Comments

1. tasha wrote:

   Hmm . . .interesting. “Uh-huh, what’s that fuss? Everybody move to the back of the bus?” Sound familiar? While I think that Martha was paying homage to the town of Katonah and not necessarily the Lenape leader that the town was named after, I’m not completely sold on the idea that Native Peoples’ objections are based on fears of Martha Stewart’s misappropriating their ancestor’s good name. Would the descendants of Chief Katonah object if Martha paid them royalties from the line?

   To me, this is shades of Rosa Parks’ relatives deciding that Rosa, who at the time was elderly and senile, was offended by the Outkast song and launched a crusade (lawsuit) in “her name,” several years after the song had faded from radio station’s playlists. Did Rosa Parks’ legacy become completely synonymous with Outkast because of that song? No. Was Parks’ legacy tarnished by the song? No. All anyone remembers of the song is the chorus, which summed up Parks’ legacy rather succinctly and turned Rosa’s plight into a zippy, memorable slogan. In fact that chorus could easily replace “We Shall Overcome” as a modern civil rights chant, and what could be more flattering to Rosa Parks than that? Though I think Outkast wound up making a donation to Parks’ foundation, the lawsuit never got much traction in terms of public opinion or support from the majority of the black community because most of us saw it as an opportunistic ploy to take advantage of an elderly woman, rich rap stars, and their record label for a quick buck. Other than the fact that no legal recourse has been pursued by the Lenape Nation (as of yet), how is this scenario any different?

   Posted 12 Jun 2007 at 1:22 pm ¶

2. Angel H. wrote:

   I had hoped that by now, she would be designing accessories for home monitoring bracelets:

   “With a little hot glue and few spare beads, you turn that big, ugly reminder of your felony conviction into a charming ankle bracelet! It’s a good thing!”

   Posted 12 Jun 2007 at 4:29 pm ¶

3. Guerita wrote:

   reminds me of a discussion I had with my math teacher. I started to complain about“Indian” mascot debates and he said “What if they are honoring the Native Americans?” I wannted to respond how is that any diffenrent if a Rice company uses Asian sterotypes or a beer company used the Irish American Sterotype(he is Irish American) or a malt Liqour add using people who a African American? This type of honor dehumannes an entire group of people just for the sake for one losy add

   Posted 12 Jun 2007 at 4:59 pm ¶

4. tasha wrote:

   Guerita, I agree, the mascots are dehumanizing, so is the “Crazy Horse” malt liquor, but I sincerely doubt that the product line would involve any chiefs, squaws, feathers, beads, elaborate head dresses, war paint, peace pipes or anything remotely stereotypical of Native American culture. I think she merely wants to name the line after the town, and because of an advantageous (for the Lenape Nation) coincidence, the town she wants to name her product line after is the namesake of a Lenape leader. If the town where her farm was located was in White Plains, then she would probably want to name the line White Plains. Here’s why I’m not buying the “disrespect towards Indigenous Peoples” argument. There are businesses in Katonah, for instance Katonah Dry Cleaners, with the town’s name included in their moniker. Has the Lenape Nation lodged complaints about them; none that we know of, right? But now, Martha Stewart wants to get in on the act with products inspired by or created on her farm in Katonah, and all of sudden it’s a racial/political issue. If the Lenape Nation hasn’t complained about the other Katonah based businesses with their ancestor’s name on their storefronts, then why go after Martha Stewart? I can think of five, six, maybe seven figured reasons why.

   Posted 12 Jun 2007 at 7:35 pm ¶

5. Mogs wrote:

   do you notice the typical white American complaining about Sam Adams beer? or Greek Americans complaining about Nike shoes? no, you don’t. just because a word is derived from a “minority” culture shouldn’t make it off limits for marketing purposes!

   Posted 12 Jun 2007 at 8:00 pm ¶

6. Rob Schmidt wrote:

   I think the response to Tasha’s argument is that Stewart wants to trademark the town’s and chief’s name. Local businesses may use the “Katonah” name, but they haven’t trademarked it. If Stewart gets a trademark, it could hinder the tribe’s use of the name. Hence the concern.

   Here’s a write-up on the Crazy Horse Malt Liquor case. The heirs of Crazy Horse and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe won the case. I imagine the same arguments apply to Katonah:

   http://filer.case.edu/~ijd3/authorship/crazyhorse.html

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 2:32 am ¶

7. bdsista wrote:

   As an African American and Native American who lives in the DC area. This is particularly sensitive to me. This issue is really about self-determination and using someone’s NAME. Martha can pick any word she likes, but why is it ok to use the names of Native people? Why is that so catchy and kitchy and ok? It’s not and I wrote her from the link and told her people that I would notify everyone I know to boycott the brand. Its time to stop letting people disrespect and pimp other cultures.
   If the Lenape want to use their own name, that’s fine. It’s THEIR NAME! It’s not like Martha Stewart really gives a damn about Natives, Black, Hispanics or anyone else. I am down here in DC trying to educate people that the word “Redskin” means the same thing to Native people as “Nigger” and STILL hear arguments against changing the name. Its a sports team! Time to stop the BS and do what’s right. It’s about respect and doing what’s right. What Martha is doing is not right. Plain and Simple.

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 10:23 am ¶

8. tasha wrote:

   Ok, so then this really isn’t about misappropriating tribal ancestry, or racially insensitive mascots, or diluting the significance of Chief Katonah’s good name at all. It’s about trademark infringement. The Lenape Nation wants to reserve the right to use the name however they see fit, not how Martha sees fit. I get it. Well then why not just say that? If tomorrow the Lenape Nation opened a casino under the trademark Katonah Slots, with scantily clad waitresses wearing little else than strategically placed feathers and animal skins, while serving beer with Chief Katonah’s effigy stamped on the bottle, then that wouldn’t exactly be honoring the good Chief’s legacy either, but the difference would be that the Chief’s descendents would be the ones profiting from it and exercising control over the Katonah namesake and whatever marketing potential it possesses. So then, if that’s what this is about, why the need to inject race into the fray, and try to turn Martha into some white oppressor? Using Native American stereotypes to sell products is one thing (which is probably not what Martha had in mind at all), like the “Crazy Horse” malt liquor. Now that was just wrong, but trying to use race to do a public relations whack-job on someone just to cement a stake on a claim is something else entirely, especially since Martha built her company without having to sell or promote any culturally offensive material and has no need to resort to such tactics for “kitsch” sake now. And is it possible to conclude that since the town’s name is Katonah that the name has taken on a different connotation in addition to that of the Chief? So for example, should the Malcolm X estate sue the X-Games for infringement or is it reasonable to believe that Malcolm and the Games have nothing to do with each other despite their common X? Is it possible for Martha’s products to be about Katonah the town, not necessarily Katonah the Lenape leader?

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 12:02 pm ¶

9. Katie wrote:

   Tasha -

   Still not seeing why it’s a bad thing for people to have control over their own name. A hypothetical case of their using their own name exploitatively (by your interpretation) still doesn’t justify anyone’s being able to use it the same way.

   Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 1:29 pm ¶

10. Em wrote:

    I suppose the home furnishings are going to be manufactured in China?

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 2:37 pm ¶

11. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Tasha, you may want to reread the original article, not the Brady Braves’ spin on it. The Katonah Village Improvement Society filed the original lawsuit. Two members of the Ramapough Lenape Indian Nation later joined this lawsuit. So the first point is that the town’s residents are the primary ones seeking to prevent Stewart from controlling the “Katonah” name. This is not a case of self-aggrandizing Indians playing on white guilt.

    The article quotes the two Lenape Indians and three other Indians. The second point is that none of them played the race card, in my opinion. They called Stewart’s actions insensitive and explained why, but they didn’t say they were being oppressed or blame whitey for it. They stuck to nonracial reasons for their objections.

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 3:01 pm ¶

12. Sewere wrote:

    Tasha,

    I’m really trying hard to understand your use of hypothetical situations that are completely devoid of any historical evidence. I mean honestly what does this mean, if it isn’t a dismissal of the concern of native people’s real fear of being appropriated again?

    If tomorrow the Lenape Nation opened a casino under the trademark Katonah Slots, with scantily clad waitresses wearing little else than strategically placed feathers and animal skins, while serving beer with Chief Katonah’s effigy stamped on the bottle, then that wouldn’t exactly be honoring the good Chief’s legacy either, but the difference would be that the Chief’s descendents would be the ones profiting from it and exercising control over the Katonah namesake and whatever marketing potential it possesses.

    When have Native Americans ever done something like this? When have you heard of a Native community using their history in the specific way that you’ve described here? How is it hard to understand that time and time again, corporate powers usually led by almost always white entrepreneurs’ appropriation of Native American history for monetary gain
    
    A. Without asking permission from the families and or communities.
    AND
    B. Making millions off the unique history behind the name to sell products while the descendants and communities continue struggle to lay claim of promises and treaties made to said ancestors so that they can get out of what is often a life of abject poverty .
    

    It really baffles me how as soon as people of color with history of grievances outline their concerns, apologists almost always trot out illogical comparisons and hypothetical examples that are completely detached from actual historical reality. It’s never about race, it’s just the same story with the same players in the same roles. Whatever.

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 5:45 pm ¶

13. Myron wrote:

    I do want to be truly respectful to the descendents of Sachem Katonah. We Euramericans exterminated 95% of his friends and ancestors so we can occupy the land. If the name is important to the Americans (Indians) who may be related to him, I say Stewart should back off. She is behaving similar to the uninformed arrogant Euramericans, who participated in the extermination. I think it is time for Euramericans to begin to correct the trauma caused by our ancestors.

    The following is for your information. This paragraph does not affect the previous discussion in any way.

    In volume four of The Viking and the Red Man, Reider T. Sherwin wrote “The Algonquin Indian Language is Old Norse.” George E. Willison in his book Saints and Strangers (about the Pilgrims) wrote information to support the hypothesis that the Wapanoag (Algonquin) Indians may have been Christians. “Wapanoag” in Algonquin/Old Norse) means, “White folks.” So there is a very good probability that the English exterminated Nordic Christians in their greed to possess this land.

    “Katonah” in Algonquin/Old Norse appears to mean, “Cheerful peace.” May his descendants enjoy cheerful peace.

    Posted 13 Jun 2007 at 6:55 pm ¶

14. Mina wrote:

    “When have Native Americans ever done something like this? When have you heard of a Native community using their history in the specific way that you’ve described here?”

    Good point. The only time I’ve seen anything that is in the comic book _Scalped_, never in real life.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 5:05 am ¶

15. tasha wrote:

    I read the AP article and I should have been more specific. I didn’t like the Brady Braves spin on it. The statements from the Native spokespersons in the AP piece were very professional and stuck to the possible trademark infringement, which is what this is about. The references to malt liquor, sports team mascots, etc., etc. were inserted into the Brady Braves piece to be provocative and to get me to link those misdeeds to Martha Stewart because she’s white, despite there being nothing in her past that would suggest that she would resort to such antics. It’s no different than the story of the two VA Beach girls killed in the car accident, and Bill O’Reilly using their killer to make a point about illegal immigration, instead of keeping the focus on what the issue was really about, drunk driving. Now, my views on the immigration debate differ from the liberal slant of this site, but even I knew that it was a drunk driving issue and that O’Reilly was taking a cheap shot. So if the spokesmen in the article can stick to business, then why can’t Brady Braves? Yes, Rob Schmidt, those local businesses don’t have their business names trademarked, but they’re still profiting under the Katonah moniker and yet, those entrepreneurs don’t seem to draw the ire of the Lenape Nation or any other Native Peoples. There are no fears that Chief Katonah is going to become synonymous with dry cleaning or the service industry. What if the proprietor of Katonah Dry Cleaners wanted to franchise his business with another location down the street or on the other side of town? Would it be as controversial? I doubt it.

    Sewere, if you felt that my hypothetical analogy was over the top, I apologize. My intention was to reemphasize my point that this scenario has as much to do with fears of Martha misappropriating Native iconography as the aforementioned laundry service is showing disrespect by including the town’s name on his storefront. This is about a namesake and who’s entitled to use it. And just as you said that there was no history of Native Americans “ever having done anything like that” (in reference to my hypothetical), there’s no history of Martha having done anything like that either, and that at the end of the day, it’s a mere coincidence that the name of the town is also that of the Lenape Chief, which is why everyone concurs that she wasn’t concocting some evil plot to stick it to Native Americans and that she meant no malice. Boy, the Native Peoples sure are lucky to have such rational people advocating on their behalf, people who allow cooler heads to prevail and aren’t prone to go off on these tangents. The Native representatives in the AP piece didn’t say that they didn’t want Martha to use the Katonah name because she was white. They said that they didn’t want her to use the name because they say they own it. I’m not one to cry race each and every time some interracial/ cross cultural spat pops up in the media. It detracts from my credibility when something comes up that really is about race. I mean what next, Paris Hilton didn’t get out of jail early because she was rich and famous? OJ beat the murder rap because he was black?

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 8:08 am ¶

16. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Local “Katonah” businesses also haven’t drawn the ire of the Katonah Village Improvement Society, which filed the lawsuit. Why? Because using and profiting from the name locally isn’t the main issue. Trademarking and controlling it nationally is.

    You may not like the Brady Braves’ spin, but what part of the following do you disagree with? It seems like a sober assessment of the consequences for the tribe and the town (the primary litigants):

    [W]hat will happen? Likely, Katonah becomes synonymous with Martha Stewart products (much to Stewart’s delight, the BBB imagines), not with Lenape People, not with descendants of Katonah, not with respect for Indigenous Peoples, not with honor for Katonah, New York, residents. To Ms. Stewart and Ms. Stewart followers: One’s intentions do not always match the effects.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 3:10 pm ¶

17. Sewere wrote:

    “There’s no history of Martha having done anything like that either, and that at the end of the day, it’s a mere coincidence that the name of the town is also that of the Lenape Chief, which is why everyone concurs that she wasn’t concocting some evil plot to stick it to Native Americans and that she meant no malice.”

    Racism doesn’t have to be based on intent or previous action. Racism is an ingrained value system in our society. It creates and fosters a corporate system whereby entrepreneurs who are almost always white, take on the names and historical to lend a “authentically rustic” image to sell products while the descendants and community of the person continue to live in near (if not real) abject poverty because of the history of this country purposefully appropriating from and killing said people. I don’t care to call Martha Stewart or anyone for that matter, racist because in the current discourse the “accused” almost always suffers from a bout of knee-jerkism and “you people do/want it too” all the while ignoring the people who suffer from oppression. Frankly, I find it hard to believe the intent defense, especially since people from the community have already voiced their concerns about the use of the name. Here’s a good rhetorical question for you, what would happen if the community decides to create make Katonah blankets that end up competing with Martha Stewart’s version of Katonah blankets?

    If only I got a penny every time someone said this, I’d buy myself a llama:

    I’m not one to cry race each and every time some interracial/ cross cultural spat pops up in the media. It detracts from my credibility when something comes up that really is about race.

    Glad to hear you’re circumspect with flashing the “race card”, but I’m going to go with what people from the community have said and documented in their histories.

    Posted 14 Jun 2007 at 4:42 pm ¶

18. steven burton wrote:

    This is to set the record straight. We don’t want someone exploiting out Ancestors name for profit. It’s not about money for the tribe as we wouldn’t accept. It’s about respect for our ancestors. Also, we are not involved in any casinos. We choose not to be involved with them either. Society is always trying to find alternative reasons for our actions but they are as simple as we state.

    Steven Burton

    Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 1:23 pm ¶