Crazy Horse: The Man, the Myth… the Malt Liquor?
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
Janet Boysen
Duke University

Crazy Horse Gentlemen's Club: "Dedicated to improving naughty nightlife for everyone, everywhere."

Hornell Brewing Company's Original Crazy Horse: "The Ultimate in Handcrafted Malt Liquor."

Liz Claiborne's Crazy Horse: "Clothing for all occasions, from relaxed office attire to stylish weekend wear."

…and the Lakota Nation's Crazy Horse: Revered spiritual leader and cultural icon for the American Indian community.

Does one of the above seem a little out of place? The name "Crazy Horse" has been associated with everything from bars to clothing to strip joints, and yet any of those associations may be more familiar to some Americans than the exact history behind the name.

Tashunka Witco, a.k.a. Crazy Horse, was in fact a member of the Lakota Nation; he helped lead Indigenous resistance against exploitation by the U.S. government, and played a key role in the 1876 victory at the Battle of Greasy Grass, or the Battle of Little Bighorn, over Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer. Custer's attack, an effort to expropriate more of the tribe's land and force its people onto reservations, was in violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. Crazy Horse was killed the next year, while in military custody. The legacy that Crazy Horse has left for his descendents, however, is more than that of a great warrior and martyr devoted to his people; he is also revered as a great spiritual leader and role model.

The use of his name, then, to advertise commercial products such as alcohol, clothing lines, and strip joints is not only disrespectful to a great historical figure, but offensive to the members of his family and culture today. In Lakota tradition, it is sacrilegious to use the leader's name at all in a non-religious context, and, in fact, his name is so highly regarded that Lakota parents do not even name their children after him, says Sammy Toineeta, Lakota leader and consultant.

More than simply showing disrespect, this issue demonstrates the great split between the respect and rights given to the American Indian community and those granted to other minority groups. "Everybody would understand how insulting it would be to have, say, a Martin Luther King Jr. Dark Ale or a Golda Meir Stout. But when it comes to Native Americans, somehow it's a different thing," says Minnesota state representative Andy Dawkins, speaking of the controversy surrounding Original Crazy Horse Malt Liquor. Dawkins was responsible for legislation which banned the liquor in Minnesota for a short time.

And it illustrates a deeper problem that exists across America: the commercialization and trivialization of many aspects of traditional Native American culture without regard for the implications for American Indians today. The use of Indian imagery and religious props in professional and collegiate sports teams is the most prevalent example.

Yet advances have been made for increased recognition of American Indian rights and culture. Members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, where I work as an Everett intern, push for social change by working with companies to maintain socially responsible policies. And indeed, it is corporations who, through their ubiquitous presence in society, have great potential for curbing racial stereotyping. The commercial use of the spiritual figure Crazy Horse, or the prevalence of American Indian caricatures in sports merchandise and advertising, both contribute to a negative image of the community. The fact that corporations command such influence, however, means that successfully targeting them in these matters stands to have a significant impact on the way American Indian culture is viewed by mainstream America.

One such victory was attained this June; in a landmark show of respect for indigenous culture and intellectual property rights, British Petroleum agreed to stop using the name Crazy Horse for its Gulf of Mexico oil operation, the largest in the country, recognizing the harm that it inflicts upon the Native American community. Made aware of this issue by ICCR shareholders, BP not only changed the name of its operation to Thunder Horse in a costly, year-long process, but also sent corporate executives to join ICCR representatives, Rosebud Sioux tribal leaders, and administrators of the Crazy Horse Estate for a reconciliatory meeting.

This was the second such move by a major corporation in two years; last year, Stroh Brewing Company decided to cease the production of Crazy Horse Malt Liquor for the same reasons. And for those who suggest that the American Indian fight against the use of the name is financially motivated, they might look to the legal settlement reached between SBC Holdings and the Crazy Horse family: SBC paid damages with the culturally traditional gift of thirty-two Pendleton blankets, grass braids and tobacco ties, and seven thoroughbred horses, symbolic of the seven breweries which distributed the liquor in thirty-two states.

Other companies have been less accommodating. In defense of their CRaZY HORSE clothing line, Liz Claiborne writes in a public statement that it "intends no disrespect to any member of the Native American community." Yet the undeniable fact remains that its use of the name of such a sacred figure is not only offensive to the community, but harmful to American society as a whole by perpetuating disrespect and stereotyping. The work of corporate responsibility groups like the ICCR, which attempt to curb the spread of misinformation and stereotyping at the corporate level, is a big step in the struggle to increase awareness and education about the culture of American Indians.

In one effort to provide mainstream America with a glimpse of the trivializing and offensive effects of American Indian stereotyping, a protestor at the Redskins / Buffalo Bills Super Bowl in 1992 walked through the crowds outside the stadium dressed as Pope John Paul II, throwing "holy water" on fans in a mockery of the revered Catholic leader. The sign around his neck said, simply, "How does this make you feel?"

Similarly, an ABC news article from last March ponders the hypocrisy of commercial American Indian imagery, posing the question, "Would you buy Martin Luther King Malt Liquor, go to the Mahatma Gandhi Strip Club or wear Jesus Christ Jeans?"

If not, perhaps you should keep that in mind the next time you come across Crazy Horse Malt Liquor, Liz Claiborne fashions or tickets for the Washington Redskins game.