Did Ashcroft move to Canada?

you know, every woman on the planet has tatties.it is possible to gaze upon actual tatties, much less a picture of them, & not pop a boner.

your premises are flawed, this censorship was caused by Canadians being hyper liberal rather than hyper conservative as is the case down here. They didn't cover them to hide the sexual nature of the milk devices, but out of respect to minority cultures.

Actually, if you check out cbc and not the dumb-ass PI story, you'll see that this has more to do with Native Americans being represented as subservient than with booby-phobia. Still pretty stupid though.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/04/25/bc-murals.html?ref=rss

Native Americans? Wow, when did they move up to Canada?

Are you sure you don't mean First Nation? Or Native Canadians?

will in seattle - strange as it may seem to you, not all "americans" are residents of the usa.

In Canadia they usually call them Aboriginals.

alex not in seattle - strange as it may seem to *you*, not everyone follows American naming conventions.

no, it is not stupid, it is respectful. like vooodooo 84 said, it is done out of respect for first nations people, trying not to continue representing them as naked savages readily sexually available to white men. there are issues here, so the painting is covered and rightly so. the piece in question was painted years ago as public art and sensitivity to native issues has increased, the painting has become culturaly inappropriate, hence the coverup. so no, canadians haven't yet reached american levels of stupidity. give president, er, i mean prime minister harper a majority next election however, and we too could be losing pallet-loads of money in eye-rack.

The most stupid thing here is that B.C., specifically Victoria, has a lot more to worry about than this. Have you seen the homeless population in Victoria these days, thanks to Vancouver's Pave The City And Poor For 2010 strategy? The only reaction Parliament made was bitch that Victoria lost a major convention because of the large homeless population in downtown possibly detracting travellers. Way to go, Gordo.

Folks - Dan - I love you but do you know how typically 'American' this whole exchange reads to Canadian eyes?

Some points from the 'inside':
1. The term of choice is First Nations Peoples, not any of the terms you all so confidently assert above.

2. At the same time, Alex Not in Seattle is quite right - only people from the United States think that for some reason the term 'American', which rightly refers to anyone from the Americas, specifically refers to them. It drives the rest of the world crazy that you people do that. Native American is an acceptable (though not preferred) alternative way of referring to Canadian First Nations people.

3. Most importantly, I have seen the mural several times and its is wildly offensive and appropriative towards First Nations people. I won't bore you with details but it is the worst, most sexist, imperialist piece of public art and it's an embarrassment to have it in the BC Capitol. The naked breasts are particularly offensive because there is NO reason to think that the actual women being depicted had any tendency to run around topless - it is almost pornographic and wildly culturally insensitive. I am glad they are covering it, although a much better option would be to finally paint over the horrible thing.

Please do your homework before judging others. And please, please stop using the term 'Americans' to refer to people from the US. Even all the left-wingers (all of us on this board I assume) do it without any seeming awareness that it would come of as colonialist and wildly arrogant to others from North and South America. Every time you stop and think before referring to 'American patriotism' or 'American culture' (etc.) you do a favor to your friends in struggle from Canada and elsewhere.

I'm going to out myself as an ugly American (heh) here -- I just spent my first time out of the country in ten years, this past weekend, helping a group of Canadian Scouts clean up one of their camps. I guess I knew how reviled we were in the rest of the world, but I was still taken aback at how quickly attitudes changed only a few miles over the border into British Columbia. Little kids were sort of begging me to reassure them that I wasn't going to reelect Bush and blow up the world, and everyone assumed I was a gun/religious nut. Very eye-opening and very, very sad.

Can we safely assume that most Greek and Roman citizens didn't run around naked too? Does the fact that most classical statuary depicts the nude form mean that they/we are being sexist and imperialist in our appreciation of that artwork? Or does it only become sexist and imperialist when the artist is white European and the subject is "aboriginal"? Is this the case with this painting? What else in the scene is degrading and imperialist (if the self-righteous among you don't mind elaborating with the "boring details")?

"Cultural sensitivity" has reached almost absurd extremes in America (all of the Americas apparently). It's no longer about political rights, social equality, or equal opportunity--it's now about policing every form of thought, expression, or representation that any particular minority might find distasteful or inaccurate. Italian mobsters, Irish drunks, Latin lovers, gay designers, and shallow blondes have apparently gone the way of the bare-chested aboriginals--not because they don't exist, but because they're "offensive." It isn't enough to have positive counter-models--we must now censor all existing stereotypes as well. Even made-up races (like Jar-Jar Binks) musn't display any recognizable cultural attributes or manners for fear of offending the "real" people that they mimic.

And all of this is, supposedly, for the purposes of re-educating the public? How does hiding the existence of stereotypes serve that purpose? Wouldn't it be better served by taking your high-school class to visit the mural and then having a frank discussion about its assumptions? There's almost no difference between the complaints about this mural and the complaints about the S&M "Last Supper," except that they come from opposite sides of the political fence. You can't support one and damn the other.

Peter: Sad that Americans seem to be reviled abroad, or sad that Canadians (of which I'm one) made huge stereotypical assumptions? I, honestly, was not sure which -- both, I guess. I really hope those people were treating you that way as a joke.

I think all people portrayed in public art should be nude. It would be vastly more interesting if we had ithyphallic naked George Washingtons all over the place instead of boring old George in his whig and knickers.

The racial subservience/humiliation thing is a little too kinky for my tastes though. If I were a First Nation Person/Native Canadian/Aboriginal American/Whateverthefucktheywantmetocallthemtoday I imagine I'd want it out of government property by whatever means necessary.

@13: In my (crude) understanding, the majority of classical statuary depicted superhuman beings, not ordinary citizens. Nudity represented heroism or divinity, and allowed better portrayl of physical beauty, which was believed to be a manifestation of inner virtue.

In this case, it seems like people are arguing that the nudity in the mural represents objectification and submission. The S&M rendition of "Last Supper" supports the same qualities, but probably in a comparatively voluntary, celebratory environment.

The AP release sucks, of course. The objection is over the colonialist overtones, not the nudity, but that's the only descriptive in the article ("bare-breasted" and "topless" Indian women). It worked, I guess.

The official term is First Nation.

But hey, you could read the linked Canadian article ...

And I've seen the mural myself too.

Gloria, I guess I did mean both.

All the jibes I got about America/me from adults were jokes, but with that edge of sincerity to them that was a bit uncomfortable. The kids' questions were more uncomfortable, though. I don't think a 7-8 year old Beaver Scout is capable of dark ironic humor or anything.

Gloria @14.

They know us by the acts done in our name. We voted the Bush/Cheney gang/policies in a 2nd time after all the badness was out in the open. How should those outside our borders not see everyone of us as potentially dangerous and perhaps insane?

Dr. Venkman @9 is right -- this issue is not about hiding pictures of bare breasts, it's about the mural as a symbol of the colonialism that has kept the First Nations of B.C. marginalized and silenced since Europeans began to govern this place. The B.C. government has a TERRIBLE record of ignoring and offending aboriginal people, and while there are certainly more concrete issues to deal with than a mural (like those loooong-awaited treaties), again, the symbolism of this, frankly, very tacky mural is hard to ignore.

That said, Rebecca @11 -- come on. "Please stop using the term 'American' to refer to people from the US"? Bit late for that, don't you think? What do you suggest they start calling themselves?

As for, "it drives the rest of the world crazy" that Americans use that term? Uh... that's the term the rest of the world uses. And I would be hard pressed to find a Canadian, other than you, who wouldn't be annoyed to be referred to as an 'American'.

As for 'Native American' applying to Canadians, well, the First Nations people I've discussed this with were baffled by it. Their response was, "But I'm Canadian!" Made sense to me.

i think they mention the insensitivity of the mural on the official tour of the parliament building

Jack @13,

Yeah, 'cultural sensitivity' -- what a hassle, eh? I mean, what about how us white folks' freedom is being trampled on by all those uptight, politically correct Indians? Look how wealthy, powerful and privileged they are.

It's time white people started speaking up about our oppression under the natives, dammit! Thanks for opening my eyes.

if you think objectifying native women as sexual objects ripe for explotation is merely overblown 'cultural sensitivity' i really really would suggest you study up on your history. its funny how many people get caught up on a name that is only a blanket term in a foreign language (ie english) that Native people use in relations with the dominant group. they have their own names for themselves but First Nations is the approved legal/political term in canada as American Indian/Alaska Native is the agreed upon legal/political term here in the US.

irena - for the record, most europeans (for example) go out of their way to refer to the "united states," "the states," or the "us" precisely to avoid calling this country "america." It's a conceit of residents of the usa to insist on calling themselves "americans" as if the residents of the rest of this hemisphere did not exist. if residents of the usa were at all in tune with the attitudes of the rest of the world they might call themselves "residents of the usa" and let it go at that.

Russians say American. Turks say American. It is very common in the rest of the world and was commonly used in Europe to refer to American GIs during and after the war.

The Chinese say Beautiful Country People.

By the way, if you are an American just outside the door of the restroom, what are you whan you go in? Your a'peein'

Well, true, most First Nation Peoples tend to just call themselves Canadians. Or, at most, Native Canadians.

But I've never heard them call themselves Native Americans. Maybe some do - Iroquoia in Quebec maybe since the res straddles the border.

yeesh! sorry i thought it was about the tatties. i suppose i don't really see exposed tatties as indicating sexual availability to the white man.

take the friggin' thing down and mothball it. our capitol could give then Michael Spaffords' 12 Labors of Hercules, which is too 'modern' for our philistine legislators.

"The House mural, commissioned for $91,960, was on display for less than a year before members ordered it covered. Its critics said some of the scenes of a grappling Hercules were pornographic."

So Dan,
could you please mention in your post WHY the mural is being covered, and not just allow everyone to assume it's because Canadians can't handle the sight of a few boobs.

In my opinion, they should definitely be covered up. It is not just the breasts, but the depicted power dynamics in the photo (after all, as Dan says, every kink is about power). If you are an aboriginal woman coming to parliament, is that the only representation you want to see of yourself? It's not like racism is in the past, and we can all look at it with perspective. A whole lotta canadians are really fucking racist towards first nations (more than any other group). If you don't think so, just visit any small town and ask around.

And aboriginal women in BC need all the protection we can get. Amnesty international has said that we are not getting adequate protection from the government. We are a group targeted by murderers and rapists because they know that we hold such a low status in society that nothing will be done if we go missing. Look at the downtown east side, look at the highway of tears. Aboriginal women go missing by the dozen and what is being done about it? To say that it's alright to depict aboriginal women in a demeaning nature in the heart of our government, is to ignore what is happening with aboriginal women everywhere else.

Oh, come on, ams, next thing you know, you'll want BC to actually sign treaties with the tribes they stole the land from.

(this is a joke)

Europeans call this "the States" and us American (americain, americano, etc.). I'd really like to know what else we should be called. Wait, no, maybe I wouldn't.

Europeans call this "the States" and us American (americain, americano, etc.). I'd really like to know what else we should be called. Wait, no, maybe I wouldn't.

I was going to come post about how it's not the breasts that are the problem, but a lot of people beat me to it. So I'll just stick with asking for an update on the Slog - the post is just way off-base.

The national name U.S.A. contains the word "America" in it, and U.S. citizens call themselves "Americans" as a quick way of referencing their national identity.

We don't deny that there are other American nations, but none of them use the word "America" in their name, so why call them "Americans" when referring to their national (vs. continental) identity?

When people make reference to continental identities, we are North Americans, just like Canadians and Mexicans.

Since national identity almost always trumps continental identity, it seems like a stupid thing to get pissy about. Why does this issue get other nations' knickers in a twist?

And if the world expects us to start calling ourselves "U.S.A.-ians", they can think again. Of course, I consider myself a Californian first-and-foremost.

Cascadia.

alex not in seattle @24,

While I'll give 'em "Americans," I have to admit I don't like "America" either. How about just "down there"?

So, an image of a bare-breasted woman is "degrading," while the image of Jesus and the Apostles in S&M clothing is "celebratory"? Celebrating who? The S&M scene or the religious figures being portrayed? Since the models are "voluntary" that makes the content unobjectionable? Okay, I'll go with that...

But if the women in the mural are somehow being objectified for the sexual gratification of white males, then can't we say that the Apostles are being objectified for the sexual gratification of gay leather-men? Doesn't this objectification ignore and exacerbate centuries of brutal oppression of the Christian martyrs by a hostile dominant culture (Rome)? Is this the image of themselves that Christians want to see when they come to a public festival supposedly celebrating the freedom and mutual tolerance embodied in our democracy?

Or maybe both parties should stop worrying about how an artist portrays them and start worrying about how the law, the courts, and their government representatives treat them. Eyes on the prize (and no, the prize isn't a flattering portrait)...

Jack, you're comparing a gay send-up of a powerful Christian symbol with a Anglo male's misrepresentation of native women in a colonial country. One uses humour to poke fun at a more powerful group, the other appears to legitimise and celebrate colonial oppression. Remember, this mural is in the provincial legislature, which has a long history of working to ignore, diminish, or undermine the autonomy of First Nations people.

B.C. has a history of horrible racism perpetuated against aboriginals. Many of them still remember the residential schools they got dragged away from their families to attend, where they were physically, emotionally, and sexually abused by their religious caretakers. In the schools, they were forbidden from speaking their own languages. Outside the schools they were still treated like children; the government-appointed Indian agents exercised outrageous control over their lives. Their potlatches were outlawed, their land was stolen, and they were taught to be ashamed of what they were. All of this is known, and yet they STILL have to fight to hear their voices heard in B.C.

Unfortunately, this mural IS HIGHLY symbolic of "how the law, the courts, and their government representatives" have historically treated them. If they want to have it removed, that wish should be respected.

Dan has not ammended anything in his original post. So, I guess aboriginals are just about as invisible on slog as they are everywhere else in the US. We don't exist in mainstream media, and we don't exist on slog.
How about getting a local native person to post on slog, eh? How about covering some native issues, eh?
Not sexy enough for you, I guess. The only time anyone has posted on native issues, as far as I can tell, is when aboriginal women's naked breasts were involved. How pathetic.

Usually the term is First Nations (Peoples)... the term comes from the fact that the first nations to exist in North America were neither Canada or the USA, but the many tribes that European colonizers slaughtered, looted, and enslaved.

I have also seen the painting. I might care a smidge about what happened to it if it wasn't BUTT UGLY to begin with.

Seriously. Ugly.

idaho has a similiar mural showing a native man being lynched. both these paintings are about the power relationships between colonizer and colonized. that still are being played out today in canada and the us. where has erica barnett's rage as a feminist been over these accounts? last mention natives got here i think was for the daybreak star powwow, and now for this...yeah us.