Visions:

The aim of this project is to highlight examples of hatred, intolerance or the perpetuation of stereotypes of the American Indians from film and television in order to effectively combat such damage. Some entries may be provocative or inappropriate but the desired end-goal is to foster greater understanding of how religious intolerance works and manifests itself.

Black Robe - Historical Stasis and Christian Salvation

The Canadian film Black Robe follows the story of Jesuit missionary, Father LaForgue, as he travels with a band of Algonquin Indians to find a French Catholic mission in a Huron village. Along the way, the group runs into Montagnais and Iroquois Indians as well. The depiction of the Iroquois is especially stirring as they are shown to be brutally violent and merciless toward the missionary group, torturing and killing them. After a narrow escape, Father LaForgue makes it to the Huron settlement, only to find that all of the Frenchmen have been murdered by the natives who blamed them for a small pox pandemic in their village. Now dying, the Hurons accept Christianity in order to be saved before they die. After the movie ends, a written statement explains that fifteen years later the Iroquois found the Huron mission and murdered everyone.

Although the film received praise for its historical accuracy and attention to detail (including the use of legitimate Algonquin, Cree, and Mohawk languages), it is a prime example of Native American intolerance in film. Three major problems arise out of the movie. First, the portrayal of the Iroquois as savage and unmerciful killers shines a negative light on Native Americans as a whole. The movie attempts to separate the native tribes from one another, but the differences are subtle and the violence is vastly dramatized. The result of that depiction, regardless of historical accuracy, is twofold. It reinforces the stereotype of savagery, providing support for the misguided idea that natives are universally violent and uncivilized. It also strengthens the historic stasis of Native American culture, preventing any positive modern interpretations to manifest.

Second, the film depicts American Indians as evil for not converting to Christianity readily. The antagonists of the film are the natives who resist conversion, who act out against Christianity, who are defiant against evangelism. Casting Native Americans as villains due to their religious convictions is both intolerant and detrimental to making progress. It would be one thing to vilify them for their character driven actions alone, but by portraying their actions as a direct result of their non-Christianity, the Indians are marked as heathens and inferior to the Christian heroes. It also acknowledges Christianity as the only right path, making all other religions (especially those of the Native Americans) incorrect and evil. The only natives in the film who receive redemption are those that convert the Christianity, those that receive the baptism and beg forgiveness.

Finally, the movie depicts the white man as savior. The protagonist of the film is a white Jesuit missionary, while the antagonists are all Native Americans. Only through the white man’s active involvement in their culture and his persistent evangelism can the natives be redeemed and saved. Their only means of survival is through the actions of the white man. Those that the white man cannot influence remain evil and will never find redemption.

The film may have been historically accurate, but it only underlines stereotypes that have hindered the chances of Native Americans finding equality in modern society or reparations for the intolerant acts against them.

7 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Booooohoooo. Get a life. Perhaps the greatest racism is that white liberals think that they need to speak for all of the poor, disadvantaged brown people. We have our own voice, thanks. I see butthurt whiney bleeding hearts as the Jesuits of the white race. You guys don't have any subjugators so you fill the role with obsessive white guilt forcing hypersensitivity on everyone in the name of diversity. Try as you may, and I know you're trying, you cannot rewrite history. What happened is what happened, whether it offends your modern (over) sensitivities or not. The worst mistake anyone can do with history is to judge it through the scope of modern culture. That's sophomoric.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judging history through the scope of modern culture would ultimately show how the Jesuits were discriminatory towards natives.....and how that has continued on today. Violence against Canadian indigenous women is very high. The rates of rape and murder skyrocket past the rates for white women. White individuals should not "be the voice" for the disadvantaged, but should accept responsibility for what they have damaged and try to create new, better changes.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoever removed my comment please email me as to why it was removed, I recall it being non-offensive and wholly analytical. Thanks.

      Delete
  4. I feel as if you haven't quite grasped what this film was truly about, as well as what all of the racism within the film are demonstrating. Perhaps, a deeper look into it may help you realise that it is not such a shallow topic and that the movie is simply portraying events through the lens of a 1600 French Jesuit missionary.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lingerie is every woman's luxury. But few women actually indulge into buying good lingerie; rather it is for their husband's, boyfriends, or even for themselves. The fact is, wearing hot lingerie does make you feel really good and sexy. It might even change the way you look and feel about yourself, and the way you deal with your sensualities. womens silk robes

    ReplyDelete