Imagine that you are
meeting someone for the first time. What things do you focus on? How they are
dressed? Their accent? The color of their skin? I don’t want to speak for all
human beings, but I will speak for myself. When I meet someone for the first
time, I make a judgment. In fact, I do this even when I don’t meet the person,
but see them. Without even knowing anything about them, I decide whether they
are nice or stuck up, smart or unintelligent. Though I am only speaking of my
own experience, I do believe that many people share in this experience. I would
like to focus on what influences the judgments we make about people,
specifically the judgments we make about Native Americans. I have had to take a
step back and really look at my own attitudes about them as I have read the
chapters and articles for class. It is too easy to believe that I am not doing
them any harm, that I am respecting them and empathizing with them, when in
truth I have no idea what they have gone through or are going through now.
In our readings for
class, we have been introduced to the concept of “framing”. I have a rather
difficult time defining this concept, though I believe I understand what it is.
When the media in a particular society portrays people or ideas, it uses
certain images and words to communicate beliefs about the people or idea being
portrayed. For example, if I write a book about someone that I look up to, I
will use words and stories that show this person in a positive light. Then,
when people are exposed to the picture created by the words and images
presented, they accept them and pass them on. In their article, “Gambling with
Identity: Self-Representation of American Indians on Official Tribal Websites,”
David Cullier and Susan Ross explain framing, saying, “Framing theory conceives
of meaning as socially constructed through a reciprocal, interactive, cyclical
process of communication,” (p. 202). In another article by Autumn Miller and
Susan Ross, “They Are Not Us: Framing of American Indians by the Boston Globe,” they quote another author,
saying, “Stephen Reese…has defined frames
as ‘organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time,
that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world’,” (p. 246).
Frames help us as a society to look at the different groups in the world,
forming beliefs about them that might be good or bad.
There are several types
of frames used to portray American Indians. Miller and Ross identified six in
their article: generic outsider, degraded Indian, good/bad Indian, historic
relic, and voiced participant. The generic outsider frame, as is indicated by
the name, portrays all Indians as part of an outside group. They are not shown
as part of the mainstream American society. The degraded Indian frame portrays
the Indian as poor and pitiable. The good Indian frame portrays Indians as
highly moral and respectful. The bad Indian frame portrays them as out of
control, rash, and lawless. The historic relic frame depicts Indians as coming
from another era, as if they are parts of a museum exhibition. Finally, the
voiced participant frame depicts Indians in modern society. It shows them being
active in social issues and leading the governance of the tribes. Some of these
frames may not appear to be bad, such as the good Indian frame or the historic
relic frame. The problem with each of these frames, however, aside from the
last one, is that they are created by mainstream society’s judgments of American
Indian people. They put American Indians into boxes rather than allowing them
to express who they are and to be respected as equal human beings.
These frames are often
used when movies and documentaries are made about the American Indians. I recently
watched the movie Dances with Wolves,
which stars Kevin Costner as Lieutenant Dunbar. This movie is set around the
Civil War years, beginning in 1863. Lieutenant Dunbar attempts suicide to avoid
losing his leg, but ends up actually being honored because he broke a stalemate
between the two groups of soldiers. He chooses to go to the frontier because he
wants to see it before it is gone. He has no firsthand knowledge of what the
Indians are like, so when he first encounters one, he is frightened. With time
and patience, however, he builds close relationships with the band of Sioux
Indians close to his post, eventually abandoning his White identity. There are
two groups of Indians in this movie, the Sioux and the Pawnee. There are
multiple frames being used to portray these Indians. First, because this film
is set in a historical period, the Indians are portrayed as historic relics.
They existed long ago and were eventually driven out by the flood of White men
and progress. Their ways were old fashioned and would not fit into the world that
was fast closing in upon them. Secondly, there is a contrast in the movie
between the good Indian frame and the bad Indian frame. The Sioux are portrayed
as good Indians. They are quiet, close-knit, highly moral, and respectful of
the Earth and its resources. The Pawnee, on the other hand, are portrayed as
bad Indians. They do not respect human life, make war upon the Sioux, and act
as trackers for the Whites who are searching for the Sioux band. I have seen
this movie several times, since I was a fairly young child, and I always
thought that it was a good movie. After reading for class, however, and looking
at it from the perspective of the different frames, I find myself wondering if
this movie is as good as I thought it was. While the Sioux Indians were
depicted as good, they were also depicted as weak. Lieutenant Dunbar has to
come to their rescue by leaving their band because he has become a threat through
his status as a traitor. He rescues a Sioux boy during a buffalo hunt because
he is the only one with a gun. The frames that are used in this movie subtly
create beliefs about the Whites and the Indians that uphold the division of the
two groups.
As mainstream society is
exposed to these frames and they accept the picture of the American Indians
which is presented to them, stereotypes are created and then fed back into the
media. Indian children who are exposed to these stereotypes are taught that
they are not a part of mainstream society. Their heritage is old-fashioned and
does not fit into the fast paced and progressive way of Americans. Instead of
teaching them that they are worthy of respect because they are human beings,
they are taught that they don’t belong. This could have a couple different
outcomes. The children may embrace their heritage because that is where they
find a sense of belonging, and reject the mainstream society, widening the
divide between the two groups. They may give up and accept society’s view and
become lazy, drunkards, victims, or savages. Some, as shown through the voiced
participant frame, may stand up and fight the stereotypes.
The concept of framing
and the articles we have read for class have helped me to look closer at things
I thought were harmless, such as brand names like Dodge Cherokee. These things
may be harmless, but would we notice if they weren’t? We are taught about the
American Indians from the different frames presented, and unless we have actual
interactions with them and are exposed to their true circumstances, it is easy
to just accept what we are taught. American Indians are just as human as the
rest of us, and though we may see something as harmless, the respectful thing
to do would be to acknowledge their rights and opinions about it. When we do
not do this, we continue the injustice that began long ago.
References:
References:
Cullier,
D. & Ross, S. D. (2007). Gambling with identity: Self-representation of
American Indians on official tribal websites. The Howard Journal of
Communications, 18 197-219.
Miller,
A. & Ross, S. D. (2004). They are not us: Framing of American Indians by
the Boston Globe.The Howard Journal of Communications, 15 245-259.
