1994: Crazy Horse Malt Liquor brand reinforces the stereotype of the drunken Indian and is "terribly insensitive.."

1992, May 20 - Surgeon General Antonia Novello and representatives of Native American groups .. blasted a new malt liquor called "Crazy Horse," charging that it was specifically aimed at American Indians and underage drinkers. ~ 1992. May 20 Northwest Herald 

1992. May 20 Northwest Herald 

1992, Sept 15. The Wall Street Journal. The Second Murder of Crazy Horse By James Bovard - this article gives an excellent timeline of the Crazy Horse Malt Liquor (introduced in March 1992 by Hornell Brewing Co) controversy and protest. "The resulting political feeding frenzy may result in the first crucifixion of an American corporation for the sin of “commercial blasphemy.” "
                                                            Quotes from the article

• Rep. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (D., Colo.) declared that the sale of Crazy Horse malt liquor is part of an “absolute American tragedy.” 
• Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D., Mass.): said that brewers “don’t care what the effect is on the American Indian people . . . as long as they can make money.”

1992, Sept 30. Letters to the Editor: The Real Murderer Of Chief Crazy Horse. The Wall Street Journal. Response to “The Second Murder of Crazy Horse,” (editorial page, Sept. 15) by James Bovard. "Crazy Horse Malt Liquor not only offends many Americans, it also mocks a cultural symbol held dear by Native Americans. Ironically, the symbol is important in the fight against alcoholism among Native Americans.... no one is being lynched, but Crazy Horse is being hijacked and we intend to stop it."  Rep. Pat Schroeder (D., Colo.)

1992, November 7 - "It is time we clamp the lids down on profits made at the expense of people's pride and dignity," Surgeon General Antonia Novello said.

1992, Nov 7 Argus Leader 

1992, Nov 7: Crazy Horse malt liquor distributors claim that Congress "violated the Constitution when it passed a law to prevent the company from using the name of the Sioux Indian chief." The spokesman literally says that this type of cultural appropriation has been going on for a very long time, he says the "singles out one company for doing the same thing hundreds of companies have done."

1992, Nov 7 Stevens Point Journal 

1993, April 14 The Des Moines Register 

1993, Oct 28 - Group wants state to ban alcoholic products exploiting Indians. (St Cloud Times). Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights, Inc. finds the Crazy House brand offensive, saying "It's a little like naming an abortion pill after Pope John Paul," said Barbara Otis. "Crazy Horse was a great leader of the Oglala-Lakota people in the later 19th century," Otis said. "He was a spiritual leader and mystic who would have nothing to do with alcohol."

1993, Oct 28 St Cloud Times 

1994, Aug 1 - A Minnesota law prohibits the use of the Crazy Horse name on malt liquor or any similar product that suggests "a connection with an actual living or dead American Indian leader." The brewers of Crazy Horse claimed the ban violated its free speech rights. As a result, Crazy Horse Malt Liquor is still being sold. Minnesota and Washington were the only two states where agencies banned the sale of Crazy Horse.

1994, March 4 Star Tribune 

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
HEADLINE: "Crazy Horse" beer connection false and misleading.
DATE: December 2, 1995

CONTACT: Robert Gough, Attorney for
 Estate of Tasunke Witko (Crazy Horse)

 ROSEBUD, SD -- "The message is clear. Brewing companies using and  defaming the good name of our grandfathers will not be tolerated,"  said Mr. Seth H. Big Crow, Sr., administrator of the Crazy Horse  estate upon learning that the label registrations for "The Original  Crazy Horse Malt Liquor" and "Chief Oshkosh Beer" had been revoked  by the Minnesota Commission for Public Safety as stating  connections which are "false and misleading".

 In her eight page opinion dated November 28, 1995, Assistant  Commissioner Mary Ellison, adopted the findings and recommendation  of Administrative Law Judge, Allen Giles, who presided over a two day hearing in April. The Commissioner revoked the label under Minnesota law for liquor brand registration, because "Tasunke Witko (Crazy Horse) was opposed to the use of alcoholic beverages, and  because the heirs of his estate have not endorsed and have specifically disavowed any connection with Crazy Horse Malt Liquor, the Crazy Horse Malt Liquor brand label states or implies in a false or misleading manner a connection to Tasunke Witko a/k/a Crazy Horse, a deceased American Indian leader."

 Another brand label "Chief Oshkosh Beer", bearing the name of the famous Menominee American Indian leader, was also determined to be false and misleading, and was likewise revoked. Roberta Oshkosh Robinson, of Neopit, Wisconsin, a lineal descendant of the Menominee chief, had provided an affidavit disavowing any association or endorsement to the beer bearing her family name.
 "This is a wonderful decision. I would like to see other states begin respecting the rights of Indian people in this way."

 The "Crazy Horse Malt Liquor" label has previously been rejected in several states, including Nebraska and Washington, and several other states, including California, are presently considering legislation. Ferolito, Vultaggio & Sons, owners of Hornell Brewing Company, who produce the malt liquor in association with the G. Heileman Brewing Company, also make a line of non-alcoholic products under the "Arizona" iced teas and fruit drinks, have recently found those products the subject of a nationwide boycott called by support groups from New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and California, as a result of their continued refusal to remove the Crazy Horse name from the malt liquor.

 Robert Gough, attorney for the Estate of Tasunke Witko, which intervened in the Minnesota action, welcomed the decision, stating that "Minnesota's revocation of beer labels which falsely depict
 American Indian leaders such as the Lakota, Crazy Horse and the Menominee's Chief Oshkosh is a victory for the human rights of all Indian people in this country. It speaks to the protection of the
 right of Indians families to control the use of the names of their ancestors and leaders, especially in the area of alcohol products, which are highly regulated and have been particularly devastating
 to Indian people."