Vaughn Eaglebear
Vaughn Eaglebear is a Native American comic. In this short clip of one of his stand-ups, Eaglebear mentions many stereotypes of Native Americans and uses these stereotypes to create humor. Some of the Native American stereotypes that are mentioned in his comedic act include lack of education, excessive drinking habits, and primitive practices.
In this short clip, a Native American is creating humor out of stereotypes and is reducing the seriousness of this issue. Could it be possible that Eaglebear’s comedic act is a disservice to his own people? Because he is a Native American and is “humorizing” the stereotypes against his own ethnic group, it could be possible that he is sending the message that intolerance toward Native Americans is not a serious problem. If society treats intolerance as a trivial issue, it will become more rampant in our society. This will create even more hate and will prevent society from truly understanding the beauties of other cultures.
Family Guy - "Jungle Love"
Jungle Love
This Family Guy episode captures the intolerant attitudes towards Native Americans that are held by some people today. Although intolerance towards any group is a serious matter, the creators of Family Guy have created humor out of these stereotypes.
In this Family Guy episode called, “Jungle Love,” the creators of Family Guy “poke fun” about the savage nature of Native American, a common stereotypical belief about this group. This is depicted in many ways. For example, one of the main characters, Chris Griffin, decides to go to an underdeveloped/unindustrialized area, which is where the Native Americans are located. Another way that the savage nature of Native Americans is depicted is through their outfits. The creators of this episode equipped the Native Americans with “uncivilized” clothing. A final example in how Native American savagery is depicted is found near the end of the episode. In a turn of events, the Native Americans who originally befriended the Griffin family turn against them and murder Meg, the teenage daughter. These are just few examples of how the creators of Family Guy “humorized” the stereotypical views of Native Americans.
The effect of creating humor out of a serious issue such as intolerance is unknown. Hopefully, through cartoons such as this episode, viewers will learn how ridiculous most intolerant attitudes are and will learn that they are unwarranted. The fear is that these cartoons may have the opposite effect and may solidify intolerant beliefs.
This Family Guy episode captures the intolerant attitudes towards Native Americans that are held by some people today. Although intolerance towards any group is a serious matter, the creators of Family Guy have created humor out of these stereotypes.
In this Family Guy episode called, “Jungle Love,” the creators of Family Guy “poke fun” about the savage nature of Native American, a common stereotypical belief about this group. This is depicted in many ways. For example, one of the main characters, Chris Griffin, decides to go to an underdeveloped/unindustrialized area, which is where the Native Americans are located. Another way that the savage nature of Native Americans is depicted is through their outfits. The creators of this episode equipped the Native Americans with “uncivilized” clothing. A final example in how Native American savagery is depicted is found near the end of the episode. In a turn of events, the Native Americans who originally befriended the Griffin family turn against them and murder Meg, the teenage daughter. These are just few examples of how the creators of Family Guy “humorized” the stereotypical views of Native Americans.
The effect of creating humor out of a serious issue such as intolerance is unknown. Hopefully, through cartoons such as this episode, viewers will learn how ridiculous most intolerant attitudes are and will learn that they are unwarranted. The fear is that these cartoons may have the opposite effect and may solidify intolerant beliefs.
Family Guy Clip
This Family Guy scene also makes fun of Native Americans. This scene, however, creates humor out of a different stereotype against this group. For example, the creators of this episode make fun out of the mystical and unnatural nature of Native Americans. This is represented by the unnatural growth in height by the Native American.
The creators of Family Guy also present the idea that the Native Americans were people of the past. In other words, this group is outdated. Because they of the past, the creators of this show make it appear that Native Americans have nothing else to do, and thus have turned to alcohol and gambling. This is a popular stereotype of this group.
What is the effect of depicting Native Americans as alcoholics and gamblers? It is most likely that society will have a negative attitude towards this group. Although just about every group has a member that excessively drinks and gambles, it is possible that this stereotype may cause people to immediately associate drinking and gambling with Native Americans. This is problematic because a majority of Native Americans are not addicted to alcohol or gambling. This and any sort of stereotype has the potential to be very damaging to any group.
Peter Pan, Pocahontas, and the Bashful Savages
Disney’s musical cartoons Peter Pan and Pocahontas have captured the hearts and minds of children for years. The beloved animated features are a staple in film meant solely for the entertainment of children. Therein lays the problem. Both movies inextricably portray Native Americans in a negative light, reinforcing stereotypes and delivering them right into the minds of children. Take a look at these two clips.
In the song “What Makes the Red Man Red,” children both in the movie (and in the audience) receive answers for some of their questions about Native Americans. Of particular note, is the question presented in the title of the song. First, calling American Indians “Red Men,” racializes them and places them in a different category altogether from most of the children watching the movie. They become different, not equal. Second, the answer produced from the question states, “Let's go back a million years / To the very first Injun prince. He kissed a maid and start to blush / And we've all been blushin' since.” The song not only makes a point to racialize the natives, but it also blames the creation of their race on a feeling of bashfulness when kissing a girl. More importantly, it presupposes that Native Americans were once white, becoming different after that single moment. Additionally, the animation that goes along with the song reinforces Native American stereotypes, focusing on strange tribal dances, incomprehensible language, drug use through a ceremonial pipe, and even misogyny. Is this really the image of Native Americans we want to deliver to children?
The song, “Savages,” on the other hand is a little more straight forward, repeatedly calling natives “savages,” “heathens,” “vermin,” “barely even human,” and “devils.” Even though the movie attempts to preach coexistence and tolerance, the words used in this song forcefully introduce stereotypes into the minds of children. No progress can be made while these stereotypes still continue to haunt the native people. No matter the historical context, by even momentarily portraying American Indians as savages, they will continue to be victims of stereotyping. Progress toward tolerance and equality can only be made if Native Americans can be presented in a positive modern light, free from American history and hundreds of years worth of stereotyping.
In the song “What Makes the Red Man Red,” children both in the movie (and in the audience) receive answers for some of their questions about Native Americans. Of particular note, is the question presented in the title of the song. First, calling American Indians “Red Men,” racializes them and places them in a different category altogether from most of the children watching the movie. They become different, not equal. Second, the answer produced from the question states, “Let's go back a million years / To the very first Injun prince. He kissed a maid and start to blush / And we've all been blushin' since.” The song not only makes a point to racialize the natives, but it also blames the creation of their race on a feeling of bashfulness when kissing a girl. More importantly, it presupposes that Native Americans were once white, becoming different after that single moment. Additionally, the animation that goes along with the song reinforces Native American stereotypes, focusing on strange tribal dances, incomprehensible language, drug use through a ceremonial pipe, and even misogyny. Is this really the image of Native Americans we want to deliver to children?
The song, “Savages,” on the other hand is a little more straight forward, repeatedly calling natives “savages,” “heathens,” “vermin,” “barely even human,” and “devils.” Even though the movie attempts to preach coexistence and tolerance, the words used in this song forcefully introduce stereotypes into the minds of children. No progress can be made while these stereotypes still continue to haunt the native people. No matter the historical context, by even momentarily portraying American Indians as savages, they will continue to be victims of stereotyping. Progress toward tolerance and equality can only be made if Native Americans can be presented in a positive modern light, free from American history and hundreds of years worth of stereotyping.
Avatar and Dances with Wolves: The White Savior
In both Avatar, the top-grossing movie of all time, and Dances with Wolves, winner of seven Academy Awards, the white man appears as savior to the native people. Both movies, when broken down, have literally the same plot. A white man, enlisted into the service of the United States military, infiltrates a native culture in order to both learn about them and make it easier for the military to overtake them. After spending a substantial amount of time with the tribe, the white infiltrator becomes sympathetic towards the natives’ plight. All the natives want is to live in peace and maintain control of their land, which holds spiritual meaning for them. At first weary toward the white man, the natives embrace him after one of their own falls in love with him, and he pacifies a wild animal (giant dragon monster and gray wolf respectively). Now joined together, the white man leads the natives into battle against the US military and wins a small victory. The white man becomes a leader within the tribe, embracing their culture.
What is the problem with this type of story? It reinforces stereotypes, it belittles Native American culture, and it negatively oversimplifies their spirituality and customs.
In dealing with these films, one must slightly separate Avatar from Dances with Wolves, if only for the reason that it is science fiction and it does not nominally depict Native Americans. The natives in the movie, however, do undeniably represent Indian Americans. The fact that the movie is an allegory for the United States’ oppression of Native Americans is none too subtle. For example, the warmongers are called marines in the movie (a specific reference to United States military), the want for “unobtainium” in the movie mirrors the want for resources in the days of Manifest Destiny, the natives’ garb, language, and spirituality purposefully mirror that of Native Americans. That being the case, the movie reinforces stereotypes by reducing the natives to the most basic of Native American stereotypes, their deep spiritual connection to nature, their alien language, their use of primitive weaponry, their overaggressive behavior, etc. Worst of all, the use of Native Americans as aliens, reinforces ideas that natives are not American, they are not even part of this world. Rather than providing any sort of understanding for indigenous people, Cameron’s film exploits natives for the sake of entertainment. Dances with Wolves similarly exploits them in this way, though it at least provides more depth for their culture and humanity.
The problem of having the white man as savior is that it places white culture in a superior position to that of natives. The white man has abilities and knowledge unavailable to the indigenous population, and only he can save them from the oppressive government. Natives could not hope to protect themselves; they are victims of their own inferiority. By placing the white man in a superior position, Native Americans can never hope to achieve equality. They cannot help themselves, rather the white man must take control and help them and protect them. Whether or not assimilation into white culture is the goal of the white savior, he must act as parent to the childish and primitive Indians who otherwise would remain a victim and remain inferior.
Finally, the oversimplification of Native American spirituality, especially in terms of their connection to nature, degrades the credibility of their religion. It commodifies it, making it available for consumption for New Age groups and aficionados. Instead of appearing in its entirety, it becomes a product to be consumed in misunderstood pieces that fit the agenda of the individual seeking spiritual fulfillment. Native Americans cannot overcome oppression if their beliefs and practices are not taken seriously and in their entirety.
Black Robe - Historical Stasis and Christian Salvation
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.
King of the Hill - Cannibal Savages
This clip, from King of the Hill, addresses the historicity and savagery claims for Native Americans. In the clip, Bobby Hill celebrates Thanksgiving with a traditional Native meal, relishing in the more gruesome aspects of a historic culture. Meanwhile, all the other party-goers react to the disturbing discussions of cannibalism, et al. while John Redcorn (the native american present) uncomfortably tries to hide himself.
Disturbing acts Native Americans participated in that may shock modern sensibilities did occur. Likely, there were cannibalistic groups, etc. However, that is a thing of the past; people accusingly glancing towards Redcorn as if he is a part of the practice today. The scene concludes with teenage Joseph saying to Redcorn: "Oh man, you eat people?"
The intolerance manifests in the fact that many seem unable to separate history with the present. The question was not: 'your people were cannibalistic 500 years ago?' but was very much 'you eat people?' as in today, the present. The idea that Native Americans have held the exact same beliefs and practices today that they did sense their tribes conception is absurd. Not only does that suggest that they are the same group from past history, but more dangerously asserts that Native Americans have made no progress in their society in any field.
Crying Indian
The Keep America Beautiful campaign ran this particular commercial in the early 1970s with American Indian actor Iron Eyes Cody; many of the contemporary examples of Native American stereotypes can be linked with this particular commercial. The image of the Crying Indian has become synonymous with the Indians' role as environmental protectors. The Crying Indian image is referenced in numerous other examples of media portrayal and is later openly made fun of [see. Dave Chappelle's stand-up entry].
This characterization is initially non-harming; one might think being accused of environmentally responsible would be a good attribute. However, the intolerance manifests itself because this portrayal becomes mainly what the group of people are identified with. Modern media has just a few roles for Indians and this is one. Additionally, the juxtaposition of the traditionally dressed Indian versus the Industrialization of society sets the two apart in a basic binary set-up. Either one is living in the modern world of cars and trucks, or one is travelling by canoe. Either one is socially and technologically modern or one is "backwards" or "out dated, antiquated".
Dave Chappelle on Indians
Dave Chappelle takes on Native Americans with every conceivable stereotype. The role of a stand-up comedian is often to point out these preconceived notions and turn them on their heads - which begs the question: is it as hurtful if done in a comedic manner? Surely, these jokes would not be as well received if they were not told in such a joking manner but all of the humor is paired with a bitter bite.
Some of the stereotypes covered: the protector of the Earth, the historic figure (aren't you extinct?), the naturalist with the tee-pee . . . And in order to potentially offend the modern American Indian, the drug addict is added to the list. Perhaps the only stereotype not listed is the casino worker.
One role of comedy is to poke fun at certain issues by testing the way most people view the topic. There are distinct formulas that many comedians adhere to in order to achieve a successful laugh - but where is the line drawn? I contend that Chappelle's routine would not be considered funny if it was a different race/ethnicity as the but of the joke. If the Native American group was substituted with Hispanics or Asians people may be more offended, but because American Indians make up little of the population it is "okay".
A Bit of History
Pictured above is "The Rescue", a Horatio Greenough statue ca. 1837 which enjoyed nearly 120 years of prominent display in front of the US Capitol. The subject matter revolves around the struggle between folk hero Daniel Boone and an unidentified Native American. Boone diminishes the Indian in stature, forcibly grabbing him from behind to prevent the Indian from butchering his family with the tomahawk in hand. The statue was widely and popularly received at its unveiling. Greenough wrote that the statue was purposed to "commemorate the dangers & difficulty of peopling our continent, and which shall also serve as a memorial of the Indian race". However, what is being memorialized is a representation of a group of people as Savage and Vicious.
Native American officials succeeded in lobbying Congress to remove the statue from the grand steps finally. In 1958, the statue was removed to prepare the area for building expansion and never restored. No discussion of the statue's fate took place nor were any apologies offered. Instead, the statue just did not reappear; the US government choosing instead to hide their shame with a half-hearted "apology".
This statue predates the desired scope of examination for this project but provides an interesting outlook on changing attitudes. For its earliest audience, the statue was highly popular and the Indian was seen by nearly all as the villain. As America aged, people realized "The Rescue" was an inappropriate image and became embarrassed by the representation on their Capitol steps. Film and television portrayals today are more politically correct compared to 50 or so years ago but there lingers a legacy of hatred and mockery that must be examined in order to understand why it still persists. The majority of this site is to post and examine cultural media representations of American Indians in a contemporary context in order to determine the way in which religious intolerance manifests itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)