Partly inspired by Cedric C. Clark’s “Evolutionary Stages of Minorities in the Mass Media” from 1969, this framework is intended to assist students, scholars, viewers, and gamers evaluate Native American characters in the media they analyze, teach, and consume.4 Aspects of the films, television shows, and video game representations of American Indians that are discussed on this website were used to inform this framework. With such a long history of stereotypical American Indian characters, popular media in the United States typically propagates negative impressions of Native Americans, even when using “Good Indian” stereotypes. Formally establishing an analytical framework for attributes of Native American characters as they appear in popular media in the United States will enable a deeper reading of characters and stereotypes, hopefully leading to more authentic, respectful portrayals of American Indians.
Questions raised by the framework will be discussed after the outline, shown here:
- Is the character a protagonist or antagonist?
- Does this status change over the course of the story?
- If yes, what is the significance of this change?
- Does this status change over the course of the story?
- Is it a major or minor character to the plot?
- Is the character two dimensional or three dimensional?
- Does the character embody stereotypes of Native Americans?
- Is the story set in the past or the present day?
- What is the overall relationship of the character to the message of the medium?
For the first question, whether or not a character is on the side of the “good guys” is a major consideration. Clearly, not every ethnicity of character can always be a “hero” or always a “villain” in every mass media production. However, choosing to identify a character as either role is a conscious choice made by the creators of the media. This role serves as the foundation for the rest of the analysis, just as it supports the feelings of the media’s audience toward the character. A status change over the course of the story, either from protagonist to antagonist (and they are, therefore, a traitor) or from antagonist to protagonist (through a redemption story arc of some kind), also serves as a core part of the character’s significance to the audience and must be taken into consideration.
Image taken from “Legends and Lies: The Patriots” (2016). American Indians and European Americans fight a battle against one another.
Most media produced in the United States that includes portrayals of American Indians places those characters into minor roles; rarely is a Native American assigned the role of a major character. The position of a character denotes their centrality to the story. Minor characters assist or hinder main characters; the story is about the main characters, and the presence of the minor characters serves only the interests of the main character’s plot. The relegation of American Indians to the status of minor character in almost every story means the plot line is not about the American Indians or their perspectives. Rather than a story about Native Americans themselves and their agenda, their decisions, their struggles, their agency, they are stories about other groups of people and how American Indians impact those other groups’ stories. Solely placing an American Indian into a major character protagonist role is not enough, as will be later examined.
Another important consideration is whether or not the character is portrayed as a full human being or just a caricature of a human. Two-dimensional characters do not have all of the attributes that viewers expect from a fully human representation of a person, whereas a three-dimensional character feels much more human to the audience. Commonly this distinction is drawn between protagonists and antagonists, as the “good guys” are given motivations and justifications for the actions that they take to make them seem more human. Their opponents, however, are often left without much substance to their makeup. Villains are frequently portrayed as evil for evil’s sake, rather than a human being with a history. Whether or not a portrayal is given depth of character is not always tied to this hero-villain dichotomy, but it is the most common dividing line. It is obvious why a three-dimensional character representation is today desirable for a group such as Native Americans; for much of their history in the United States media, the portrayals have been villainous and two-dimensional, simply “bloodthirsty savages” and related stereotypes.
The fourth aspect in my framework is that of stereotypes themselves. These can be “Good Indian” stereotypes, such as the sidekick or helper to the hero (such as Tonto in The Lone Ranger), a regulator or enforcer of the dominant group’s ideals (exemplified by American Indians placed into law enforcement and United States military roles), and as obstacles to be removed for the sake of western “progress,” not unlike rocks and trees.5 The opposite, of course, areq the “Bad Indian” stereotypes, most often portrayed as two-dimensional bloodthirsty or “savage” characters who oppose the goals of the hero or of western civilization in general.6 Whether the “good” or “bad” stereotype is used, these are not authentic, respectful portrayals of Native Americans as human beings with lives, histories, motivations, and justifications.
A different form of stereotyping, as identified by Native Americans such as Beverly Singer and Elise Marubbio, is the portrayal of American Indians only as existing in the past, rather than as people who are alive and part of the North American world today.7 These representations in the past frequently characterize Native Americans as doomed to extinction or destined to disappear; Native Americans are not extinct, their nations have not disappeared, and they will continue to exist, live, and thrive through their adversity. Stories produced in the present but set in the past which suggest that either of those negative outcomes is the reality today are ignorant at best.
Finally, an analysis of the overall meaning of the media under evaluation, combined with a similar analysis of the American Indian character in that work and the relationship between the two is a necessary final step in this process. The ultimate significance of the Native American character will be a function of the preceding steps in the framework combined with the main themes of the story the character is a part of. Classic American Indian villains opposing westward expansion or the progress of the United States’ capitalistic system are therefore portrayed as “backward” or “savage,” unable to see the supposed grand vision of Manifest Destiny and their own ostensible duty to acquiesce. A Native American in the role of protagonist is a problematic representation if it utilizes the “Good Indian” stereotypes, even if the character helps to achieve something perceived to be universally positive.
In the following pages, I will apply this framework to Native American characters in various films, television shows, and video games, all of which are set during the American Revolution. If the film clips presented here appear or feel disjointed, that is because they are; representations of American Indians almost never comprise a continuous narrative that follows the actions and interests of the Native Americans. These miniature case studies will show the utility of the framework in evaluating representations of American Indians, and how it can help lead to more authentic and respectful portrayals of Native characters.
4. Clark, 18-22.
5. Fitzgerald, 10.
6. Fitzgerald 10. Marubbio 4-8, 14-15, 21.
7. Singer 2.