| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bookworm |
Posted - July 08 2008 : 11:18:41 AM
Here's an article on Russell's latest crusade:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401162_5.html?sid=ST2008062603088pos=
The good news is that he's still married to Pearl. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - August 22 2010 : 6:33:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by richfed
As I have said elsewhere on the site, Russell is much more affable in person - face-to-face in conversation - than he appears to be from afar. That is my opinion. He was a blast at the 2004 Mohican Gathering, but as you can probably tell if you read our earlier interview with him, he was somewhat adversarial from a distance.
I will affirm what Rich said. I came to the 2004 Gathering prepared not to like him, and went away exactly the opposite opinion. You need to meet him in person. |
| Sashacohen19 |
Posted - August 22 2010 : 4:10:57 PM
Oh...well I'm glad I know all of this about him because that changes my outlook on him a lot. Thanks James and Rich :) |
| richfed |
Posted - August 22 2010 : 3:54:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sashacohen19
And if so, then I ask, why do Amer. Indians dislike Russell Means? What has he done? I don't know about him too much or about this stuff, I'm just curious because my dad was a full Amer. Indian and well, as I said, this is curious to me.
I cannot answer for all American Indians, but my old friend - now deceased - Selo Black Crow, an Oglala Sioux from Wanblee, SD [Pine Ridge Reservation], was adamant in his feelings toward Russell Means - and this was well before LOTM. He disliked him immensely. He thought he was a hypocritical, blowhard. He thought it was pompous of him to try to speak for all when, in fact, Means is "only" a half-breed. Black Crow was a full-blood. It was important to Selo that he was. It made a world of difference in his view. He is/was a last of a dying breed ... the full-blooded American Indian. He was indignant that a man like Means would pretend to speak for him.
As I have said elsewhere on the site, Russell is much more affable in person - face-to-face in conversation - than he appears to be from afar. That is my opinion. He was a blast at the 2004 Mohican Gathering, but as you can probably tell if you read our earlier interview with him, he was somewhat adversarial from a distance. |
| James N. |
Posted - August 22 2010 : 2:26:46 PM
Wow, Sasha, that's quite a mix you've got going there! I recently found out one of my ancestors named Finney supposedly arrived in the colony of Virginia around 1725; most of them I can tell about seem to be what's usually called "Scotch-Irish" ( Scots who later immigrated to America after a relatively short stay first in Ireland ) or Irish. But for some reason in this particular period I find myself largely interested in the French!
Here's the link to "my" page here on the Mohicans site if you want to read more of my take on the production:
http://www.mohicanpress.com/jim_neels_mohicanland.html
( DO notice it's TWO "pages" long and needs to be "clicked" at the bottom of the first page to access the second! )
To answer your particular questions: ALL the "Indians" on Mohicans REALLY WERE, and probably represented most if not all major U.S. tribes. I am unaware of any "problems" they may have had among themselves ( though there could have been some ); everyone seemed to "get along" and perform their jobs in a professional manner except for some of the director's immediate assistants. Daniel didn't "mix" with anyone else, WAS "very quiet" but not at all unfriendly if approached or spoken to; he was simply what you'd call "focused" on his job and character. I can't say what supposedly happened to the characters subsequently; it's the subject of MANY of the threads on this page and some others here on the site. I tried to read some of Cooper's work, but it's SO stylized and typical of the 19th century when it was written, I gave up on it!
If you're of Siouxan heritage I can definitely understand the complaints of some of your relatives - BUT... It also depends on WHICH Sioux: Sans Arc, Oglala, Minneconju, Uncpapa, Brule, Blackfeet - THOSE are Teton Sioux; but of course there are also the Minnesota-based Wahpeton, Sisseton, Mdewakanton, Wahpekute, and probably others, too. Each particular sub-tribe or group had its own sometimes-differing experience, including a heritage of war with various different neighboring tribes. Find out MORE about that, and we can go from there! |
| Sashacohen19 |
Posted - August 22 2010 : 12:57:32 PM
Wow, so you worked on the film? That's cool! Yeah I'm a HUGE Steven Waddington fan! I cried when I saw his character die in the film LOTM, lol, yeah I'm mixed with a lot. I'm mixed with a small bit of African American and the rest--french and American Indian (all from my mom) and half American Indian and Jewish and Caucasian (from my dad). I can speak Sioux and German and French. :) The Indian nation my family represents is Lakota-Sioux. It must have been fun being on the set of the film. Was Daniel very quiet on the set? I heard he was the one who kept to himself a lot. And then there was something Russell said about how Uncas wouldn't accept being adopted as Russell's son like Daniel did. I do have one other question...and I'm sorry to keep bothering you with questions but...did Chingachgook look at Hawkeye as his own son after Uncas died? Or does the love kind of falter with Hawkeye after his real son dying? Cause it seemed like a distance between Chingachgook and Hawkeye in the last scene... |
| James N. |
Posted - August 22 2010 : 11:20:25 AM
Hi, Sasha!
Russell was always seen together with Daniel, Eric, Madeline, and Jodhi, so I don't think any of them thought of him as anything other than Chingachgook. Others like Steven and Wes were around more sporadically as their scenes took less time to film, but I never saw anything other than friendly cooperation among any of the cast. In the movie, only the Mohawk chief, Col. Munro, Generals Webb and Montcalm, and Montcalm's aide Bouganville are "historical" characters; most, including Munro's nonexistant "daughters", were the inventions of 19th century novelist James Fenimore Cooper. ( And Munro survived the "massacre" which occurred differently than in the film. ) In the novel AND the 1930's version of the film, Heyward also survives and is one of the heroes of the story!
Steven Waddington was a very nice guy we first saw at the notorious "training camp" run by Dale Dye prior to filming. He willingly participated in all the PT, running, and calesthenics and was friendly and talkative to everyone. The only STUPID thing I remember seeing him do was when he was getting used to handling his weapons: he brought his sword up to his face in the position of "sword salute" too quickly, and popped himself in the face with its very long tassel! My only personal complaint about him is that he was a CIGARETTE SMOKER, hardly unusual; but it seemed out of character to see him between takes in full uniform puffing away!
As for the Sioux, this is an oversimplification, but during a questionable "religious revival" in the winter of 1890, a group of around 150 left their part of the reservation and the army was instructed to bring them back. Unfortunately, the troops who were sent were part of what had once been Custer's ill-fated 7th CAVALRY ( Calvary is a hill in Jerusalem! ) Though it had been 14 years since the Sioux had defeated them and killed Custer, and very few army veterans of the battle were present, it's generally thought revenge played a part in what happened. The army surrounded their camp, moved in to disarm them, shots were fired, and the Sioux were slaughtered. Their chief Big Foot, was killed, along with some women and children as well as the men. There were VERY few army casualties, and it's thought at least some of them were victims of unchecked "friendly fire". This sorry episode is generally thought of as the "Last Battle" of the Indian Wars.
Speaking of Jerusalem, I can't help but ask - with a name like Sasha Cohen you sound more like a member of one of the "wandering tribes of Israel" rather than an Indian tribe! What Indian Nation does your family represent? That would have a GREAT impact on exactly what their experiences with "the White Man" and the Government has been. |
| Sashacohen19 |
Posted - August 22 2010 : 09:45:43 AM
Wow, thanks James, I didn't know that stuff happened on set with Russell, the strike and such. I wonder how actors Daniel-Day and Eric and Madeline, and Steven took to him? Did they find him hard to get along with? So why were the Sioux massacred by the 7th Calvary? and also, and please don't find this stupid to ask, but back during the French and Indian war, was there really a Major Heyward, Colonel Munro and Hawkeye? Or was that just based off of film entertainment? |
| James N. |
Posted - August 21 2010 : 7:53:35 PM
Sasha,
I'm glad you're a fan of the film, because it gives a frame of reference to discuss some of the problems. As for Russell Means himself, by the time Last of the Mohicans was filmed in 1991, he already had a reputation as an activist and troublemaker due to the activities and protests he'd been involved in, many of which were justified, at least in their attempt to get an audience for their complaints against the government. He had served a term in prison for his part in one such demonstration at Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota, scene of a notorious 1890 "battle" in which a band of Sioux ( Means' people ) were wantonly massacred by the U.S. 7th Cavalry. During the demonstration, a Federal agent was killed, and leaders like Means charged and convicted for his death.
When we white reenactors finally "met" him on set, he seemed fine and reasonably friendly, though I never had the opportunity to be around him for any length of time or talk to him. Because of his unsavory reputation a lot of people may have deliberately avoided him like I did somewhat. But once again, he was involved in an "incident" in which the Native American extras went on strike protesting ( justly, if I remember right ) their "living conditions"; he lent his encouragement to their cause. I think if there is any negative feeling towards him by the larger Indian community, it may be because he has in the past resorted to controversial and less-than-peaceful means to dramatise their plight. ( To make a different analogy, he's more Malcom X than Martin luther King! )
The situation involving the Mohicans of the movie, their Iroquois allies, and the French-influenced tribes represented by Magua and his Hurons illustrates EXACTLY what I refered to about the continual, unending hate, conflict, and open war pursued by the various tribes, to their eventual downfall and destruction. Even today, these rivalries still color the attitudes of many tribes and individuals. In only one example, the battlefield where Means' people struggled successfully against General Custer and his cavalrymen sits now in the middle of the Crow Reservation; the Crow were rewarded by the government following the Sioux War of 1876 with the land the defeated Sioux fought for because THEY fought WITH Custer against their long-time enemies the Sioux! |
| Sashacohen19 |
Posted - August 21 2010 : 5:23:31 PM
Oh I see what you mean James and yeah that was very well said..yeah I'm only 17 but with a very "mature for my age" mind....thanks for replying thoug....I got the feeling from other articles I've read that most people don't like Russell and I do agree that if all Indian tribes stick together, they can be stronger than if they are fighting and battling and victimizing amongst each other...that's why I could never understand why Magua was doing what he did in the film...turning against Chingachook and Uncas and Hawkeye and they were Amer. Indians just like he (Magua) was...but thanks again for replying. :) |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - August 21 2010 : 5:14:28 PM
Excellent post James, ... and "right on". |
| James N. |
Posted - August 21 2010 : 4:41:29 PM
Sasha,
I feared you might be "younger"; but I had NO idea you were THAT young! ( I turn 64 this fall! ) Of course this isn't a new thread, and it's been some time since I've read the link above to the Means' story, so I'll confine my comments to a few basic observations. When I taught a BS course called "Cultural Awareness" to mostly black Job Corps students back in the 70's, I'd ask them "What is prejudice?" The answers I'd get often began something like "That's when the White Man..." They seemed physically incapable of concieving that anyone but WHITES were capable of being prejudiced; and CERTAINLY NOT black people! This is something people always put off onto others, and never their own group. ( In psychology, that's known as projection. )
Considering the situation here, thanks now to YEARS of Native American activism ( and that's how Russell made a name for himself! ) the tendency is to view Westward Expansion as nothing but a "land grab" by rapacious whites victimizing poor, downtrodden Native Americans; unfortunately, this is largely TRUE. But it fails to consider the hundreds or even thousands of years these "poor downtrodden" peoples were doing the EXACT SAME THING to each other! Russell "conveniently" forgets the bloodshed between his people ( Lakota Sioux ) and neighboring tribes like the Crow and Blackfeet. So it's scarcely a "white" vs. "red" issue at all! IF the tribal groups had "stuck together" from the first, they could EASILY have destroyed the tiny, struggling colonies, especially those at Plymouth and Jamestown. But when they finally tried in the late 1600's, it was already too late for them. They compounded the problem by continuing to make war against each other throughout the 1700's and 1800's until all were systematically defeated ( or even destroyed! ) and on reservations.
I was telling someone recently that part of our problem today is that school history classes are taught in lower grades where "it isn't NICE" to say BAD things about people, and the tendency is to push everything away in the background so we can concentrate on "what really MATTERS", the 1960's up! And there seems to be another tendency to ignore history completely; and as long as it's taught by COACHES, it's the same as being ignored anyway! Suffuice it to say History is a VERY long and complex subject, and the simplistic attitudes of people like Means serve only to gloss it over under a Disney-like veneer. |
| Sashacohen19 |
Posted - August 21 2010 : 3:39:40 PM
Thanks for the response James, I'm 17 years old but so are you saying Russell Means is wrong in what he's saying and doing? And that all Amer. Indians who say things about "whites" are wrong? Again, I'm just asking, because I have heard a lot of my Amer. Indian family members say how "whites" have taken their land--this land from them and how they were promised something from "whites" (I can't think of what that is right now, I know it was mentioned in the film "Into The West") and the whites never gave it to them. So I'm confused a bit. But if it is true that Amer. Indians aren't allowed to open up their own businesses as I believe this Washington Post article is stating, then I don't understand why they can't, like everyone else is and why they are living far worst than the Caucasian, African American, Jewish, etc. races are. I mean to go to some of these reservations, it's SO sad how they're living...that's just my opinion. I do know in school, we weren't told anything AT ALL about Amer. Indians and how THEY were the ones who found America, NOT Christopher Columbus, and etc....but anyway, can you elaborate more on your reply post James? Thanks |
| James N. |
Posted - August 21 2010 : 12:07:05 PM
Welcome to the Forum, Sasha!
All I can say is the more you know about Early American History and especially the relationships of the existing tribal groups to each other as well as to the individual separate and sucessive groups of European explorers, traders, and colonists: Spanish, French, English, Dutch, Swedish, etc., the more you realize how generalized and sanitized his view is. ( Read the rather lengthy and rambling interview with him here on the site for a good appreciation of this. ) Of course he is far from alone in this romanticized outlook; depending on your age, you likely have just as limited a view of our past. Where I live ( Texas ), History is taught mainly by COACHES, so I think you can imagine what a good job is being done in our public schools!
Throughout my life I have watched as the media, liberal politicians, etc. have strangled any interpretation of The Noble Red Man ( as well as OUR equally noble and altruistic white Forefathers ) past the usual Thanksgiving Dinner of the Pilgrims and Native Americans. ( Disney's Pocahontas is another example of the pablum our schoolchildren are routinely fed! ) See my thread regarding the book Cannibalism, Headhunting, and Human Sacrifice in North America for a truer view of the Paradise created by The Noble Red Man prior to his contamination by whites.
If, like most Americans, your grasp of the history of this era is weak, read enough here onsite and I think you'll begin to see what I'm talking about. There are also a wealth of books recommended here for a better understanding of the TRUE nature of Early America and our ancestors, white, black, red, or whatever. |
| Sashacohen19 |
Posted - August 21 2010 : 09:34:38 AM
Ok, hello I'm new here, my name is Sasha and after reading this thread, I have a question. Ok, so let me see if I got this right:
this article is basically saying that Russell Means is trying to get the U.S or the government to allow all American Indians to be able to open up their own businesses and sell their goods to others (like everyone else who is "not" Amer. Indian does) without U.S or as Russell says "the white man's" interference? But almost all American Indians don't like Russell because they think he doesn't really give a crap about American Indians and that he's nothing more than just an old man trying to show off that he's a movie star or something? And the Lakota people and all the Amer. Indian tribes are starting to fight against those in their own tribe and they're starting to hate against each other.
So have I got all of the above right?
And if so, then I ask, why do Amer. Indians dislike Russell Means? What has he done? I don't know about him too much or about this stuff, I'm just curious because my dad was a full Amer. Indian and well, as I said, this is curious to me. |
| RedFraggle |
Posted - August 06 2008 : 9:14:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Obediah
Beware of the Suicide Squad! 
"That showed 'em!"
 |
| Obediah |
Posted - August 06 2008 : 6:33:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by RedFraggle
Boy, I killed this thread good and dead. Guess not everyone's into Monty Python's Life of Brian. 
Beware of the Suicide Squad! |
| blackfootblood |
Posted - August 06 2008 : 10:25:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by RedFraggle
Boy, I killed this thread good and dead. Guess not everyone's into Monty Python's Life of Brian.
LOL, guess you did, Red!! I haven't seen any Monty Python movies besides the Holy Grail!! (One of my favorites by the way.)
"I'm not dead yet!" "I'm feeling better"  |
| RedFraggle |
Posted - August 05 2008 : 1:10:08 PM
Boy, I killed this thread good and dead. Guess not everyone's into Monty Python's Life of Brian. |
| RedFraggle |
Posted - July 15 2008 : 2:53:07 PM
The rival groups Lakota and Lakotah put me in mind of one thing. . . .
"Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?"
"*#@! off! We're the People's Front of Judea!"
|
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - July 14 2008 : 08:59:33 AM
Clearly the "war on drugs" hasn't worked. |
| richfed |
Posted - July 14 2008 : 06:35:54 AM
You almost had me going there, James!! |
| James N. |
Posted - July 13 2008 : 7:03:46 PM
I must say from a historical perspective, I DO agree with his assessment of an essentially peaceful North America prior to the coming of the Evil White Man. Take the Five Nations of the Iroquois, for example: there was perfect peace and harmony throughout their realm; especially after they slaughtered the dissenting Erie into extinction! I wonder if he ever wondered WHY Magua and the Huron were down in Mowhawk territory while we were filming LOTM? I guess that was the fault of the French, though.
But it's only natural that the Lakotah should claim all the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, etc. After all, they had to go to all the trouble to take it away from the Blackfeet and Crows! ( But I suppose that's the fault again of the Evil White Man who pushed them out onto the prarie in the first place. ) |
| richfed |
Posted - July 12 2008 : 11:09:30 AM
History is definitely not Russell's strong point. I have never agreed with most of Russell's historical perceptions [which color his flawed social attitudes], but, take the microphone away and he's suddenly a different person. A really nice guy.
Yep ... sad. |
| lilyvonstudt |
Posted - July 09 2008 : 09:35:27 AM
"and reached for his sunglasses - Dolce & Gabbana"
Poor Pearl. Poor, poor Pearl. |
| Irishgirl |
Posted - July 08 2008 : 3:24:08 PM
I just read a little bit of the article but he still needs therapy and should really stop being a "racist". Enough said. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
