Here's what people envision when they envision Indians:
Do you see any doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, preachers, executives, or politicians there? No? That's because the image of American Indians is frozen in the past. This is literally how most people see Indians.
You gotta be kidding me. That's way too antiquated. I don't pretend to speak for the majority but people can't be that out of it...can they?
Writerfella here --
Google is far from being the see-all, be-all, end-all, unless the internet is your see-all, be-all, end-all. In truth, the matter represents a dichotomy between what Floyd Westerman and AIM call 'the traditionalists' and 'the half-breeds who have everything'. The 'traditionalists' want to think of themselves as still being the very illustrations that Google brought together. The ones that AIM dismisses as 'the half-breeds' (read: LESSER Natives than they) are the people who are the doctors and lawyers and teachers and scientists and preachers and executives (and writers but not politicians) who are educated and work and raise families and have bank accounts and pay their bills and own homes and worry about the price of gasoline, just like 97% of the other Americans who ALSO never will pop up on Google.
Try to find an image of writerfella, who is one of the score or so self-identified members of the film industry's Writers Guild of America, west. Though writerfella is no role model, does not perceive himself to be such nor has he ever striven to be such, he also is no 'half-breed' (1/16th of his blood comes from 'the red-headed Kiowa, Kohl-awh-koy). He both is a modern Native and is lucky enough also to be a traditionalist, one who has found that middle ground that escapes most modern Natives and especially most of your average AIM-bangers. To paraphrase THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN, 'To Google there is no zero, writerfella still exists.'
I've just presented Google's results and put my spin on them. This is an opinion piece, so I can't prove my claim with airtight reasoning. But I can point to tests such as this one reported in The Harm of Native Stereotyping: Facts and Evidence:
"[As part of a quiz on Indians, moderator Jean Gaddy Wilson] asked participants to write down two positive traits of Indians and two negative traits. Among the positive traits were such things as resourceful, traditional, helpful, knowledgeable of the natural world, survival, spiritual and bravery. Under negatives, responses included words such as alcoholic, lazy, mean, dirty, savages, dishonest, raiders and murderers."
Note the lack of such traits as "entrepreneurial," "mechanically minded," "good with numbers," "thinks logically," or "keen grasp of the law." The traits listed confirm my hypothesis that the image of Indians is frozen in the past.
We could do a test with the two pictures I helpfully provided. Most people would recognize the first person as an Indian, but how many would recognize the second one? Would it help if I said No. 2 is a former CEO of a multimillion-dollar business who is now pursuing a doctorate in politics and policy? How many would guess he's an Indian...zero?
Re "The ones that AIM dismisses as 'the half-breeds' (read: LESSER Natives than they)": This is ironic, Russ, considering you've dismissed several federally or state-recognized tribes because they don't meet your standard of Indianness. You know, tribes such as the Pequots, Chickasaws, and Chickahominies? Somehow they're lacking the "genetic racial memory" or "awareness granted by heredity" that you deem essential to being an Indian.
Writerfella here --
INCORRECT -- writerfella did not dismiss any tribes whatsoever by what you construe as his standard of 'Indianness'. He instead dismissed the particular Federal or state recognition of certain 'groups' who are about as Native as the Statue of Freedom atop the Capitol Building. In those cases, that recognition is no test of 'Indianness' from any Native point of view and instead is a test of EuroMan's ability to both create and to grant 'Indianness' based on what more is an advantage to EuroMan than it is to Natives.
It is you, Rob Schmidt, sir, who dismisses at will, such as your convenience to ignore the exploits and achievements of Burt Reynolds and Robert Forster because they were 'part Native' and therefore did not fit your topic of Adam Beach being some kind of network TV 'first'. You, sir, are one of those New Age 'acumenarians' who believes in nothing more than that which can be accessed at your very fingertips instantaneously, though you vaguely recognize that you cannot prove it in and of yourself by yourself, as you stated in one of the above posts. Real life is not encapsulated in Google, nor in the broadcast and print media, nor in politics and policy and academia.
As for your test with the two pictures that YOU 'helpfully provided', recognize that YOU provided them because, like a lawyer who always must know the answers before he asks the questrions, you already had arranged for the results. There's a famous movie quote: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."
This topic would make a great feature article...*hint, hint*
Okay, I decided to conduct a little experiment. I typed in the words "italian american" and "white anglo saxon protestant" into the google image search...
Italians, well, lots and lots of food--but plenty of contemporary shots as well. WASPS, on the other hand...one cook book, the stinging variety, and one picture of Spike Lee.
So, there ya go. Indians, by far, had the most historical/stereotypical images depicted.
Writerfella here --
Ah, then to bring us all full face around again on this website, that must mean that Google is naught but the tool of broadcast and print media so that the stereotypes thus perpetrated also are perpetuated. And that would mean the real villain behind Native stereotyping in the media is...BILL GATES! Geez, how anticlimactic!
Re "He instead dismissed the particular Federal or state recognition of certain 'groups' who are about as Native as the Statue of Freedom atop the Capitol Building": Right...you know more than all the functionaries in the federal government, Russ. You know more than the 500-plus tribal governments who recognize the federal recognition process. I guess you know more than all 4.1 million people who identify themselves as all or part Indian. It must be nice to be as arrogantly omniscient as you are.
Until you provide a definition or standard of who's Indian and who isn't, your opinion on the subject isn't worth much. As far as I can tell, you have no standard; you merely disparage the tribes who aren't as pure as you are. Or who don't have a "genetic racial memory" or an "awareness granted by heredity," your fictional inventions for what makes an Indian "Indian."
In other words, spare us the semantics. Saying a tribe isn't a tribe is a pitiful example of rhetoric. If this is the best you can do, no wonder you decline to debate the issues so often.
I haven't dismissed anything "at will." I called Adam Beach a "Native actor" because he's an enrolled member of a Canadian tribe and because he identifies himself as such. As far as I know, neither Burt Reynolds nor Robert Forster meets either of these criteria. But if they come up in the news, I'll be glad to post information about them and identify them correctly. Namely, as fine part-Indian actors who weren't tribally enrolled and didn't identify themselves exclusively or primarily as Natives.
As for your "New Age" charge, that's about as ridiculous as you get. You're the one singing "Kumbaya" about how the Maya and Kiowa and "Anasazi" are all related and how you're going to reveal the truth about them someday. Shades of The X-Files. Retreating to generalities and mysteries is a classic New Age technique. It's what people who don't know the facts and can't argue them resort to.
Do you even know what New Age means? Why don't you crack a dictionary and let us know? Then quote us the lines you think represent my "New Age" thinking. Good luck with your answer...you'll need it.
FYI, lawyers win their cases by providing evidence that other lawyers can't refute. That's why I keep winning our arguments and you keep losing them. Which must explain why you've stopped trying to win them--because you know the results in advance.
As for your comments about Google: In case you didn't know, the Internet is a form of media (i.e., mass communications). Web pages, forums, and blogs are all publications of a sort. And Google links not only to them, but to images from the mainstream media.
So, yes, Google is a tool of broadcast and print media, at least in part. Sure, it's more than that, but it helps to perpetuate the images conveyed through the media. In that sense, it fits my model of the media being the primary source of Native stereotypes.
By the way, Russ, if you don't like the two-photo comparison, give us your own comparison. Do anything other than offer your unconstructive criticism. I doubt it impresses anyone.
Ever hear of the pot calling the kettle black? It's ironic that you've picked on me for criticizing movies when all you're doing is criticizing blog postings. You're welcome to start your own blog if you don't like the sensibility here.
Writerfella here --
1. Facts never are opinions, and opinions never are facts, and while writerfella will debate with facts, he never will debate with opinions, for all one has then is a shouting match.
2. QUOTE: "About 15 years ago, (Rob Schmidt) came up with the idea of creating his own comic book different from the violent, dark messages dominating the genre, one promoting his personal opposition to warfare and violence. It was that interest, his pacifism, plus a fascination with studying civilizations that led him to creating a comic book unlike any published before." Now, nowhere is there a better description, denotation, and definition of a New Age 'acumenarian' than in those 58 words! Since writerfella is steeped in the writings of Carl Jung, he obviously knows what 'New Age' means: the decline and death of the Christian movement and Christian nations, along with their dark, violent messages, as Pisces decends from the astrological zenith and Acquarius reaches its ascendancy.
3. And, no, writerfella does not know more (or better) than all of those ostensible people and/or groups and/or whatevers. BUT -- he DOES seem to know more and better than Rob Schmidt, else Rob Schmidt would not be waving all those pages and people and sticks and blades and smokes and mirrors at writerfella. Geez, all the flash and clash and thud and blunder does look so pretty, though.
4. And writerfella never has sung 'Kumbaya' at any time in his life and he doesn't even know what Ba'Hai means. But he does know the one that goes, "I'm a little teapot, short and stout." Wanna hear it?
5. And Kiowans ARE related to the Maya, but writerfella never has said that the Anasazi fit in there anywhere, save for the fact that the Anasazi and the Maya had a trade federation ongoing because of seashells and parrot feathers being found in Anasazi ruins and gravesites.
6. And it's the simplest thing of all to declare one's self as winning 'arguments' when there have been no 'arguments' but rather only simple commentary and personal observations. In the latest three of your postings were more words than writerfella has used in three weeks of posting, implying a desperation of verbiage because someone sees the world differently from yourself.
Relax, Rob. It's only a game.
I have never found nothing in Rob's so-called "desperation of verbiage" to suggest anything "New Agey" about him.
You can attack Rob for his views being related to "Pisces decend[ing] from the astrological zenith and Acquarius reach[ing] its ascendancy" if you want, yes, but doing so is an example of what is typically known as a "straw man attack".
Writerfella here --
Oh, I'll miss you most of all, Scarecrow!"
It's a fact that you've contradicted yourself several times, Russ--for, instance, about who's an Indian and how accurate Apocalypto is. I continue to await your answers on these conundrums.
Your alleged "New Age" quote comes from Carole Levine's writeup, not from me. More to the point, it isn't close to the actual definition of New Age. That's why I suggested you crack a dictionary: because it's not clear you know what the phrase means.
I've shown what I know with my frequent citations of information in print and on the Web. You haven't. But if readers think my citations are no better than your lack of citations, so be it.
In the "last three postings" you referred to, I used 581 words, according to the word count in Microsoft Word. Under Adam Beach's Big News alone, you've written 944 words since I posted the item January 18. So here's a case where you're factually wrong, Russ. Judging by your own standard--who's writing the most--you're the one "implying a desperation of verbiage because someone sees the world differently from yourself." Not counting the original posts, you're undoubtedly the most verbose writer on this blog.
For the record, the two people pictured are Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce and Deron Marquez of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
Post a Comment