Framing American Indians CTP #2

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:

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.