ESO,
I agree on the racial insensitivity (and, frankly, the historic/theological inaccuracy) of the old-school hand motions. Our Primary has sung it, with hand motions of some sort (although I don’t frankly remember what hand motions–whenever the pianist isn’t there, I sub behind the piano). I don’t believe the Children’s Songbook has any motions; my guess is that, when taught, it’s a well-meaning primary chorister remembering fondly his or her childhood. (Did you know, btw, that they’ve totally expanded the song into verses I’m sure we didn’t sing when I was young?)

ESO, NO you are not alone. That one drives me crazy too. It’s time to just pull the chorister aside and explain your concerns privately. Hopefully she’ll get it. This practice should have ended long ago, instead I think it’s getting more common, sadly.

Is it OK for me, though, to be appalled at the hand motions but still love me some Chief Wahoo?

http://www.sportslogos.net/logo.php?id=738

Brian G,

I think it is possible to take the pounding your palm as being offensive.

I, for one, completely fail to see why this is worth pulling anyone aside and explaining concerns. Lots of cultural groups have worn feathers in their hair, including many Native Americans. How is imitating that insensitive? As for the crossed arms and firm nod, growing up I never for a moment thought it had anything to do with Indians. The line sung is “given this land if we live righteously” — I took it for a firm emphasis on the idea of “living righteously.”

I was kind of surprised that someone saw this as insensitive stereotypes. While I’m sympathetic to the problem of portraying Lamanites as midwestern native Americans rather than (as many think) mesoAmericans I’m not sure the song is that problematic.

I used to love doing it as a kid.

If it is insensitive I’ll be the first to switch over to condemning it. But I confess I just don’t see it. It seems on par with those complaining about sports teams with various Indian tribes as mascots. As you know some condemn that universally even though the UoU Utes are accepted by the Ute tribe.

Clark, I agree with you 100%.

Clark, 13

Powwows are not a Navajo tradition, hence it is probably not the best example to use if you are going to cite your New Mexican experience in an authoritative voice. Kind of like saying you used to potlatch with the Seminole.

This reminds me of a bit in a Tony Hillerman interview:

When we got this new director of the indian museum, they had a meeting out here to introduce him to people. Representative from several tribes were on the panel. Someone in the audience asked the director what indians prefer to be called? He said well, let the indians on the panel answer.

One said he’d prefer to be called by the name of his tribe or call us indians, he said.

Another said we’re just happy Columbus wasn’t looking for turkey instead of indians.

Another said or the Virgin Islands.

And another said don’t call us indigenous people. We know there were no primates in the Americas. What do you think we descended from owls or coyotes, or what? We consider being called indigenous people an insult.

If any Indians themselves find the song hand motions insulting, I would be very interested to know. Non-Indians being preemptively insulted on their behalf, not so much.

I agree ESO #19. I have been irritated by “Book of Mormon Stories” as an adult. I loved it as a kid. I like the new verses and vote to remove the old verses. I think that this song is attractive to kids because it has a good beat and you can dance to it. The kids like “Scripture Power” for the same reasons. I say a lot of the current Primary song book needs revamping to include a wider variety of songs that are not so boring.

In the Winter, 1985 issue of Dialogue, Jane Hafen (half-Native American) comments on Book of Mormon stories (although not the hand motions). (I tried to submit a link earlier, but the comment never appeared, perhaps because the link was too long).

The whole article is about American Indians in Mormon music.

I am pretty much all good with the song and hand motions.

I think the PC thinking behind a lot of the challenges to mascots and other issues like this in society is a bit overwrought and over the top.

Last Lemming–thanks for the link; I am going to print out the article and read it.

DKL and bbell–I think your anti-pc attitude is troublesome. Certainly, if there were a legitimate doctrinal issue that may cause offense (like telling sinners they were sinners and needed to repent), we ought not get rid of it just to make people more comfortable. To communicate that Native Americans, First Nations, American Indians, what have you, are the often villianous “Laminites” in our central book of scripture is not only wrong, it is offensive. It teaches ALL the kids that the brown-skinned people were the sinners. It teaches the white kids that they don’t need to worry about that and it teaches the brown kids that they are somehow lesser. I just think that if your children were brown and attending a primary where they were even inadvertantly told they were bad because of their skin color, you would have a problem with that. Just as you would have a problem if your sons were told they were lesser children of god because they needed the Priesthood and the girls could get to the Temple without it.

I won’t touch the mascot issue, although suffice it to say we probably disagree. I think that kids at Church should ONLY receive a message of love. I am sure a Sioux or Seneca child in attendance at Primary could easily feel they were being made fun of if these motions were used at Church. Why go there?

btw–I personally know an entire Seneca family who left the Church and became Catholic because they were so sick of people calling them Lamanites and treating them as extra-special sinners who had overcome special obstacles. They found a church where they were no longer treated as circus freaks. I know many other NAs who are faithful members of our Church but they put up with a lot of crap–why should they have to? Why should a primary song (and not even an important one) be a stumbling block?

JA Benson–agreed that the new verses eliminate numerous problems. Of course the beat is to blame for this song living on. I look forward to an evolution in Primary singing–those Article of Faith songs serve a purpose but are atrocious music!

ctlewi–good point on the music. Maybe a simple new melody would solve everything.

I get your point on inclusion–I have no problem if we inaccurately claim that everyone else joined the Lamanites as long was we drop the motions. The Lamanites, after all, only “wanted to be free.” Let’s just disconnect them from the problematic hand movements!

I agree there are many other problematic and not entirely true songs–I hope you see a difference between lampooning a culture and saying that their children “were quick to obey.” Certainly there are many Primary songs we have jetisoned: “When I grow up, I want to be a mother, and have a family! one little, two little, three little children of my own. ” I sang this when I was 4. CREEPY! We have a long way to go, baby.

DKL–I’m writing your son a letter right now. Let me know when he can read, and I’ll send it.

Dear DKL Jr,
So sorry to hear you are a boy. Did you know that means you are less worthy than your sisters? Yes they are all better than you because they can go to the temple with no Priesthood whatsoever. They don’t even need PPIs. I don’t know why God made you this way (maybe you did something wrong in heaven), but you’ll just have to live with it…..

DKL – “I’d actually prefer this to the current morass of patronizing nonsense that people use to justify denying priesthood ordination to women.” Amen – first thing I agree with you on in this thread!

I think that sometimes PC can go overboard, but I agree with ESO that if it is easy to make things less offensive, then why not? We sang a song in Primary last week about “Home is where the heart is” which was a nice song until we got to the second verse which speaks about a strong and wise father and then there is mom and all of the kids – that is offensive to me, but typical of the drivel our kids are exposed to in Primary….

ctlewis, ROTFLMAO!

John Mansfield–that is totally legitimate, but I would love to hear what he thought of these actions in the song. If he loved them, I would love to hear a justification!

John Mansfield,

Your mission president should be offended by the song because it implies (through actions and music) that the Aztecs aren’t the Lamanites!

bbell – I don’t have issues with them talking about a traditional family, I do have issues with the mother being lumped with the kids while the father is held up as the strong, wise one. A bit silly I think

nasamomdele–so what do you need? A personal testimonial from an offended Native American?

It seems a little judgement could go a long way to avoid hurt.

I’m going to have to agree with the naysayers….I don’t see the problem.
I might see an issue if it were clubbing someone with a cimeter, but not impersonating an Indian headdress.

The stereotypes in this song, including the DUM-dum-dum-dum rhythm, fake-Indian modal melody, and hand movements like feathers in the hair, are stereotypes created by Europeans that are based not on Native American culture, but on European perceptions. Start with a web site by American Indians about stereotypes:

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stbasics.htm

bbell (#24), why don’t you read this web site and then explain to us how stereotypes are not offensive. It’s not about being PC, it’s about judging people in offensive ways.

This song promotes stereotypes, just as a buck-toothed, squinty-eyed Chinaman who says “ah-so” is a stereotype, and just as a drunk Irishman is a stereotype, and so on. Stereotypes have no place in a church setting, because they encourage shallow thinking and keep us from seeing individuals as who they really are.

#45, M;

But are the song’s hand-gestures really stumbling blocks (to AmerIndians), or has PC-ism turned them into stumbling blocks just for PC-ists ?

If I read you and the Apostle Paul correctly, I need to avoid the song’s hand gestures, not because Amer-Indians might be offended, but because it’s now offensive to ESO.

But then I have ask, is she offended for the sake of Amer-Indians, or is she offended in her own right? If she’s offended in her own right, then by all means, I’ll avoid the song’s hand-gestures when I’m around her.

However, if she’s offended on behalf of someone else, then I’d like to quote a black man who once said to a white PC liberal: “Don’t tell me what to eat and not eat, I happen to like fried chicken and watermelon, and I’ll eat whatever I darn-well please!”

In my father’s day, he was literally discriminated against in real life, in school and at work, for being Jewish. In my youth in the 70′s such discrimination had died down to mere teasing, and I was not offended by the teasing and mentioning of stereotypes by my school-mates for being Jewish. Even when the mentioning of stereotypical things was done in seriousness, it was not meant in meanness, just naivety on the part of the speaker, so I did not take offense.

Besides, don’t we usually just turn Mormon stereotypes into jokes and have a little fun? I mean with funeral potatoes, green jello, polygamy jokes, lots of kids. There’s plenty of Mormon humor web pages out there with Mormon stereotypes.

questioner (on finding out I’m Mormon): How many wives do you have?
ME: I’m still looking for my first.

questioner: Do you have food storage for the pets?
Me: The pets _are_ food storage.

Bookslinger,

I think your first question is moot: whether its PC-ism or the actual hand-gestures that are offensive, they are offensive to those people. As I understand Paul, not wanting to give offense to people who do not have the testimony that you have could be members or non-members alike: I don’t think he was trying to single out a select group of people, but rather those “for whom Christ died.” If you can tell whether someone is offended on behalf of someone else, you’ve got more discernment than most.

I admire you for not taking offense. I choose not to take offense at the many comments made my way. But, judging only from personal experience, we aren’t the vast majority. As Elder Maxwell put it, “There are so many just waiting to be offended. They are so alerted to the possibility that they will not be treated fairly, they almost invite the verification of their expectation!”

However, I do approve of your sense of humor (I laughed at your jokes). I support that there needs to be fun and enjoyment in this life. With this, even Paul would agree, I would think. I don’t claim to know where the “line” between having fun and being offensive is. I think we would both agree that the line is dynamic and oftentimes blurred. However, I don’t know that this is the question that is really being asked in this particular forum.

I restate the previous point: pagan meat, for Paul, carries no meaning and is not offensive. However, Paul was able to recognize potential difficulties for others, and was willing to change his behavior “while the world standeth” to make coming to Christ a little easier for those who are “weak”, however defined.

I don’t claim that Native Americans are, or should be, offended. I claim that, though the reasons for taking offense vary, you are at liberty to choose how you are to act, “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.”

With regard to the ASL version of the song, I have a blog entry from 2005 dealing with the origins of the signs used for “Nephite” and “Lamanite”.

no-man and Christopher–thanks for the links. My ASL is not good enough to have recognized the cognate, Christopher–thanks for the reminder.

All–I guess I wonder why, even if you think it is silly to be offended, you would want your kids learning these stereotypes.

nasamomdele–I am reluctant to comment on my own ethnicity, although it is pretty clear you assume me to be entirely white. It seems odd that the same opinion might be garbage (if I am white) or meaningful enough for you to rip your Children’s Song Book up (but only if I am Native American).

At the risk of sounding ruder than I like to be, I can’t believe this is actually an issue. It’s feathers. Feathers! Maybe I could understand if it was an Irish/beer stereotype or German/Nazi. At least there’s something bad about that. But feathers and crossed arms? Give me a break.

If there is even the possibility that someone could be offended, shouldn’t we drop it from a children’s song at Church?

Only if you don’t want to sing anymore.

For what it’s worth, my Native American descended husband finds others taking offense more ludicrously offensive than the hand motions. He thinks he is capable of taking offense on his own behalf.

I agree that this shouldn’t be an issue. But for those who do see it as an issue, I would be willing to do as shown in #1.

So its settled: some people think its an issue, some people do not. We can come to a happy medium by still singing the song with different actions, or omitting the questionable ones. I’m sure we’re creative enough to come up with something new.

That something new possibly offend someone.

We’ll have a new thread.

I am all for starting a new thread. Anyone?

SilverRain I am so with you! Eso, and others, while we are at it why don’t we just stop talking about the song altogether, seeing how I am offended that you are offended at me being offended because of a song that your are offended by…aggh, it’s just a song. Sometimes people search out things of issue, just to have issue with them. That bugs too.

M: “I think your first question is moot: whether its PC-ism or the actual hand-gestures that are offensive, they are offensive to those people.”

I think you misunderstood my first question. That’s not what meant to imply.

No one here has yet established that the feather-fingers, folding arms plus nodding, and tom-tom gestures are offensive to real Amer-Indians. My question is: are such gestures offensive to any real Amer-Indians? (or just to PC-ists as some are posturing as).

(PC meaning Politically Correct. And a PC-ist is someone who gets on a high horse and points the finger at those whom they perceive as not being Politically Correct. A PC-ist may be one of the offended minority, or someone claiming to speak on their behalf as liberals are wont to do.)

And if any Amer-Indians are offended, now many? A minority, a significant minority, or a majority? And if only a minority, are they PC-ists looking for offenses?

For instance, I have a blind friend who told me that the few blind people who made a stink over Mr. Magoo being offensive are total jerks, and just wanted attention. The vast majority of blind people, whether totally blind or partially, just don’t care about it.

Are any Amer-Indians who are allegedly making a stink over tom-tom and feather-finger gestures (assuming there are any) just being jerks like the blind people who made a stink over Mr. Magoo?

Next item. You said “those people.” Be careful. People have been pilloried for saying “those people” and “you people.”

ESO: Perhaps we do need to hear from some Amer-Indians on this issue. And get a feel for what percentage are concerned about it, and their motivations for being concerned.

One does have to be careful about announcing what gets your goat. Because then people know how to tease you. I’ll probably be tempted to make stereotypical hand gestures if we should meet at a blogger-snacker.

Maybe there are still pockets of harmful attitudes in the church towards Native Americans. I haven’t seen it. But then, as an adult convert I never went through Primary. And I’ve never taught or assisted in Primary, or observed people as they passed through Primary and grew up. So if there are, I wouldn’t know if Primary songs are in any way responsible for it.

But then I don’t think you’re old enough to have observed, from the standpoint of an adult, someone go through primary and grow up and then observe their atittudes as an adult. You’d have to be about 40 to have seen someone else go through the entire process while you yourself were over 21.

However, I would have to agree that negative attitudes towards African-Americans and mixed race families have driven people out of the church, as I have seen that.

Could this be your real angle? Being married to an African, have you been subject to racial/ethnic or other types of stereotyping in the church? If so, does it sting, or can you shrug it off as the other person’s problem?

Bookslinger,

Only to clarify: you mentioned that “no one has yet established that the…gestures are offensive to real Amer-Indians.” For me, that point wasn’t the issue I was addressing. I realize that PCists get offended easily (one possible application of “weak” in 1 Cor. 8), oftentimes without cause, and that it is also possible that not a single Native American cares. Those things I recognize. For me, it isn’t a question of who was getting offended or if their offense was warranted.

My point was: somebody’s getting offended, and, for me, it doesn’t matter who or why, because that is not an issue. It may not be you or me that is getting offended (because it probably carries very little eternal significance–v.8), but somebody apparently is or could be. Not judging their reasons for being offended, I’m willing to simply omit an action so they will be more comfortable at church (v.13). I don’t have the agenda of removing the gestures or of perpetuating them. However, I find no difficulty in deciding to omit them to ease someone else’s possible offense (v.9). Thank you for your concern. In my opinion, this whole thing could have been resolved with the first post.

KyleM, I recognize that, as I mentioned in previous posts. Of course people are going to take offense. Why we can’t at least try not to offend? Trying to mitigate something so small as an omission of a gesture is hardly burdensome. Yes, yes, we won’t appease everyone. There are always people screaming that something benign (like this gesture) is offensive.
I do not plan on accommodating to the world (in general, I really don’t feel I am a very accommodating person). But what’s the harm of trying to help? Help me understand: the people in this forum seem to be arguing that the gestures have little importance, so we should ignore it. I would be perfectly fine with that. But there seems to be a little minority who cares. If the majority think that the gesture is meaningless, what have they against omitting it? No meaning, no importance, no loss. And we’ve taken one minuscule irk out of someone else’s baggage.

BTW – My indian co-worker thanks all of us for the biggest laugh he’s had in a while.

Well put, KyleM. I had been running under the assumption that omitting them would be more helpful in eliminating others’ angst. I hadn’t seriously considered the idea that more people would be offended by their omission.

I repeat: I am not offended either way, and I don’t think people should be.

And to your Indian coworker: I hope he laughs hard. This thread has been my biggest waste of time since I began blogging. This thread has made me go from trying to be nice to the people who complain about minutia to just apathy for the topic. Signing off.

No-man: I started to read Hafen’s article in Dialogue, the one that Last Lemming linked to, but it was so heavy with PC and other “high falutin’” terms, I soon tired of it. I’ll try it again. My partial pass through the article led me to believe her reasons were all academic, and not practical.

Perhaps an analogue would be if I were offended by Europeans who represented all Americans as cowboys. If I were asked to dress like a cowboy and walk in an European parade as a “representative American”, should I or would I be offended? No. If I were asked to participate in their parade, to illustrate a “representative American” dressed as a KKK, then yes, I would be offended.

Like others, I’m willing to be educated on this by Native Americans, and I think Ms Hafen qualifies. I’ll try to read more of that article, so thanks.

I’m reminded that Mormon practices can be offensive to other cultures, as our proxy temple-baptisms for the dead are offensive to a significant minority of Jews. I’ve commented on that elsewhere. I’m not saying we should stop entirely, but I agree with the church in that we should not proxy-baptize names from publicly available lists of deceased Jews who are identifiable as Jews (such as Holocaust records) without permission from at least one of their living descendents.

I don’t agree with those (living) offended Jews for being offended, but I _understand_ their reasons why they are offended, and I believe their reasons are logical, even though I don’t agree that the reasons are sufficient to demand the cessation of proxy baptism for deceased Jews.

And I also agree with the church for its policy of not knowingly proxy-baptizing deceased Jews (who are identifiable as Jews) unless they have an LDS descendent who requests the ordinandce.

I think we also offend (to a small degree) black families who come to us from other more lively and more demonstrative congregations. Gladys Knight has touched on this point, and her response was Saints United Voices. (Search on that at Amazon to find the two CDs.)

If you look for it, there’s a lot of insensitivity among members of the church, and even in church programs and policies. I was “concerned” while applying to be a missionary in 1983 and upon entering the MTC, because the whole system assumed that all missionaries grew up in the church, and had parents who were members. There was no place to indicate you were a convert, or were the only member in your family.

There was no option on the forms to indicate you were an independent adult living on your own (as I was) at the time of your mission application. Everything and everyone assumed you were a 19 year old dependent living at home, and that your member parents would take care of your home-side affairs.

It really concerned me that the missionary department of the church was going to write things to my parents assuming they were members, and assuming I had been living with them and was under their responsibility. Since they were not supportive of my mission or even church involvement, I was very afraid that the church (or missionary department) was going to make things worse.

I am almost 3/4 Cherokee. I am also a fifth generation member of the Church. All my cousins and other family are members. We all live in the east and Middle Tennessee areas. I asked a bunch of myfamily about this issue and we all feel that the racial thing is out of hand!!! Everyone is afraid to speak for fear of making a racially incorrect statement. This is crazy! All these generations and not one of us has been offended yet by ANYTHING done at Primary or at church. The people taking offense are looking for a reason to be offended. If offense isn’t intended it shouldn’t be taken as such. I’m sick of the whining! Get over it! I’ve been called lots of offensive things, like “red nigger” and “squaw. But the innocent things have never hurt me, and I rather enjoy watching the kids do those songs. Too bad so many traditions are lost because of ignorance.

I come from a small town, our schools mascott is and Indian. I am proud to honor the Indian. Our City is named after a cheif aswell. There should be no offense to be taken from this song. I also believe that now days things are getting way too technical. whatever happen to honor and prestige. I for one think it to be an honor to remember the ancient nephites and lamanites through a song respectfully.

It’s offensive.
I am offended.
Nay, horrified to see this still in church song books.

Be respectful and courteous – as scripture asks us to be.

Scriptures that begin. . . ” An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi
Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile— ” . . .
Yes, that reads : WRITTEN TO THE LAMANITES