Stereotyping and American Indians

In filmmaking, framing is the process by which filmmakers or, if you want to get technical, cinematographers determine what will appear in a shot. Framing includes angles, sizes, and shot compositions. Framing can be used to keep a viewer’s focus on an object or objects, to direct attention back to a particular scene, and so much more. All of this is done to tell a story. Filmmakers use framing to enhance how they tell their stories. If you think about it though, frames turn what can be seen as a relatively ‘infinite’ view of an object or a scene into a finite or limited view. What we see and how we see it is determined by the filmmakers. Framing Theory, as I see it, isn’t much different from a framing definition in film/video. ‘Framing’ can be seen as a perspective, an interpretation, a certain view or perception of the world/reality. Frames help us interpret the world around us. They also help us present that world to others. These frames are built upon our beliefs, values, and experiences which are derived from our “reciprocal interactions among individuals, social groups, and cultural products”—through communication. Three stages of framing are identified: mental framing, group framing, and content framing (as cited in Miller & Ross, 2004) Mental framing is what happens in us. It’s our perceptions and interpretations of reality. It’s our evaluations, organizations,  internalizations etc of external frames. Group framing is exactly what the name implies, the frames of the group or society. Group frames are a principal part of a  group’s shared culture. Content frames are the cultural products that a group produces (Miller & Ross, 2004). Through content frames groups and individuals (mental) present there view of reality. 

Miller and Ross (2004) discuss content frames that have been historically prevalent throughout the media as it relates to Native Americans. These frames portray Native/Indian Americans as degraded, bad/good, generic, and as “other.” The “degraded” Indian is portrayed as poor, pitiful, and a drunk. They can also be shown as corrupt, the casino Indian trope is proof of that (Lacroix, 2001). The “bad/good” Indian frame depicts Native Americans as either ‘good’—friendly, noble, wise, respectful of nature, subservient to Anglo-European culture—or ‘bad’—savages, violent, evil. The “generic’ Indian frames portrays Native Americans as just that, Native Americans. It lumps all Native Americans under one category. It generalizes, and as a result,  dismisses differences in languages, values, beliefs practices and even physical features among the various Native American tribes. It would be like categorizing all people from the caribbean as ‘caribbean’ without taking into account all different caribbean islands there are out there. The Indian as “other” promotes an us vs them mentality. The historic relic frame depicts Native American as stuck in the past. Native mercian are reduced to icons and are seen as incapable of adapting to modern times. These frames can make Native Americans seem inferior, and uncultured. If a person doesn’t know better, they just might find themselves perceiving Native Americans as they are portrayed in the Media. These frames, or stereotypes if you may, can influence a child’s cultural Identity. Not only can they effect how people see others, but how others see themselves. Stereotype treat is one such example of how stereotypes can effect someone’s cultural identity. It’s so easy to get caught up in these stereotypes when your constantly bombarded with images of what other people think you are. It makes you wonder if any of these stereotypes of frames—the lazy, drunken, degraded Indian—actually help contribute to the high rates of alcoholism, unemployment, and death on the reservations.   

Is it justifiable for a person from one culture to encourage a person from another culture to disregard his or her own cultural values? Is there an easy answer for this question? Is there an answer that everyone can agree on? I can say no. It’s not justifiable. I can tell you how important it is to respect someone else’s culture and how wrong it is to evaluate someone else’s culture according to the standards of your own. But what about cultural values that uplift certain members of society while systematically exploiting and oppressing others. Would that be reason enough to disregard certain cultural values? I believe that there is right and wrong. One could argue that It is a persons culture or society that determines what is right and wrong, you know moral relativism and all that jazz. While I do believe that societies determine what is right and wrong, I also think in absolutes. I believe that there are values or (moral) principles out there that are or should be regarded as universally valid. So, is it justifiable for a person from one culture to encourage a person from another cultures to disregard his or her own cultural values? I believe the answer is yes, if that person’s cultural values infringe upon basic human rights. I feel like as a christian, I should have yet another justification, but I don’t have the energy to get into it.     

A few years ago my class and I went on a study tour to Peru. We we’re on Lake Titicaca in Puno, Peru, when one of my classmates, turned to me, scrunched up her nose, and said “how can they live like this?” I was a bit annoyed that she had said that. I thought, “maybe they would say the same about us If they saw the way we lived.” I didn’t tell her that though. I didn’t say anything. I just ignored her and did as If I hadn’t heard what she said. Looking back, I wish I had said something. I wish I had shared my thoughts, shared what I had learned. I believe that’s an important aspect of being a diversity ally, sharing what you’ve learned with others especially ignorant others.

Lacroix, C. L. (2011) High stakes stereotypes: The emergence of the “Casino Indian” trope in television depictions of contemporary Native American. The Howard Journal of Communications, 22, 1-23.

Miller, E., & Ross, D. S. (2004) They are not us: Framing of American Indians by the Boston Globe. The Howard Journal of Communications, 15, 245-259. 

Cultural History

I identify as christian—more specifically a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. As a Christian I believe that there is life after death. If you’ve accepted Christ you’ll be united  with him and your loved ones (who’ve also accepted him) in heaven. You’ll have eternal life. If you don’t accept Christ you’ll be subjected to hell’s fire, die and be eternally separated from God. As a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, while I do believe in the afterlife, I’m convinced that once your dead your dead. There’s no thinking, feeling, nothing. I believe you’ll stay dead until Christ comes. This is completely different to Hindu and Buddhist religious traditions. Hindus believe that the soul is immortal and it is this soul that is reincarnated at death. Because of this Hindus learn not to fear or grieve over the death of loved ones. Buddhist believe death to be certain but temporary. A persons deeds, be they good or bad, determines how many times they are reborn. Once they have enough good Karma, the person will experience nirvana—a state that releases a person from all unhappiness. Most religions, including my own, hold that one should avoid death. Very sick people should just keep on fighting. Buddhists on the other hand rejects this idea. Death is seen as time to be at peace with oneself and the universe. The state of mind at death is determinant of rebirth. The Jewish religion maintains that death is unnatural process. It teaches that life on earth should be cherished. It focuses on living an on earthly  life as opposed to an afterlife. Although, Jewish theology with Christianity, and Islam (with some dissimilarities) include Judgement Day when all people will be resurrected to be judged by God for their beliefs/deeds.  The Islam tradition holds that after death paradise awaits those who  have submitted to God’s will while Hell is reserved for those who haven’t.  Death in the name of Allah guarantees a persons spot in paradise. Those who engage in suicide bombing believe their actions will be awarded in paradise.        

Most would agree that our attitudes and behaviors are influenced by our past experiences.  Our past directly influences our present. In order to understand ourselves we need to be aware our past.  Sure, we shouldn’t allow are past to dictate our present but we are, at least to an extent, a product of our past. In my opinion, that’s the role national history plays in shaping national identity. History incorporates our sense of community, geography, economic and political  processes, governmental procedures, and key historical figures. These factors come together to give people  of a culture their identity (Samovar; Porter; McDaniel; Roy, 2016). A nation’s history helps to explain contemporary values, beliefs, traditions, and institutions guiding that nation. A nation’s history helps to explain its identity. Take for example the United States and its reputation of being “the land of the free.”  The early immigrants common desire to be free of oppressive governance, and authoritarian religious practices led to  a the unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and the separation of church and state. 

Obviously a culture’s history can help explain its values, beliefs, and actions.  Our past can help shape our present. Past events, along the line, may also have negative effects on the present. Some historical legacies of the U.S. and other countries have produced discord and conflict. For example, Muslims and Hindus were at odds ever since early Muslim raiders “set about conquering the Hindus and destroying their temples” (p. 182).  After  India’s independence the conflict between Hindus and Muslims led to the partitioning of India into India and Pakistan. The partition brought with it extensive political violence between Hindus and Muslims. This long lasting hostility between India and Pakistan and the “continuing territorial conflict over the kashmir region is a legacy of the partition”(p. 183).   The legacy of Manifest Destiny—the belief that U.S. expansion across the American continents was justified and inevitable—can be seen by the United State’s call for political/democratic reforms in other nations. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan spring to mind. One could argue, to an extent, that it is the United State’s continued application of Manifest Destiny that led to the destabilization in the middle east and allowed groups like ISIS to obtain power.   

Clark’s four stages of minority representations in the media are “Non-recognition,” “Ridicule,” “Regulation,” and “Respect.” Clark’s model was developed to be applied to representations of African Americans in the media. I do believe that these stages are still applicable in the media today especially when applied to depictions of African Americans and Native Americans in the media. However, it’s not certain wether these stages can be applied to other minorities in the U.S. That needs to be tested. 

Also, if applying Clark’s model today some changes should probably be made. Clarke’s does not take into account token characters (the token black friend is such a common trope), and the aggressive/violent black person stereotype.