Focus 580; Interview with Suzan Shown Harjo on Native American mascots in sports

This morning and this hour of the program we'll be speaking with the Susan Harjo. She is an American Indian activist. She is the founder and president of the Morningstar Institute. It's a foundation in Washington D.C. dedicated to protecting American Indian culture. She is in addition a writer poet lecturer. She has been very involved in developing the federal Indian law dealing with things like sacred sites and Graves protection. And she was involved in a lawsuit that got national attention involving copyright and the Washington Redskins football team and she's also a founding trustee of the National Museum of the American Indian. And this year visiting in the area here and on the campus and will talk about some of the issues facing Native people today and people have questions people are listening of questions they're certainly welcome to call the number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. And we also have a toll free line good anywhere that you can hear us and that is eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 so if you're an Illinois Indiana listening on the Internet use the

toll free line. And of course here in Champaign Urbana use the other 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 1 4. Well thanks very much for being here. Thank you for asking. I think in preparing for the talk I was looking at some of the columns that you wrote for the newspaper Indian Country Today and I was very interested in and one of the more recent ones about the the opening ceremonies for the Olympics. And I guess what interested me was the fear of what would seem to be coming across your feeling that maybe sometimes what we want from Native Americans is we want for them to be decorative and that's about it. And that we we don't really want to know who they are. We don't really want to think too much about interactions between Europeans who came here and moved in and we just we would like them to dance we like them to be colorful. That's good but then we like them to go away. That was that was as I was

understanding sort of the thrust of their piece. You know you think that's that's yes that's what I meant to say. We are the heritage of America and the cultural backdrop for America and we are referred to in the past tense almost exclusively. So most non-native people don't come into contact with us because there aren't very many of us to begin with. Two million. Which is good that's up from 250000 and 1500. The bad part is it's down from about 50 million that used to be in North America. Around 14 92. So our population almost went extinct and during that period of the vanishing American as we were called in the late eighteen hundreds early 1900s people thought that they were seeing the end of us. And I think that's when a lot of America began appropriating our symbology.

And there. And assigned a place to us which was maybe giving an opening prayer usually dancing for the white people and entertaining and then just dancing back. Back we're going to history but the basic message that we've gotten that. The world has gotten from popular culture for a very long time has been that most native people are dead gone buried forgotten at the end of the eighteen hundreds. Well certainly here that that's suggest to a big challenge for Indian people that is having a voice having a voice politically having a voice in culture having it at the very least some sort of say into how you all are portrayed by the culture how well Brit's looking just say at the political issue. Having having some sort of

political clout. How well do you think what you have done. Well I think we've done very well considering that we have such low numbers of people so in the political system of America where numbers count we have also seen democracy at work where minority voices have to be heard in order for democracy to be truly viable. And that has served our interest well and we have. Gone through various policy fluctuations but by and large in the latter half of the 1900s we've been able to prevail on Congress or the courts or one or another administrations to do things that are in the long term interest for native people. Whether that be

in improved health care or in economic development ventures or in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 which was necessary because in Indian religions were outlawed for from 1880 until 1936. So we've been targeted for a lot of things that no other group in America has been targeted for. And. Like the Indian crania study people don't even know that that was something that actually took place in 1860 until the end of the eighteen hundreds where army officers US Army officers were ordered by the US Army surgeon general to go out and collect Indian heads for the Study of of heads which was a great thing. So brains were weighed and skulls were natured and the whole study around it in Europe and

in the Americas was abandoned about eighteen ninety eight when it was discovered that by all these calculations that the French were about as smart but not quite as smart as Cro-Magnon man. So the entire study of heads was abandoned. But in the mean time a lot of graves were consumed a lot of the heads were harvested of our people so we're talking about nightmarish stuff and all of that ended up that collection of material as they refer to it ended up in museums. So in the roughly modern era we have been trying to do things that are making up for in some small way things that happened a century earlier and 50 years earlier and 75 years earlier. So we've. You've gotten a lot we've made a lot of gains and Congress has looked at

some of the things that they allowed to happen in America and have made some serious changes. A whole revolution in museum policy for example. And we are able now as of nineteen eighty nine to be classified under American law and not as the archeological resources of the United States of America which is how we were kept care or characterized prior to 1989. But as living breathing people who can recover our dead relatives from these museums our guest this morning in this first I should say this second hour folks 580 Susan Harper is a founder and president of the Morningstar foundation. It is a national organization the National Indian rights organization founded in 1904 for native peoples traditional and cultural advocacy also arts promotion and research. And she's also an

additional writer poet lecturer. And does a lot of speaking on issues like these visiting here in Champaign Urbana and questions comments are certainly welcome that the number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We also have a toll free line that one's good anywhere that you can hear us 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 on. We do have a caller here to start out with and that he's in Urbana and line number one. Well good morning Susan it's nice to have your voice on the air here. Of course we're embroiled in the controversy over the chief here and I want to throw a compromise idea actually that has not been mentioned by the trustees. I think the main contradiction here is. Between the fact that we're dealing with a big time professional show biz a show business and an amateur athletics. The

fact that the chief is a racist image is in controversy though. Television will absolutely not put the Chief on at it for any halftime events. They simply knock it off and there is good reason for this. Now why. Why can't the University of Illinois or any other universities and I went through this at Marquette University when we retired the Warriors which I think was the wrong thing for the right reasons. Why can't we keep the fighting online. But hey Native Americans to put on a genuine halftime act that is. Simply authentic. And I mean it. People would come just to see the halftime act. Well we have now is you have to pay to see that she if you have to go to see the athletic events and it's obvious it's kind of on savory you know.

You're going to you're going to see the you know something you know you want to see for the wrong reasons. Anyway my friend Carol spindle has water of dancing at half time says it's too late for this compromise we can't get more Native Americans in the halftime show what do you think about that I'll hang up and listen things at the University of Oklahoma in the 60s there was tremendous protest by Native American students and other students of color and the fledgling Women's Studies Group there at the university to get rid of the mascot little red. And the compromise offered by the university was that little red would no longer be a white guy dancing and making a fool of himself in authentic garb. But would be a Native person and.

The air he went through to native people and then the third one just said I can't do this. And the university finally changed and retired a little red. There are still people I meet in Oklahoma and on the way to Oklahoma and in Washington who say I miss that little red I really like him and the native people are just so happy that that that was the first to go. And it was in 1970 little red became the first American says Google athletic program to drop its native references and that that's wonderful and the university still stands and has become a better university because of it and they've been able to have a native studies component and do a lot of serious research and work with the with the native people in Oklahoma. That's a really good example of how good and fine school can

continue on. That the COM there really is no compromise with racism. And the only compromise I heard was was the Indian voice being compromised yesterday out of existence and out of the debate. Like Johnny Carson used to say you buy the premise you buy the joke and if someone is trying to reshape the table in such a way that the native people are missing from it that's really no compromise at all that's just a further extension of the power structure that that exist. But since the caller opens the door and subsequently talks about this as I'm sure there are people who are listening who who would be interested in your reflections and then also what more to express an opinion and certainly that's a welcome. First of all I guess the basic point that that the trustee. Roger Plummer made in the comments he made yesterday was that based on his conversations with people

on all sides of this he said that he as almost as you said he said he thought there was really no possibility for compromise and that the Board of Trustees faced one of two choices. Essentially keep the chief or get rid of the chief which is what Oscar Wilde called a blinding glimpse of the obvious. Well yeah I think I'll not comment on that on this on the side of those people who might say that it would be possible to keep the chief. Some people say that they would want to keep the Chief and yet make some unspecified modifications to reduce whatever offense people might take and I guess what I'm interested in is whether for you. It would be possible that there is anything any any way you could change the way the symbol this is presented now that you would feel

would make any difference. Is it in your mind. Is that the case also that there's there's no possibility for modification that if it's simply there should the chief should be retired. Retired. I think the thing that made sense that I heard yesterday was the possibility of retirement with and consignment to a position of honor or a position of at least. Where this symbol that had served the school for 75 years would be retired with some ceremonious notice and celebration. And I think that sounds just fine. And that's where the it. It is to be celebrated when you retire a 75 year tradition of racism.

What how would you go about modification. Say you have a lawn jockey and you say well let's paint the lawn jockey white. Well no that wouldn't work. Well let's take away an arm. Well no I don't know if that works. Well let's make it not a jockey let's make it a Superman costume. How would you exactly go about this modification I don't quite see it. I think for a for a lot of people when they hear the chief described as as racist. Have difficulty with that because in their hearts they don't think that they are racist and that they talk about the fact that they think that it's that it's intended to be respectful to honor Native Americans and they might in fact they might share some of the feelings I know that you have about Native mascots and sports and they might for example look at something like the Cleveland Indians mascot Chief Wahoo and they might say

OK I get that. I can see why you would be offended by that. And I'm with you on that. OK. Well you will get richer as well. But the chief a lot of their work is is different the and the intent is different. What's in my heart is different the way that's presented is different. Can you and I I know that you would not agree with that but I wonder if you can at least sort of see that see where those people are coming from. Oh I can understand that. And it's not the same. I'm not saying that all the people who want to retain this race or symbol are themselves racist in their hearts or minds. I do think it's very difficult for white people in America to understand why Native people in America find that offensive because we walk into the situation we see symbology through the whole prism

of our experience. We walk in there with our ancestors who are in museums we walk in there with our people who were murdered and mutilated for praying for the good day. We have suffered those those the loss of land we've suffered generational deprivation when we see the symbols of our religion the symbols of our cultures when we know what a struggle it has been and to maintain our religions for those of us who have. And we know that two thirds of the Native Nations today in the United States of America had their religions not only driven underground but driven out of existence. During that period of federal outlawing of religions it is a mighty offense and I don't know that the non-Indian people can truly understand

what we walk into the situation with that we do. Is an important thing for them to understand. I don't condemn all the people like I think that they are what they see as trivial we see as a mighty offense and that's not going to change if we walked into court. It would be the native people who would have standing and whose history would be listened to to a very great extent and not many others. I want to add one more thing and then we'll have several callers I want to promise these people I'm not going to make them wait forever what will get to them in a moment but one of the question of I want to ask you to talk about I want to Madeline's doctor and I think in this as people as non-native people non-Indian people are trying to think about OK how to how do I feel about this what's the right thing to do. They look at try to look at

well what indeed people say about this. And I want to ask you specifically about this about a poll that was reported in a recent issue of Sports Illustrated magazine that deals with this issue of native mascots in sports. And this was it appeared on the march the magazine on March 4th and essentially what they did was they went out they hired a research group they interviewed three hundred and fifty one Native Americans. And also a number of other people I guess of unspecified ethnic background who were just said to be sports fans and asked them Do you think that sports teams should stop using Indian team nicknames mascots and symbols and that it's their finding was that. Eighty three percent of the Native American respondents said it's essentially said they got no problem with it. So how are how we're as as we are all thinking about you know what we should do

with the symbol here at the University of Illinois. What do we make of a survey like that and I think there probably are others that say most the most needy people most need people. They don't care. It's just it's not that important to them. Well I think the main thing that it illustrates is how how they got the story wrong how they got the poll wrong. How did the Harris people know who they were talking to. Hello. Are you a Native American. Living on a reservation. Most people who live within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations in the United States or white people today. How did they know who they were talking to. It's all self declaring I guess and they did say that they skewed their their findings to the census figures and that's also self-declaration.

That's not the way Native people are determined to be native people. We have native nations it's not very complicated. We know who we are we know who each other are. The poll that I would trust more is the one Indian Country Today conducted. And Indian Country Today For those of you who don't know is the leading Native American newspaper and only seven months ago they conducted a poll that showed 81 percent of the American and you know opinion leaders and what the readership of Indian Country Today. We're we're offended. We're not honored. Well 81 percent were offended by the use of native references in sports. Ten percent felt honor the 9 percent weren't sure that's how that poll was. So you have the almost polar opposites the only scientific

poll that's been done is one that was done for our lawsuit regarding the name of the Washington football team in 1996 and was done by an expert witness who was qualified by the U.S. Patent and Trademark board in our litigation as an expert witness and whose findings were said that there were about 60 percent of the little more than 60 percent of Native people who were opposed to these these various names and that of course that that's valid and. And there's the the Sports Illustrated poll didn't disclose the article didn't disclose even the questions that were asked. Really. So I think it's suspect for a number of reasons but primarily because they didn't know who they were talking to. In my experience of

working on native issues and reporting on native issues and either observing or being an advocate over some 40 years I can tell you that in any given campaign whether it's for religion the Religious Freedom Act or for Sacred Lands returns for the main Indian land claim Settlement Act the Indian Health Care Improvement Act the Child Welfare Act. All of these things we to build the National Museum of the American Indian. We've never had more than a couple of hundred people at most working on any of the I mean actively working on any of these issues. And with this issue since the 1960s we have had thousands and thousands of people Native people who were who are actively working on it. In 1990 there were over 3000 of these schools with with native references. Today there are there are twelve hundred roughly. That's that's great. That

means for the most part that you have native families and kids working on this not just one native person per school but many native people and it involves native nations. Every leading national Indian organization around any topic area has spoken out for a very long time. Again since the 60s and reiterating this in every decade and every few years against these native references in sports everyone the National Indian Education Association National Indian youth organization the National Indian lawyers association Native American Journalists Association the National Congress of American Indians we're talking about the native people not leaders who have a disconnect who who are disconnected from the people we are the people we're not leading this

we're articulating it for a whole for a whole lot of native people. The statistics about us really mean something. There most of our native population is not able to work on these kinds of issues those of us who can are in a luxurious position. Most of our population you're talking about the most impoverished people the most unemployed people in America the sickest people in America the worst health conditions most of us are dealing with daily life stuff. So you're not talking about a huge population that is even a vailable to think about these kinds of issues. But in my experience this is this is really a widespread matter and it's something that people can understand. And if America can't deal with this. Simple issue how is that ever going to truly resolve all the complex issues that

we have to deal with on a daily basis. We are a little bit past the midpoint. We'll get right to the folks who are holding on and I appreciate their patience. Let me again though just quickly introduce the guest Susan Harjo. He is the founder and president of the Morningstar Institute. It's a foundation in Washington D.C. dedicated to protecting American Indian culture. She is also a poet lecturer writer. She's a columnist for the newspaper that we've mentioned. Indian Country Today. And if you're interested in looking at the paper and you have access to the Internet there is an online edition is very easy to find it at w w w dot Indian country. That's one word Indian Country dot com. So you can take a look at the article you can see her columns there and you can take a look at articles about other sorts of things and you're just interested in sort of what it is that Indian people are interested in that you can take a look at the paper that way. Thank you. We have a number of. Oh and also I do meant to mention too that for people who are in and around Champaign-Urbana that Susan will be giving a talk at the Levasseur center

4:30 this afternoon on the topic the invisible minority voices and visions for American Indians today. So if you're here and I'm assuming anybody who is interested in attending should should feel welcome I hope so please. OK well let's talk with some folks here. We have a caller over by Danville in Belgium. That's a line for her. I'm going in a large percentage of our of our nation and I'm not considered a Native American. But I do have an answer sisters that are Native Americans. I understand the plight that the Native Americans have gone through and that today they are there. The Holocaust doesn't even begin to compare to the bravery of of our African African American citizens. Really doesn't compare to it either because we have totally destroyed the Native Americans and I agree 100 percent with your card. But I do have to state. I would like to know how you would like to be represented

and how far you want to move you are. Your are your representation in our culture and that there's so many things in our area they're named after they Americans use Native American words are you want to campaign to try to ostracize you from R R R R type of culture or you're going to stop. Please can you answer this I'm going to go off right so we don't. OK well thanks for the call. Well this is our country in a way that it's not other people's country. I mean this is our homeland. We have no homeland to go to except this. And we are very proud of the places that carry the names that we assign to them. Those are very dignified. The state names are dignified. A school name would be dignified. What's not dignified is

anything that diminishes us or Khartoum's us or mascots us. So we want to be portrayed in a way that. That we want we want our in images our symbols our voices our words to to come through in order to do that we have to clear out the underbrush of stereotypes. I used to not think that this was the prominent issue. Now I think it's undergirding can textual atmospheric. The longer I develop public policy in Washington and look at how public policy is developed I realize the importance of removing stereotypes from about native people and and any kind of symbology that makes us diminish people or people only in the past in order to have positive public policy undertaken on our behalf that we design

that we say we need public policy isn't made for cartoons so we want to be portrayed in the way we are and that's multi-layered multifaceted. Lots of different opinions lots of different cultures lots of different ideas lots of different philosophies. So let's get the non-native portrayals and the name calling out of this. That's that's what we want. The next caller is in Clifton wine one. Hello. Go ahead. Bringing this issue and it was said earlier something about people just don't care well that's true about many things in this country they don't care about this that and the other but I think you'd think we should care about the plight of the American Indian and how they've been put down and how they've been pushed off and the small reservations and I got a couple comments in World War Two. I served in World War 2. That was one of

the Indian tribes I don't know which one it was but they were able to communicate in their own language and the Japanese could not or could not bring her close and it was a big help and those that served in the military did a credible job served honorably and with distinction and with bravery. And so I'd give him all the credit in the world. Also I've got a little bit of difficulty with all this talk about a line away. I graduated from University Illinois in 1947 and I used to see the chief get out there and I never once thought that this was degrading and I kind of wish people would just quit talking about it. I don't know part of my heritage goes back to Scotland and if you get a bagpiper out there make Carrick out of him. I wouldn't much care I think. This Think got people so I could go from there. I think you

got a question for me on that. Well some of the Navajo code talkers who were the ones in the in the Pacific theater that you were referring to are and were friends of mine and that many of them are artists like Carl Gorman who was was one of the original Navajo code talkers there truck talk code talkers in World War One and many native nations have used have developed codes within the language to aid in in cryptography and World War One World War Two Korea and Vietnam. And I could be going on now for all I know my dad was a native speaker is a native speaker Nisko Muskogee language and OK. He came out of a lock o Company C

Thunderbird division in North Africa Sicily and on up. They're the ones who went straight up and liberated Dachau. Not my father he was shot up and in Monte Cassino But what they did that the Indian group Company C for Shylock Oh Indian boarding school. All those Indian boys who could talk to each other in Muskogee and Muskogee in and related languages and people like my dad who could also speak Cherokee and other languages. They use those languages. And the the talk that they had developed as schoolboys to communicate with each other but they would just be handed walkie talkies and say there's an Indian on the next hill and my dad was one of the people who could talk to a lot because he did not speak English until he was nine years old and went to federal Indian boarding school and learned everyone else's languages so there was a there are a lot of levels of code

talkers and the Navajos and were very specific and had had a code within their language. And I must say that Carl Gorman and my dad and other veterans from World War 2 are very much in the forefront of this this movement to eliminate native references in sports and you have to think that if if so many native people who have given so much to this country are saying just stop doing that stop stop this nonsense. How. I don't understand how anyone else has the gall to substitute their judgment for for my dad's. Well Susan I guess I'm going to take issue with you on that. I've never thought of dividing the land to the light of week. I never thought that that

was an infringement on on to your people. And if it is I'm so. But never never ever interpreted that way and I think that the more they talk about a run the worse the problem gets and so anyway I don't see anything wrong with it. Thank you very much. Thank you for fighting for freedom. We have a couple of other folks here. We have about 10 minutes left and continue to take calls with our guests Susan Harjo the next caller in line would be line number two and someone in Champaign. Hello. Hello yes I guess it's are two things that I've learned from following this. It's chief debate over the last couple years and I'd like to hear your comments to or one of the guests on the I've learned one is just a reaction. I mean one of the things I think that people say that you know that the chief it is an honor to natives and and so forth. It seems to be maybe not. Kind of at least among the University and University board not so to fancy ated

is comes out because you know other things other than the chief representation in other ways that the university could support. They did seem not to be particularly well supported by the administration and so forth and so you know things like things like native studies program and I think there was something about a Native American or something or some issue a couple years ago that made it you know there are other issues that I think sometimes get lost in the debate about the very you know important issue of the of the symbol that I you know that I think are evidence of a more systemic problem here at the university and probably nationwide. The other topic that that was really interesting to me I learned from Judge grippers report to having grown up in Florida and still having a lot of family down there. One of the things that was interesting to read about was the involvement of the seminal people in the Florida state about four state issuing their sort of negotiation. And you know I guess

the way that the university has provided scholarships and other kinds of things for the federal people and I don't know how that relates to general feelings about the use of native mascots and so forth but I was would love to hear your comments on that. And I'll hang up and listen to what you have to say you know. Wow. There are seminal people contrary to the myth that's been spread around and was articulated yesterday. I have not sanctioned the use of Florida State Universities. Mascot and our team name which by the way the FSU has patent has trademarked. How insulting is that. And most of the seminal people especially the Osceola family is not happy with the with Osceola who was a great seminal

patriot and who resisted Andrew Jackson's removal policy to Indian Territory and out of the seminal homeland in Florida being used to to pimp a football team. I mean that that's pretty offensive to the Osceola family. So that's how I feel about that of course in this university. The people are good. So I don't I mean the genocide was 100 percent successful. I don't know how you give scholarships for that but there are 75000 native people in this in this state who should be given an opportunity to go to the school and there and should be probably would want to go to the school were there not such a hostile environment

toward the living people I mean when you have a symbol that is being honored. People say and then when you pardon me when when a real native person says I'm not honored everyone says shut up. That's not a welcoming environment for a native student. But it's something the university should try is to have some some scholarships available to have a native studies component to do something that makes the university. Oh that brings the university into this time into this modern era and out of a past that at best is is just spewed to ur battling number three. Hello. Oh yes. Well anyway I'm pleased to be helpful. It's a gift and I would like to have her speak to

the problem of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington D.C. I know that I don't know if she's pro or con of course but she didn't know I had a relative who is now retired from the bureau and she was sort of a lowly employee. Betsy said that it was just having a ball for how the Bureau of Indian Affairs didn't do for Indian tribes and Indian reservations and she just practically annoyed that ignored them and I wish your guest would speak to that. And I'd like to know how she feels about that. I came here to Urbana the University of Illinois in 1941 and I know all the. My husband did too and we were just so you

didn't even have time and I Frederick programs were wonderful representation and of course we know the cast of fashion by Indian tribes. And I'm not sure the North Dakota or whatever but anyway I would really like to have you speak to yea or nay in a Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington DC. I have no use for them. I am and savior of the Indians and Indian tribes and my great great grandfather was beheaded by an Indian but that doesn't make me against him and I am for a representation of all Indians and especially Illinois with our tv set of athletic events and and the past in the years that we've been here. A small group from the band and the chief would come to parties

or events and everybody thought it was not their fault. We just have a couple of minutes you're going to want to give and I'd appreciate Yeah give particularly a chance to talk about whatever you're feeling of the effectiveness of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Well the Bureau of Indian Affairs is one of the oldest. Entities of the federal government and began in the Department of War in the seventeen hundreds. Shortly after the after the country was formed under the United States of America and anything that and then transferred to the Interior Department about 160 years ago. So anything that old and any bureaucracy any federal bureaucracy like any bureaucracy anywhere is going to creak and just have some awful history. The history of the Bureau of Indian Affairs is really the history of the United States and its

ill treatment of Indians and then attempts to make adjustments and do a good thing and then the policy swings back the other way and so it's been pretty battered it. It has only been within the past 10 years that native people have been. Predominantly in charge of things and there's been a vast improvement in the Bureau of Indian Affairs over that period of time since the numbers of employees have been cut down and most of the employees are now native people. So we'll we'll have to see we'll have to see over the next 10 15 20 years how native people work in the bureaucracy and whether or not the Bureau of Indian Affairs can actually do good things to help Native people but a lot of time a lot of the time the Bureau of Indian affairs when it's attempting to do something good

gets not for the good things that it's doing for Indians because it's doing good things for Indians which is an interesting thing. And then of course there are a lot of us who have grown up with some pretty bad. Examples of what the Bureau of Indian Affairs have done and take it to heart. That be I a means boss Indians around but we can't really say that anymore. Now that it's 90 percent Native American We're going to have to stop I'm sorry we have a couple of cars we can't take in there's much more we could talk about when we've simply used our time. First of all though I do want to mention that our guest Susan Harjo will be giving a talk this afternoon at 4:30 on the UVA campus at the Levasseur center. Any want to welcome any one who wants to attend should feel welcome and I'm sure that she'll be touching on many of these many of these issues. Among other things also She's a columnist for the newspaper Indian Country Today which you can read online at w w w dot Indian Country dot com Also if you're interested in reading more on the subject of the controversy surrounding Native American mascots you

might look for a book that's titled team spirits. It's a collection of essays by different writers and Susan has contributed one piece to this book. It's published by the University of Nebraska Press it's paperback and should be something you could find in them. The book Star thank you very much. Thank you.