A Young Child Named Maya Rudolph
In 1975 I had just come off a brief tour I was on with a band that was opening for Joe Walsh, when Irving Azoff’s company, Frontline Management, which managed Walsh suggested I’d be a good fit to tour with Minnie Riperton.
They were right; when I met Minnie I felt I’d met a long lost older sibling, and would continue working for her after she left Azoff’s management, and throughout the remaining years of her career.
Besides a voice seemingly from heaven, she had the most delightful family as well. Her two children Marc, and Maya were a joy, and her husband, Richard Rudolph, who still to this day, is one of nicest people you could ever meet.
I was just in my early 20’s, toting around a Hasselblad camera wherever I went. When I was working as Minnie’s tour manager, I rarely had the time, or situation to formally photograph her. Although I always had my camera, I was still a very young photographer, and had not yet developed the skills to capture what it was I saw in her, so my collection of photographs of her is limited.
However, during our off time off from touring, I was often at their home around her family and photographed Maya frequently. Most children get very antsy in front of a camera, but she seemed to be fascinated with the photographic process. She held a firm gaze and always seemed to be studying this photographic process very closely, so I’m not at all surprised that she’s become one the finest comedic actors working in front of a camera today.
I’m also not surprised that Maya found her way into comedy. What few people may know about her mother is that Minnie was one of the most hilarious women you’d ever meet. She had a wry, even ribald wit that would totally disarm the coolest of characters, the biggest record producers, and the most pompous industry executives of the day.
Maya was five or six years old in this photograph. It was taken at their home in Westwood, CA near the UCLA campus. Maya in her swim suit, sitting in front of the TV with a vintage cable TV box, near a baseball bat & glove, while Minnie in one of her flowing dresses steps out of frame right, and “Sparkle” their devoted Standard Poodle slips by behind her.
This photograph captures so much of the special warmth, and familial connection I experienced at their home during those days. They were a very special family, whom I will always appreciate how generously they brought me into their lives.
The Eagle Bull- Oxendine family is being sued by their child’s school for defamation, because they asked the school to permanently change their offensive and culturally insensitive Thanksgiving curriculum and to honor a two-year scholarship taken from their daughter after they voiced their concern over Native appropriation there.
They’re raising funds to defray mounting legal expenses. Please share this link and donate what you can. If they lose, we all lose. This case has the potential to set dangerous precedent where Natives are effectively gagged from speaking out against appropriation and the abuse of our culture and sacred ways by mainstream society. This is legal conquest. We can’t allow them to play Indian and hide behind judicial robes to do it. Thank you.
Contribute here: http://www.gofundme.com/8f3z30
The idea of the humourless feminist is an incredibly potent and effective silencer. It is used to isolate and alienate young girls; to ridicule and dismiss older women, to force women in the workplace to ‘join in the joke’ and, in the media, to castigate protest to the point of obliteration. —
Laura Bates, Everyday Sexism (via lovethyfemaleself)
YES THIS IS WHY I DONT LAUGH AT YOUR MISOGYNY
(Source: poyzn, via keepingtrackofnothing)
Skillet Rhubarb Crunch | Seasons and Suppers on We Heart It.
Tsilhqot'in First Nation granted B.C. title claim in Supreme Court ruling -
juxtapose-me:The Supreme Court of Canada grants declaration of aboriginal title to more than 1,700 square kilometres of land in British Columbia to the Tsilhqot’in First Nation. Today’s decision resolves important legal questions, such as how to determine aboriginal title and whether provincial laws apply to those lands.
Congrats to my northern kin. The white tears are already flowing.
Okay. Here’s what I think is important/new about the Tsilhqot’in case:
1) There was a fear that Aboriginal title might only apply to areas specifically settled and not to wider territories accessed for medicines, hunting etc. This case establishes (well, says it confirms) that semi-nomadic nations can still prove Aboriginal title as long as they regularly and exclusively use territories, and this will satisfy the test for ‘occupation’ under Delgamuukw. So Aboriginal title has the potential to apply to much wider areas than just where peoples camped on a regular basis. This is huge, because the alternative is as the CJ put it in p.29, ‘small islands of title surrounded by larger territories where the group possesses only Aboriginal rights to engage in activities like hunting and trapping.’
2) The CJ admonished the BC Court of Appeal and all future courts to not get hung up on bashing title cases over technicalities in the pleadings. This is big for FNs wanting to assert title, but being terrified of not including every possible boundary and proof from step one. In p.23 the CJ says,’What is at stake is nothing less than justice for the Aboriginal group and its descendants, and the reconciliation between the group and broader society. A technical approach to pleadings would serve neither goal. It is in the broader public interest that land claims and rights issues be resolved in a way that reflects the substance of the matter.’ In my opinion, this will make it easier for FNs to begin asserting title sooner rather than later.
3) While this decision doesn’t break new ground on this next one, it is an important reaffirmation that translating Aboriginal practices pre-European sovereignty into modern day legal rights cannot be done by shoving those practices into common-law boxes and distorting them. Meaning, Euro-centric models of things like land ownership etc cannot be the only way in which we measure Aboriginal practices. Can’t ask, “is this exactly like these concepts of land ownership in the common-law? If not, no dice!”. Nonetheless, common-law principles are considered alongside Aboriginal perspectives creating a different approach, but one still somewhat informed by European concepts.Which is disappointing.
4) The meat of the matter is what rights come with having Aboriginal title? Right now, the legal situation is that all land in Canada has underlying Crown title and this happened through the magical and mystical act of applying Crown sovereignty. No court has really questioned it yet. So there is still Crown title underneath Aboriginal title, but the rights that go along with Crown title are lessened. Here’s the math: content of Crown title = Crown title - Aboriginal title. Understanding this helps parse the next bit.
Aboriginal title means rights associated with benefits of land: occupancy, use and ‘economic fruits’. This is not limited to only traditional activities btw. Thus the Crown does not have these rights, but it still has radical/underlying title. What is radical/underlying title? Two things: a fiduciary duty to FNs when dealing with Aboriginal lands and more importantly, the right to encroach on Aboriginal lands if justified.
Basically this decision affirms the right of the Crown to encroach on Aboriginal title lands if there is a pressing public need and if it meets the standards set up for such infringement. Aboriginal title raises the bar substantially, but infringement is still possible, particularly in projects deemed for the greater public good. This makes it harder for the government to ram through pipelines, for example, but certainly does not make it impossible.
Aboriginal title does not confer sovereignty on FNs. The provinces can still apply general laws of application without consultation if they do not substantially infringe on Aboriginal rights. (i.e. Traffic Acts, pest control etc). Right now, Crown lands do not include Aboriginal title lands, but the SCC said provinces can change the legislation to include Aboriginal title lands. There is still a duty to consult if laws impact Aboriginal rights, but don’t go thinking that little enclaves of Aboriginal sovereign states have been created.