Stereotypes in Indian in the Cupboard

From Oyate's review of The Indian in the Cupboard:

The Indian in the Cupboard, The Return of the Indian

Book to AvoidThe setting is England. On his birthday, Omri is given a small, white cupboard. When, for lack of a better idea, he puts a plastic "Indian" in it, the little figure comes to life, still tiny, but very much a human being. Omri's life becomes centered around the needs and wants of "Little Bear." The object here was not to draw an authentic Native person, but to create an arresting literary device. Although the little "Indian" is called Iroquois, no attempt has been made, either in text or illustrations, to have him look or behave appropriately. For example, he is dressed as a Plains Indian, and is given a tipi and a horse.

This is how he talks: "I help... I go... Big hole. I go through... Want fire. Want make dance. Call spirits." Et cetera. There are characteristic speech patterns for those who are also Native speakers, but nobody in the history of the world ever spoke this way.

What one reviewer describes as "some lively battle scenes" are among the most graphic war scenes in modern children's literature. As a whole, the book is brutal, and the Indians are horrifying:

He saw an Indian making straight for him. His face, in the torchlight, was twisted with fury. For a second, Omri saw, under the shaven scalplock, the mindless destructive face of a skinhead just before he lashed out... .The Algonquin licked his lips, snarling like a dog... .Their headdresses... even their movements... were alien. Their faces, too—their faces! They were wild, distorted, terrifying masks of hatred and rage.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Images in Indian in the Cupboard and Thoughts on Indian in the Cupboard.

Images of Indian in the Cupboard

A look at three illustrations for The Indian in the Cupboard is instructive.



First we have the original book cover. A generic Indian is in the center. He's frozen in midstride, like a mannequin, a hard and lifeless object. He's displayed like a stuffed animal, trapped in a box, literally compartmentalized.

He's surrounded by a standard set of stereotypes. A chief, a teepee, a bow and arrow, a cowboy. Both the Indian and the cowboy have their weapons ready. The cover suggests the story will be about cowboys vs. Indians, warfare on the Plains, Indians as surly savages holding up the tide of progress.

Since I haven't read the book, I can't say for the sure if the contents match the cover. But the cover strongly suggests the Indian will be a stock character, one-dimensional, as interesting as a plastic toy. If this isn't Banks's view of her creatiion, she should've insisted on different art.



Here we have the original movie poster. On the plus side, the Indian is now a living being. The stereotypes are gone. It's clear the story will be about the relationship between the boy and the Indian.

On the minus side, the boy looms over the Indian like an all-powerful god. He's limned in light like an angel with a halo. His hands glow as if he's just given birth to a miracle. As if he's created the Indian out of clay or thin air.

The Indian looks startled or scared, as if he's meeting his maker. He's helpless, powerless, literally in the boy's hands. It's a perfect representation of the great white father looking down upon his poor little Indian. The cover couldn't imply more of a paternalistic, superior-to-inferior relationship if it tried.



Finally, presumably after critiques such as this one, we have a second movie poster. The Indian is now a full-fledged character, not simply a toy or a little person. He's joined by a cowboy with equal stature. So now the story isn't just about a boy and his Indian. It's about a boy and two men and their relationships as equals.

The poster still includes an image of the boy holding the Indian, but it's less significant now. The circle conveys the idea of magic (e.g., through the looking glass) as well as the angelic glow. What light there is appears to be shining onto the boy, not from him.

Moreover, the Indian is larger than he was, making him more of an equal. The boy is more clearly gaping in wonder. Most important, the Indian is leaning forward as if to challenge the boy. No longer is he scared; rather, he's demanding to know what happened.

Conclusion

Artistically, the second image is probably the best because it's so simple and striking. The third image is probably the worst because it's too cluttered with contrasting figures and colors. If I were designing a poster, I'd use the concept of third image but redo it entirely.

But the point here isn't to make the most artistic image. It's to show how you can package the same material in different ways. The creative choices can profoundly affect how you see and interpret the results.

Thematically speaking, there's no question the third image is the best. The first two images probably shouldn't have seen the light of day. But give the creative types credit for finally getting it right.

For more on the subject, see Thoughts on Indian in the Cupboard and Litefoot Dispels Stereotypes.

Thoughts on Indian in the Cupboard

A brief look at the movie based on the book of the same name:

The Indian in the CupboardBased on the popular children's book by Lynne Reid Banks, this fantasy concerns a young boy who discovers that his toys are developing lives of their own--which presents him with unexpected responsibilities. Omri (Hal Scardino), a young boy growing up in Brooklyn, receives an odd variety of presents for his birthday: a wooden cabinet from his older brother, a set of antique keys from his mother Jane (Linsday Crouse), and a tiny plastic model of an Indian from his best friend Patrick (Rishi Bhat). Putting them all together, Omri locks the Indian inside the cabinet, only to be awoken by a strange sound in the middle of the night. Omri opens the cabinet to discover that the tiny Indian has come to life; it seems that he's called Little Bear (Litefoot), and he claims to have learned English from settlers in 1761. Omri hides this remarkable discovery from his mother but shares it with Patrick; as an experiment, Patrick locks a toy cowboy into the cupboard, and soon Little Bear has a companion, Boone (David Keith), though predictably, the cowboy and the Indian don't get along well at first. Omri comes to the realizations that his living and breathing playthings are also people with lives of their own, and he begins to wonder how much control he should really have over their lives.Comment:  The book may have other problems, but the movie's "problems" are mostly conceptual or thematic. The Indian is an old-fashioned "brave" from the 1750s. He's a toy who comes to life only through supernatural intervention. As a "primitive" man, he initially finds the modern world mystifying and scary.

Most of all, he's a tiny, powerless plaything whose fate a giant white boy controls. It's a great metaphor for the historic paternalism of Anglos toward Indians.

One could find a few specifics to complain about also. The Indian is half-naked, though he comes from a place with a summery climate. His name "Little Bear" is blatantly symbolic: Yes, he's little, but he's still a bear of a man.

But if you overlook the paternalistic setup, there's a lot to like. Little Bear reaches for his weapons first, but it quickly becomes clear he's a thoughtful man of peace. He teaches Omri (and the audience) a bit about the Iroquois; for instance, that they live in longhouses, not tipis. Omri brings "white" toys to life too, so it's hard to see The Indian in the Cupboard as a statement about Indians.

Most important, Little Bear ends up imparting simple but valuable lessons. Lessons along the lines of "humans aren't toys" and "it's dangerous to play with things you don't understand." Even at his small size, he begins as a naive pupil but eventually becomes a moral guide or teacher.

Overall, I'd put The Indian in the Cupboard in roughly the same category as Disney's Pocahontas. If you can't get past the cartoonish premise, you probably won't like either film. But if you can, you'll find The Indian in the Cupboard an enjoyable family film with a decent take on Indians. Rob's rating: 8.0 of 10.

For more on the subject, see Litefoot Dispels Stereotypes and The Best Indian Movies.

Litefoot dispels stereotypes

Off ‘the Rez’

By Cheryl HatchWhen Cherokee rapper Litefoot was asked to read the script for the 1995 movie “The Indian in the Cupboard,” he resisted. “That’s a crazy title.”

After he read it, he accepted the role of Little Bear. “Little Bear had tattoos and was half bald.”

He walked up to a teepee and didn’t know what it was. When the child offered him a horse, Little Bear said “We don’t ride horses. We walk,” said Litefoot, explaining that the representations of the Indian were historically accurate. “They go against mainstream media stereotypes of Native American people.”

As an actor and rapper, Litefoot uses the same media—movies, music and marketing—that perpetuate negative stereotypes to challenge and dispel them.

“I have control over what gets presented to the public.”Comment:  I haven't read the Indian in the Cupboard books, but I saw the movie. I liked it. I think Litefoot achieved his goal of dispelling stereotypes and creating a realistic Indian character.

For more on the subject, see Litefoot's Native Green Energy and The Best Indian Movies.