and may in fact actually suggest a historical tribe that WAS colorful and interesting in the past, without portraying them in an offensive or ridiculous way. Is there really no way to depict a historical/fantasy version of a native tribe in this story that won't grate on people's sensibilities? I've been working on the script all day and have tried to make this new character Little Panther into an equal one with the rest in the drama, not Peter's sidekick, not stupid, and not a prop. He's a member of a tribe on an island who is upset that a bunch of thieving pirates have been raiding their stores of food and it's established that Peter Pan and the fairies help him and his Princess sometimes, and sometimes they help Peter Pan, usually in problems which involve the Pirates. Is that still somehow offensive? My feeling about leaving the Indians out altogether is that if that is done it's like saying they don't get to play at all; that the truth is there are Anglo-culture stories and fantasies and Indian-culture stories and fantasies and the two should not mix, and that the one shouldn’t even be seen by the other culture’s children. If I am really just that out of touch and that's really the state of things, OK, I can have the characters be ancient Celts or Vikings or South Sea Islanders or something instead but couldn't the script then be condemned for excluding Indians altogether? Personally I think that something like the musical OKLAHOMA is far more offensive than the basic story of Peter Pan because it excludes Indian characters entirely; in that little world named with an Indian name and which was supposed to be an area that was not to be intruded upon, they don’t even exist. The settlers stomping around and declare at the top of their singing voices "You know we belong to the land" offends me and I am only 1/32 Oneida and perhaps that doesn’t even qualify me to be personally offended but regardless I want to get as far away from that sort of complete bull**** as possible no matter what group is being exploited. And all of this suggests to me that the Indians in Peter Pan need to be FIXED -- reworked, reimagined, re-costumed, renamed, whatever, but not eliminated.
                    I have watched this thread with interest to see what the replies would be to your "Request"

                    I understand your need to follow through with this story for I can tell by your reply you really don't need our permission to continue...

                    It was asked that you not use us in your story. That was a period by the way...

                    No matter how you write your story no matter what information you gather to make it more authentic it wont be its a story! Why do you need a Native to "spice" up your story??
                    Ok ok ok I promised myself I would not start ranting and working myself up into a frenzy...

                    Go back and really read Olchemist's post really dig into each word and try to understand something that the White culture has got wrong at ever turn for the past 500 years!

                    But then again you really dont need our permission you have already wrote the story as to how you see fit...
                    ᎠᏂᎩᏚᏩᎩ - Anigiduwagi
                    Till I Die!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      OK, I've been trying to work on being less argumentative. Present my case and let folks decide, without trying to browbeat people into agreeing. But, it looks like that's out the window today, LOL.

                      First the easy one:


                      Originally posted by Storyland Theatre View Post
                      ...maybe a little humorous too with the obnoxious kid being given a funny name. If that is offensive I'm glad to take it out.

                      I grew up hearing jokes about Indian names like: the one where the old man explains to his grandson that Indians are named for the first thing their parents see after they're born. Which, he explains, is why the boy is named #$%*ing Dog. Funny, isn't it?


                      Now the hard one:


                      Originally posted by Storyland Theatre View Post
                      I am not at all intending to produce a script to be used only by the "dominant culture." Yes, it was originally a play produced in England by a Scottish author with no thought of ethnic issues at all when he wrote it. It’s essentially a melodrama and he added Indians to it to try and make it more exciting...

                      You are telling a dominant culture story. The themes reflect dominant culture understandings of childhood, coming of age, and gender roles. It is replete with dominant culture dramatic tropes -- including the noble savage. (I could really pull out the old liberal arts education, and draw connections between Peter Pan and late 19th century concerns about the transition of boys in to men in post-industrial revolution England. But I'll give Badden-Powell, social-Darwinism and Stanley Hall the night off.)

                      I argue that Indians were used specifically because of their, albeit unconscious, association with a more child-like state of man. Their "princess" is saved by a "white" man and they are eternally devoted. While it is intended to teach about helping the weak against injustice, the ethnic component makes it the same-old story we've been hearing since we supposedly bowed down to worship Columbus.


                      Originally posted by Storyland Theatre View Post
                      My feeling about leaving the Indians out altogether is that if that is done it's like saying they don't get to play at all; that the truth is there are Anglo-culture stories and fantasies and Indian-culture stories and fantasies and the two should not mix, and that the one shouldn’t even be seen by the other culture’s children. If I am really just that out of touch and that's really the state of things, OK, I can have the characters be ancient Celts or Vikings or South Sea Islanders or something instead but couldn't the script then be condemned for excluding Indians altogether? Personally I think that something like the musical OKLAHOMA is far more offensive than the basic story of Peter Pan because it excludes Indian characters entirely...

                      I see two issues there:

                      Let me ask, are the Pirates defined by race? Are the Lost Boys? Are the Darling children? No, just the mythical creatures and the brown people. The principle character trait of the Native people in the play is that they *are* Indians. And the subtext of this dramatic trope is they are helpless before a "superior" white aggressor, until rescued by another "superior" white character with better morals.

                      Do I think that Native and dominant culture folktales shouldn't mix, no. But, take it from a mixed blood, that blending is complex and nuanced. It is delicate and brutal. Cleaning up the accumulated stereotypes in Peter Pan will make the play more palatable and let the dominant culture rest easier in its new-found sensitivity. But, in the end more authentic Indians, within a framework that remains true to themes of the original tale, are nothing more than an ethnographic drag act. They are there to be rescued, to help and adore Peter, to be colorful and exciting. The story elements relating to Native people are still Lt Dunbar in tights.


                      Honestly, I think you're in a no win here. You have an element of a prized Euro-American folktale which you feel cannot be changed without surrendering something essential. Many in your target audience, would undoubtedly agree. However, well you clothe them in historically accurate beads and feathers, many Native people are still going to think the emperor is naked.

                      Thus ends the strained metaphor festival for tonight.
                      Last edited by OLChemist; 11-08-2011, 11:18 PM. Reason: Grammar.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        OLChemist, your response is very thought-provoking and I appreciate your taking the time to write it out and address concerns directly.

                        I am trying to take in everything people are saying here yet still have the gut feeling that if the direction I go in is to sanitize the Indians in the story and make them generic and non-referential or just “something else,” that an opportunity is lost.

                        Much of the criticism you have presented of the original story as such is fully valid. A good deal of its content needs to be put to bed permanently. James Barrie didn’t know much about Indians nor did he know anything about Pirates or much of anything else. He was writing a story not for adults, but for children of that time who he would personally entertain with his tales as well and both he and the children were ignorant and operating from a sheltered point of view. So he did a lot of things wrong, made a lot of wrong choices where it came to portrayal of the fantasy-historical Indians in the story.

                        The good thing about the situation now is that what he did can be changed. PETER PAN, the story, as of 2007, is now public domain and no longer controlled by the Barrie estate, Disney, the Great Ormond Street Hospital or anyone else. So it CAN now be rethought for a new age and with a new perspective if desired. I do not WANT to repeat Barrie’s mistakes and am not required to put forth the same story nor do the Indians in it if they remain have to perform the same functions or behave the same way as they did before. ANYTHING can be changed, anything can be rethought, anything can be rewritten and that is how I am approaching things here. So honestly if we are to continue to discuss this the idea that “preserving” the “original story” is what I am trying to do should be thrown off the table. That’s NOT what I want to do. I would like to keep the good, and throw out the bad and I am listening to what’s being said here as to what should be considered for elimination.

                        I think we can agree that Barrie’s inclusion of the Indians in the story partially to add color and excitement was not well thought out. And for purposes of adult-level plot analysis, and context within the time it was originally written, yes, Tiger Lily comes off as being there to be rescued, etc. However I would like you to consider something important and that is that those who the story was originally told to were not adults -- its audience was a group of children, and what children like to do is play, and imagine, and dress up, and that they don’t analyze plots very deeply.

                        Frankly, if you try and analyze PETER PAN from ANY sort of adult angle it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Why do all these people on another planet speak English? What is Peter Pan, exactly, some kind of elf? An immortal, mythological god? Why is his shadow detatchable, and why put this element in the story at all if it has no bearing on the rest of the action? What’s he doing in that place, if he’s an immortal superbeing, why does he need to hear stories and sneak in little girls’ windows? How can he fly, apparently at the speed of light? Who, exactly do the pirates rob when there are apparently no other ships around? You can go on and on and if you want and analyze the story as an adult and discover that not a thing about it, not just its treatment of Indians, makes any logical sense.

                        Who the story makes sense to is children who have not yet learned what is real or not real or logical or not logical and therefore are incapable of coming to some of the conclusions we might come to as adults.

                        And the way children learn things is to play.

                        When dealing with a script such as this one for a live stage play this “playing” takes place on two levels. First you have actors, sometimes children, dressing up in costumes and learning about their characters as they act out scenes. Second, you have children in the audience imagining themselves in the positions of the characters on stage. Both will react to what they are given or shown by an adult director because they’re ignorant of things to which they have not yet been exposed. If you feed them the idea that Indians are bloodthirsty savages and that when portraying the characters they should whoop and act crazy that is what they will do. If you tell them Indians are a different culture and one which is worthy of respect they will take that in also.

                        One poster above asked me to consider the point of view of a young Native viewer of this play. That is exactly the issue I would like to address in the rewrite I am working on. That viewer is a child -- the actors in the play will be often mostly children -- other spectators will be mostly children, and as originally written Peter Pan and Wendy and the Lost Boys in the story aren’t teenagers, they’re much younger. Peter is described as still having his baby teeth. That makes him 11 at most but probably more like 9 years old.

                        The pirates and Indians in the story aren’t these very small children’s equals. They are giants -- adults which represent the grownup world to child-viewers of the story, a world which they don’t understand yet and which can seem dangerous. They’re not classified by race, they’re classified in the child’s mind by their SIZE. The point of the story I do not see as being a racial one in which white is shown to be superior to other-race. Peter Pan’s achievement in defeating Captain Hook is more comparable to Jack defeating the giant in JACK AND THE BEANSTALK. Peter, if you want to get really tecnhical, is never described as being white, anyway, and could in a staging of a new script be played by a black or Asian or Indian actor himself just as effectively. If he is played by a black actor the whole white-superiority thing goes out the window, and it’s perfectly possible now in any school that might decide to cast a black kid as Peter. The victory at the conclusion of it all is child (Peter) winning out over apparently more powerful, and power-abusing adult (Hook), not something racial. The Pirates are big, the children are little, but the children, with the help of sympathetic allies (which include some “good adults,” the Indians), win out in the end. That is the point of the story. If you are able to look at it from a child’s perspective, you see that the Indians may at first LOOK like they might be dangerous-adults like the Pirates but they turn out not to be power-abusers; so they are seen by children not as fools or secondary players, but as “OK adults.” That, I would say, is NOT a bad message if the Indians are presented as intelligent beings instead of randomly-dancing goofballs.

                        What has been negative up to this point is not, in my opinion, that Indians are present at all but the WAY they have been presented in previous stage productions and movies. There is NO reason that the Indians need to be presented as ridiculous as they have been since the 1950s in connection to the story. At their introduction they are intended at first to SEEM like a threat then as we learn more about them we discover they are nothing of the kind. If they represent anything I don’t think it is weakness or inferiority. I think it is freedom of both lifestyle and thought -- Indian culture even today has an element of intellectual freedom to it that the fundamentally British mindset will never have, and if Barrie did anything right as far as the Indians were concerned it was to recognize that. The Pirates, Indians AND fairies in the story are not ONLY or possibly even primarily there because they’re physically colorful or interesting. The main appeal of all of these sorts of characters is their apparent complete freedom of lifestyle, which is appealing to the sheltered, overly disciplined British kids in the show, and was also to those who heard the stories told to them originally, who might have “played” Indian or “played” pirate or played at being fairies in their back yards. Of the three “free-spirited” groups on the island, the Pirates, Indians and Fairies, one is out of line and steals from and injures the others, and that is the Pirates. It is not only the Indians who “help” Peter Pan, the fairies and Lost Boys do also. There’s no reason any of these groups have to be portrayed in a new script as subservient to Peter, tho, who by the way I consider to be a member of the fairy clan since he can fly and do magic. And if you want to get technical he is more “master” of the Lost Boys than he ever is of the Indians; he’s referred to as being their “Captain,” and they basically march when he says march. The Indians don’t do that and don’t interact that way with him. They’re allies, not subservient, or at least that point could be made more clear in a future version of the story if it needs to be. What I see is three groups on the island, working together, four if you count the Lost Boys, to deal with the one group that is out of line. Out of this in relation to the Indians the message that should come out of the story in my opinion is that not all adults are out to steal from or hurt children and that despite their looking different from English men and women, Indians qualify as “good guys” on that account. Their negative mirror in a way in the story is the school of mermaids, who look attractive as well but are deceptive and predatory.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          OLChemist, your response is very thought-provoking and I appreciate your taking the time to write it out and address concerns directly.

                          I am trying to take in everything people are saying here yet still have the gut feeling that if the direction I go in is to sanitize the Indians in the story and make them generic and non-referential or just “something else,” that an opportunity is lost.

                          Much of the criticism you have presented of the original story as such is fully valid. A good deal of its content needs to be put to bed permanently. James Barrie didn’t know much about Indians nor did he know anything about Pirates or much of anything else. He was writing a story not for adults, but for children of that time who he would personally entertain with his tales as well and both he and the children were ignorant and operating from a sheltered point of view. So he did a lot of things wrong, made a lot of wrong choices where it came to portrayal of the fantasy-historical Indians in the story.

                          The good thing about the situation now is that what he did can be changed. PETER PAN, the story, as of 2007, is now public domain and no longer controlled by the Barrie estate, Disney, the Great Ormond Street Hospital or anyone else. So it CAN now be rethought for a new age and with a new perspective if desired. I do not WANT to repeat Barrie’s mistakes and am not required to put forth the same story nor do the Indians in it if they remain have to perform the same functions or behave the same way as they did before. ANYTHING can be changed, anything can be rethought, anything can be rewritten and that is how I am approaching things here. So honestly if we are to continue to discuss this the idea that “preserving” the “original story” is what I am trying to do should be thrown off the table. That’s NOT what I want to do. I would like to keep the good, and throw out the bad and I am listening to what’s being said here as to what should be considered for elimination.

                          I think we can agree that Barrie’s inclusion of the Indians in the story partially to add color and excitement was not well thought out. And for purposes of adult-level plot analysis, and context within the time it was originally written, yes, Tiger Lily comes off as being there to be rescued, etc. However I would like you to consider something important and that is that those who the story was originally told to were not adults -- its audience was a group of children, and what children like to do is play, and imagine, and dress up, and that they don’t analyze plots very deeply.

                          Frankly, if you try and analyze PETER PAN from ANY sort of adult angle it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Why do all these people on another planet speak English? What is Peter Pan, exactly, some kind of elf? An immortal, mythological god? Why is his shadow detatchable, and why put this element in the story at all if it has no bearing on the rest of the action? What’s he doing in that place, if he’s an immortal superbeing, why does he need to hear stories and sneak in little girls’ windows? How can he fly, apparently at the speed of light? Who, exactly do the pirates rob when there are apparently no other ships around? You can go on and on and if you want and analyze the story as an adult and discover that not a thing about it, not just its treatment of Indians, makes any logical sense.

                          Who the story makes sense to is children who have not yet learned what is real or not real or logical or not logical and therefore are incapable of coming to some of the conclusions we might come to as adults.

                          And the way children learn things is to play.

                          When dealing with a script such as this one for a live stage play this “playing” takes place on two levels. First you have actors, sometimes children, dressing up in costumes and learning about their characters as they act out scenes. Second, you have children in the audience imagining themselves in the positions of the characters on stage. Both will react to what they are given or shown by an adult director because they’re ignorant of things to which they have not yet been exposed. If you feed them the idea that Indians are bloodthirsty savages and that when portraying the characters they should whoop and act crazy that is what they will do. If you tell them Indians are a different culture and one which is worthy of respect they will take that in also.

                          One poster above asked me to consider the point of view of a young Native viewer of this play. That is exactly the issue I would like to address in the rewrite I am working on. That viewer is a child -- the actors in the play will be often mostly children -- other spectators will be mostly children, and as originally written Peter Pan and Wendy and the Lost Boys in the story aren’t teenagers, they’re much younger. Peter is described as still having his baby teeth. That makes him 11 at most but probably more like 9 years old.

                          The pirates and Indians in the story aren’t these very small children’s equals. They are giants -- adults which represent the grownup world to child-viewers of the story, a world which they don’t understand yet and which can seem dangerous. They’re not classified by race, they’re classified in the child’s mind by their SIZE. The point of the story I do not see as being a racial one in which white is shown to be superior to other-race. Peter Pan’s achievement in defeating Captain Hook is more comparable to Jack defeating the giant in JACK AND THE BEANSTALK. Peter, if you want to get really tecnhical, is never described as being white, anyway, and could in a staging of a new script be played by a black or Asian or Indian actor himself just as effectively. If he is played by a black actor the whole white-superiority thing goes out the window, and it’s perfectly possible now in any school that might decide to cast a black kid as Peter. The victory at the conclusion of it all is child (Peter) winning out over apparently more powerful, and power-abusing adult (Hook), not something racial. The Pirates are big, the children are little, but the children, with the help of sympathetic allies (which include some “good adults,” the Indians), win out in the end. That is the point of the story. If you are able to look at it from a child’s perspective, you see that the Indians may at first LOOK like they might be dangerous-adults like the Pirates but they turn out not to be power-abusers; so they are seen by children not as fools or secondary players, but as “OK adults.” That, I would say, is NOT a bad message if the Indians are presented as intelligent beings instead of randomly-dancing goofballs.

                          What has been negative up to this point is not, in my opinion, that Indians are present at all but the WAY they have been presented in previous stage productions and movies. There is NO reason that the Indians need to be presented as ridiculous as they have been since the 1950s in connection to the story. At their introduction they are intended at first to SEEM like a threat then as we learn more about them we discover they are nothing of the kind. If they represent anything I don’t think it is weakness or inferiority. I think it is freedom of both lifestyle and thought -- Indian culture even today has an element of intellectual freedom to it that the fundamentally British mindset will never have, and if Barrie did anything right as far as the Indians were concerned it was to recognize that. The Pirates, Indians AND fairies in the story are not ONLY or possibly even primarily there because they’re physically colorful or interesting. The main appeal of all of these sorts of characters is their apparent complete freedom of lifestyle, which is appealing to the sheltered, overly disciplined British kids in the show, and was also to those who heard the stories told to them originally, who might have “played” Indian or “played” pirate or played at being fairies in their back yards. Of the three “free-spirited” groups on the island, the Pirates, Indians and Fairies, one is out of line and steals from and injures the others, and that is the Pirates. It is not only the Indians who “help” Peter Pan, the fairies and Lost Boys do also. There’s no reason any of these groups have to be portrayed in a new script as subservient to Peter, tho, who by the way I consider to be a member of the fairy clan since he can fly and do magic. And if you want to get technical he is more “master” of the Lost Boys than he ever is of the Indians; he’s referred to as being their “Captain,” and they basically march when he says march. The Indians don’t do that and don’t interact that way with him. They’re allies, not subservient, or at least that point could be made more clear in a future version of the story if it needs to be. What I see is three groups on the island, working together, four if you count the Lost Boys, to deal with the one group that is out of line. Out of this in relation to the Indians the message that should come out of the story in my opinion is that not all adults are out to steal from or hurt children and that despite their looking different from English men and women, Indians qualify as “good guys” on that account. Their negative mirror in a way in the story is the school of mermaids, who look attractive as well but are deceptive and predatory.

                          The hardest thing to address in your post is your comment that no matter how the Indians might be “dressed” the whole deal will still fall flat. You may turn out to be right in the end and if that really turns out to be true I suppose I will end up with a play with a generic tribe of whosy-whatsis in it that doesn’t really teach anyone anything and is ultimately fairly pointless.

                          However if you don’t mind I’d like to bring up some personal experiences that I think relate to this point and also probably are to a large degree responsible for my wanting to inject some kind of authenticity in this play at all in relation to the Native characters.

                          I had the unique experience when I was the same age as the characters in the Peter Pan story of being taken all around the country on a sabbatical trip by my father during which for 3 months our family did nothing but visit every Indian historical site we could find from the Serpent Mound in Ohio to the Turtle Mound in Florida and the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Oklahoma. Items brought home from this trip remained all over our house all the time I was growing up; I didn’t necessarily know what they all were but they were there and accepted by me as part of our home and representative of things we had learned on the trip. The result of the sabbatical was my father’s book and subsequent research which I contributed to by pulling together examples of books, sheet music, and other Indian-related memorabilia for years -- SHADOWS OF THE INDIAN, STEREOTYPES IN AMERICAN CULTUREhttp://www.sandiegohistory.org/journ...br-shadows.htm which is a thorough survey of native stereotypes in books, plays and movies throughout history. This book was also in our house all the time I was growing up and often a subject of discussion. The point of me telling you all this is to inform you that I had a fairly large amount of exposure to Indian culture at a young age and though I may know little about present-day tribal dances or music or anything else, what I gained from that experience was a basic appreciation for Indian cultures and peoples in general that was not available to most other kids at the time and I felt that I benefited from it.

                          My exposure to the places visited and objects collected and books read didn’t accomplish anything specific -- I’m not involved in any way in any Indian-related activity now -- but what it did do was build into my brain the idea that Indians were not caricatures, they were people, and in historical perspective, the founding people of our country. I accepted this idea fully and without question and still do as it is so obvious an 11 year old can thoroughly understand it.

                          The influence of my experience I would say also definitely contributed to the idea I had a few years ago of restoring a 1930s movie serial called ROBINSON CRUSOE OF CLIPPER ISLAND http://www.thearcticsounder.com/arti...ature_historicfor DVD release, which featured an Eskimo actor named Ray Mala, as an action hero in such a way that Mala’s name was featured in the new title I gave it and generally given recognition in a way he hadn’t had before despite the fact that he was the world’s first Native American movie action hero and there have been few to compete with him since. The result of my work on restoring this title is that the film was shown all over Alaska earlier this year in a film festival tour which celebrated Native actors & gotten some nice comments from his family and many others as a result, and ultimately exposed more people to his work than would have ever seen it otherwise.

                          I also have illustrated articles in PENNSYLVANIA magazine which were about the original natives of my area, the point of which was to show and inform readers that there were people here before the English immigrants came in and took over -- and show them what they looked like. Again, my exposure as a child to the idea that Indian cultures did and do exist was responsible for my even caring to want to do this.

                          But virtually nothing of what I was exposed to on our Indian-history-survey trip when I was young was ever put in front of me when I went to school and I never understood why considering the obvious fact that the Indians were here in America before anyone else and, OK, yeah George Washington and all were important too but, I thought, that Indian cultures, our country’s original cultures, which long preceded the pilgrims or the Revolution, should be something everyone ought to know about and that it just never was given the time it deserved in school.

                          Honestly I still feel that way, which is probably deep down why I am having this urge to inject some kind of cultural meaningfulness into a PETER PAN children’s play script -- because I see the opportunity is there to do so. And as I said before children will learn and repeat back what they are exposed to. If they are only exposed to Indians as fantasy creatures that is how they will think of them. If instead in this story they are presented with, say, 1700s-era Navajo who dress in appropriate Navajo garb and perform Navajo dances, look what has happened -- suddenly an exercise in fantasy has become a mini-history lesson. So if a certain type of authentic dance or song is done in the show something has been learned by everyone involved, and the Indians become more than decoration.

                          But what is learned by actors playing the parts or viewers seeing the play can only be what is included in the presentation. Hence my desire to rewrite, reimagine, and rework this story till it is of possibly more value than it was before.

                          I am with you on condemning the old version of PETER PAN, and agree for the most part with your analysis of it from an adult point of view. For the most part I think all the comments that have been made here are valid. I also think the inherent problems may not be insurmountable, and think the story can be retold now with new material in it which will serve a greater purpose and make further such analysis unnecessary because objectionable content just isn’t present.

                          In practical terms I am suggesting that the scenes featuring the Indians in PETER PAN can be entirely rethought and rewritten so that they serve to educate instead of exploit.

                          I think it can be done and at least would like to try.

                          Even if the new version is only partially successful in terms of what we’re discussing here, won’t the results be preferable to “Ug-a-Wug” or “What Makes the Red Man Red?”

                          Can we try and put the injury of the old version in the past and think of what could be rather than what was?

                          I’m willing to consider the possibility that I may just be overly idealistic thinking that a naively-conceived character like Tonto or Tiger Lily can be reworked and “fixed,” but let me also go back to that question raised earlier about a Native child being exposed to this story. Suppose she were a student at a school where this script is going to be produced. Might not that child WANT to be cast as Tiger Lily instead of as, say, a pirate? If the cultural trappings present in the play were authentic rather than fanciful wouldn’t that make the little girl proud and happy to play that character, even if she does still play damsel-in-distress at one point? So what if that’s what she gets to do in that scene -- Wendy is put in the same position later, and a new bit can be added at the end which can show Tiger Lily and the Indians helping to kick Captain Hook’s butt on the pirate ship if that will correct for the appearance of weakness earlier on. In fact I think that is exactly what should happen.

                          My experience with the MALA film suggests to me that you CAN correct old problems and turn a rotten apple into a fresh peach if you are willing to spend the time and make the effort to make it sincere and are willing to part with previous limited perspectives and replace them with new ones. And that may mean in this particular case it might be necessary for open-mindedness on the Indian side of the table as well as the “dominant culture” side when it comes to this project. I’m willing to take all the ideas that have been posted here into account and try and view the whole business in a new way. Can you also and from now on consider what I am proposing to do here -- which is something as yet unseen -- as something new and potentially positive, not assume that I’m out to simply rehash of something old, seen a million times, and defective?

                          If that’s not possible, OK, I will probably just give up and a generic tribe of Neverlandians will probably be what wins out but I don’t want to just go with that without at least TRYING to revise in the way I’m inclined might be the best way to go. What I’d like to do now is see what I come up with and post the relevant new scene or scenes here that I work on and see what everyone has to say about them. And that means if the idea of doing anything with Indian names is no good, its out. And that means if the princess being named Tiger Lily or being called a princess is not gonna fly, it’s out and maybe she’s renamed and her name pronounced as it would be in a Native language. If the look of the Indians needs to be consistent and they are to be plains Indians, OK, it will be done. If it’s wrong to include any ceremony or dance in the production because they should not be acted out in a fictional production or for any other reason, OK, one won’t be included. If we need to show Indian characters triumphing over the pirates at the end so that the score ends up even, it can be done. And on and on. Would that be OK or have you all had enough of my idealism and desire to accomplish the impossible?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have a few questions for you Storyland.

                            I see by your responses that you are hanging onto the misnomer of Indian to describe the Indigenous people of North America. If the use of the name "Indian" is a place where you are stuck on using, why not use the references of persons from the place called India? Those are your real Indians not us.

                            Supposing you do stick to your notion of using a First Nation model, what First Nation would you base your model after? Why even stop at using Indigenous persons/tribes from North America, why not use references to Indigenous peoples from say, Fiji, Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Vanuatu, Borneo, the Amazon? What is stopping you from characterizing these people? I see that your fallback is to use and misuse the culture of the Plains people. So which one of the many tribes that come under that moniker are you going to pick? You do realize how silly using a people that would never in their own history come across a pirate ship is going to be? Why not degrade a coastal tribe? Or is it too hard to research them whereas anyone can watch Dances with Sheep or any John Wayne movie and model their characters after those films without having to do any research at all except which popcorn to use for the screening.

                            If you are going to steal cultural icons, names, songs and rituals from a First Nation have you given thought to the implications of you running afoul of their copyrights? My own people have been quite vigorous in defending their Intellectual Property rights in both Canada and the US. Use our IP at your own peril. You'll find we've learned how to make European laws work in our favour, unlike the childlike First Nation people that have been historically portrayed by authors like Barrie.

                            Just suppose for a moment that you proceed with your ideas and develop your "Indian" characters. How are you going to ensure that you have not created another set of caricatures that you state you so want to avoid? You say you want to use plot devices such as a naming ceremony and use English names, how very John Wayne of you. Your naive statements indicate that you have not researched even something as simple as a naming ceremony from anywhere or any one tribe.

                            You set out that your play is to be viewed by children and therefore does not need the examination or interpretation of adults. Yet, here you are discussing your ideas with adults. I have children and grandchildren of my own and I have to say, I wouldn't take them to something that is a parody of their identities. I wouldn't take them to see anything that makes fun of or is a parody of another culture. Your arrogance that you can do justice to any of the First Nation here in North America is typical of the Wylies, Moores, MacDonalds and countless other film producers and playwrights that have added us in for an amusing device. They didn't get what they were doing was wrong and by your thesis, either do you.

                            I vote to use a the population of a New Jersey suburb. I'm pretty certain you can find some colourful characters to use. You can write in the wife beater, the drunk driver, the sex addict, the stage and soccer moms and absent fathers - all worthy scary, larger than life character that our kids are all too familiar with these days. The naming ceremony can be in a church with a baptismal font and Peter Pan can take on the name of St Peter or Paul - you could even say it in Latin to make it interesting. Then he can be adopted and have his birth records sealed forever. You can introduce the neighbourhood pedophile as the larger than life giant and a few gang members and drug dealers can be added to make it thrilling, instead of swords they can all use shanks and Uzis. and do drive bys. In the end the pedophile can get eaten by the loan sharks and Peter ends up doing a nickle in a Young Offender facility for kidnapping and forceful confinement of the Darling kids. The Darling kids end up having to spend years in psycho-therapy because they all suffer from Stockholm Hostage Syndrome and are addicted to fairy dust. Wendy, who grows up as an agoraphobic and hoarder, takes out a restraining order on Peter when he shows up at her door to kidnap her granddaughter. Peter is last seen falling under a collapsing pile of old National Geographic magazines that Wendy has hoarded.

                            If you think that story line is ridiculous, then imagine what we would think if you added us in.
                            A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. — Robert A. Heinlein

                            I can see the wheel turning but the Hamster appears to be dead.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It is precisely because the imagery of childhood folks tales become the underpinning of adult attitudes that I chose to engage.


                              The problem I have, and I think I'm not unique in this, is the very context -- fantasy, divorced from modernity, exoticism -- objectifies and trivializes. We end up as the other from the mythical land of unicorns and fairies. Until you have lived a world that questions your reality, precisely because you claim membership in an ethnic group whose popular culture depiction is as a tribe tree-hugging mystic from the 18th century waiting to help lost white people.


                              You have already decided on a course of action. As almost always happens when we speak to the dominant culture, the arguments have been mustered to tell us why what we see isn't, in fact, what we see, and why what we feel isn't what we *should* feel. So all that remains is for us to bless the inevitable.


                              So before I yield to silence, I ask:

                              As an outsider with only a tenuous blood connection to a Native community, who professes knowledge of our past but not our present, are you the right person to educate about modern Native people?

                              Why do dominant culture children play Indian, versus playing Jew or Muslim or African American? What is granted by putting on Indian paint and feathers? ("free-spirited?")

                              How would you feel if your child had to explain (as I have had to do) how someone of their ethnic background came to be employed in a high-tech field or pursuing a doctorate? Will a tribe of 18th century Dine in Peter Pan form a link, in the minds of future adults, between modern Dine people and contemporary roles? Or will those future adults only be disappointed by modern Dines who get their mutton at Safeway, Tweet their friends, and work in a offices and labs?
                              Last edited by OLChemist; 11-09-2011, 04:08 PM. Reason: Typo

                              Comment

                              Join the online community forum celebrating Native American Culture, Pow Wows, tribes, music, art, and history.

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse

                              • Elo Janis
                                NDN Thoughts on the Gun Control Issue
                                by Elo Janis
                                I am interested how you all felt about the gun control debate that has ensued after the Sandy Hook massacre. It seems to be getting more and more heated every day with the nation equally divided between gun owners who are vehemently opposed to any sort of regulation and those who are calling for new...
                                01-17-2013, 11:09 AM
                              • CaudwellianDialect
                                The Keystone Campaign
                                by CaudwellianDialect
                                The Keystone issue should be considered part of a campaign and not just a battle. The difference is that, a battle may or may not be limited to a single tactical engagement. A campaign represents a battle, or series of battles, that are linked to a Grand Strategy.

                                A classic case of this...
                                04-02-2017, 06:07 PM
                              • Blackbear
                                Gigantic Long article on Race
                                by Blackbear
                                ************************************************** ******
                                This Message Is Reprinted Under The Fair Use
                                Doctrine of International Copyright Law:
                                http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
                                ************************************************** ******

                                FROM: THE...
                                06-23-2005, 09:11 PM
                              • NorthofAda
                                At risk of being labeled a "fearmonger..."
                                by NorthofAda
                                A couple of issues have come to my attention this week and I found them disturbing. At a risk of being labeled a fearmonger I wanted to bring them to your attention...

                                Senate Bill S.773

                                This bill, among other things, would give the President the power to seize temporary...
                                08-29-2009, 02:38 PM
                              • orangepridendns1
                                Unusual, weird or gross food that your tribe loves???????
                                by orangepridendns1
                                Yesterday I found myself glued to the television watching one of my favorite shows..The Discovery Channel / National Geographic did a show on weird foods that people from different cultures enjoy eating and this was called Gross Grub. This show featured two different families from Alaska as well as...
                                08-02-2005, 03:16 PM

                              Trending

                              Collapse

                              There are no results that meet this criteria.

                              Sidebar Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X