Misrepresentation of Native Americans in the Media: We Are More Than A Stereotype

The media invisibility of Native Americans has provided limited homogeneous representation that leads to persistent stereotypes and spins a tale that Native Americans do not have a place in mainstream society, which is internalized in what Native Americans think is possible for themselves and where they fit into contemporary society. The quality and quantity of representation dictates how vital a particular group is in society and if they fit in. Many groups face relative invisibility in mass media, but Native Americans are unique in the way that they are not seen as contemporary people, especially in mainstream public places. Groups who are shown unfavorably in the media are at a psychological disadvantage. While the census of Native Americans is 1.6% and those who are Native American and another racial-ethnic group is 4.1%, Native American characters are shown from 0-0.4% of the total characters. The typical representation of the limited characters are those from the 18th-19th century and have the look of plains indians. Not only are the Native American characters historical figures but are insufficient in depicting the diversity of Native American tribes. The lack of contemporary representation is amplified when many people don't have constant or any interaction with Native Americans in day to day life.The bad representation of Native Americans psychologically affects non-Native and Native consumers of that media in how they view Native Americans in contemporary society. Both view Native Americans as having no place in mainstream society and often do not see the positives to their communities. In order to create positive change, mass media needs to be utilized by Native Americans to tell their own stories.

McLaurin has examined movies and books that contained portrayals of Native Americans, throughout history she saw little change. There has always been bad representation of Native Americans in the media. These tropes of "good" or the "bad" indian are constant and unprogressive. The good is always an indian who helped the white guy take over all their land and the bad is who defends the land and rightfully is distrustful of the white people. These portrayals only help to justify Manifest Destiny and continue to undermine the intellect of Natives. The way to learn from these racist characters is to use them to approach and teach what properly happened to Native Americans. And to continuously seek stories from Indigenous voices.

In the US there is a common understanding that Indians are seen as a commodity and can be seen as a viewed fit, typically seen as commercial enterprise. These misconceptions stem from European colonization where the Indian Queen and the Indian Princess symbolized England and her successor, the American colonies. Many labels that continue today: stereotypical violence, language representations, commercialization, playing Indian, mascots and children’s media. Stereotypical violence changes history all together, historically European colonizers were violent and stole people away from their homes, while Indigenous people were defending themselves. Language representation not only makes Indians appear as unintelligent but takes away their Native tongue. Commercialization transforms a proud people into nothing more than cheap plastic and continues institutional racism. American Indians, since the arrival of Europeans, were taken from their homes to be forced to play Indian and have performances. Mascots of redskins do not tell us anything of Native culture, but of the Eurocentric culture that produced them. Children are exposed to such harmful prejudices and they grow up with “Ten Little Indians” not knowing that song is about genocide. All of these racial manifestations make American Indians appear as a commercial trope, a fantastical group, a historical figure, not as a people.

Armstrong's "Sharing One Skin: The Okanagan Community" details to readers how Okanagan people see humans as beings and how that differs from the dominant society. The author explains that Okanagans perceive identity with four different capacities of self: physical, emotional, intellect, and spirtical. Each fragment of oneself is connected to the land, other people and an existence outside of Earth. Community is a large part of humanity: to be without family, without a strong bond to others you are not complete as an individual. All of these teachings have become usurped by Western culture. The notion that land can be owned, can be vastly disconnected from your upbringing. All of these ideas make people disconnected from themselves and each other.

American Indian identity has changed in the past hundred years. Trading traditional ways for Americanized ones: clothes, food, language, history, arts. Though this change is huge, cultural assimilation does not mean identity is totally different. What makes up Native American identity is: attitude as a minority, meaning of sovereignty, blood quantum, relation to language and one's state of enrollment in a tribe. Everyone's attitudes differ, not all American Indians are the same, but all of these factors do contribute to their sense of self.

Native Americans have long been affiliated with Westerns, depicted as beastly villains to white savior tropes. Most presentations offer "faceless hordes" (para1) rather than a human being to early motion pictures. These had many notable actors who were used in popular Westerns, of course in redface. The stereotypical look of Plains Indians were born and popularized for all Native Americans. In the early 70s a new era of the Stoic Indian was brought to light. Seen as all knowing and magical, all contributing to romanticized of American Indian culture. Today many tropes continue. Indigenous filmmakers ask that we are not glamoized but seen as human.

With fiction people are able to experience things they wouldn’t be able to in real life. Through this there is a culture heritage, an understanding that people have otherwise. While there has been a presentation of American Indians in cinema and literature, it has been very historically inaccurate. Stereotypical characters have stemmed from Westerns and stays very conscious in the public eye. While these tropes are not as vicious as they once were, they still persist in less intense circumstances. The bloodthirsty savage, is turned into an untrustful hostile, and the noble indian is a companion in a white savior story. Nothing is learned from these stories, their sole purpose is to entertain. Natives appear as a commodity and dispensable. Indigenous artists have to fight for an ounce of recognition. Native filmmakers are the ones who need to and are creating change. In recent decades, Native stories have become more apparent in the independent film industry. These stories told by American Indians will help us move past stereotypes.

Aboriginal voices are being silenced. The Australian news is not diverse enough. In the past thirty years there have been multiple surveys that concluded that in mainstream media, including television, print news and radio, there is very little diversity. Many journalists report that they write for their “majority” audience - non-Aboriginal Australians. Shocking or violent news are the stories that journalists write the most frequently. It is the bad news or the bloody stories that sell. Reinforcing stereotypes or bias is much easier to do than spreading telling the Indigenous point of view. The media is putting opinions within their facts. There is already a trend to write/portray Aboriginal issues at worst: harmful to the majority of Australians, at best, hopeless. But news should not be on what sells, as a journalist they have an obligation to tell the truth, not to have a biased opinion to either “side”. There should not be sides that are labeled as good or bad. For news to stay objective, there should be a balance of opinions and a balance of positive and negative stories. Inclusion of Aboriginal writers, reporters and positive stories is the main way that this constant racist point of view can be abolished.

A community in Northern Canada is a unique one: they have a majority of Inuit and a minority of non-Indigenous people. The town prefers Inuit speakers for job opportunities. The local newspaper is written in English and translated to Inuit. This paper press has been causing an issue of communication and bias. The translation in the paper favors Inuit people and puts down non-Indigenous people. This subject has been one of great controversy: many believe that this is suppression, given that the Inuit are a majority of 85 percent and that racism is not okay in any context. There are some rules that all people should follow: the news should not report anyone’s race or gender unless relevant and leave as much bias as possible out of it, it should be an objective run down of the facts.