Symbolic Indians vs. Smiling Indians

Classes have begun again at the university where I teach, and I asked students in my American Indian literature to talk about their impressions of American Indian cultures and the source of those impressions.  At least one person mentioned this famous public service announcement, which I vividly recall from the 1970s:

Famous Sicilian-American

It features an actor who is known widely as Iron Eyes Cody (1904-1999), but he was named Espera Oscar de Corti by his Sicilian immigrant parents.  That is, one of the most famous Indians of the 1970s was not an Indian. 

The students said such images helped produce their impression that American Indian cultures and mainstream America related to the natural world differently.  That led to an interesting discussion of how something true can be communicated through something false.

His presence on the screen was insulting to many American Indians, yet it wasn't surprising.  Cody was part of a long tradition of non-Indians appearing on the screen as Indians -- and taking work away from American Indian actors in the process.  Burt Lancaster, Charles Bronson, and even Audrey Hepburn have played American Indian characters.

The Unforgiven (1960)

I repeat.  Audrey Hepburn.  American Indian.

I played the commercial for my students and we agreed that however much we laugh at the commercial today, and however problematic is the casting of Cody, the commercial was effective.  Summoning the iconic image of the Indian as protector of nature was effective.  Showing a lone tear running down the face of the iconic stoic Indian was effective.

The student who is tempted to dismiss the commercial because it makes use of stereotypes is missing the interesting discussion about how icons and signs work.

In the real world, it does matter that Cody was not an American Indian because there was an American Indian actor quite capable of filling the role, and he had a family to feed and a career to build.

But within the world of the commercial's message and within the world of the dominant American culture that was communicating to itself with this commercial -- that is, the public service announcement was not targeting Indian Country -- the race of the person playing an American Indian did not matter.  His symbolic function overruled that.

It is like Rene Magritte's famous painting of a pipe, The Treachery of Images.  On it is emblazoned the message (in French) "This is not a pipe."  Of course it isn't.  It is a painting of a pipe.  Cody's PSA could be titled "This is not an Indian."  Of course it isn't.  It is a someone pretending to be an Indian.

Cody was playing the very familiar role in American culture of the Noble Savage.  In American culture, the Noble Savage's relationship to any actual living Indians is irrelevant.  He says more about the people using him to communicate than he does about American Indians -- as does mainstream America's inability to distinguish a real Indian from a fake one.

Understanding the symbolic/iconic function of Cody's stony face is not to say that such representations are OK.  They have real-world implications other than stealing work from American Indian actors.  The viewers of such representations are not aware that they are viewing signs and symbols; they think they are looking at real Indians and then expect Indians in the real world to behave in the same ways.

Two Strikes by Edward Curtis

As an antidote to Cody's stony face, I showed my students a wonderful short film, Smiling Indians.  It is made by two young men from Oklahoma, Ryan Red Corn (from the Osage Nation) and Sterlin Harjo (from the Creek Nation).

The film is ironically dedicated to Edward R. Curtis (1858-1952), a very famous American photographer who did much to create the whole tradition of the stoic Indian that made Cody's career possible.

The faces in Smiling Indians do NOT function so clearly as symbols or icons.  The faces are not participating in various narrative conventions of how American Indians relate to mainstream American culture.  They are images of Indian people being... people.

Human beings.  Not symbols.

Watch it and smile.

The Badness of King George (Lucas)

Believe it or not, there was a time when people tried to defend George Lucas's storytelling abilities. 

Who ya gonna call?

He withstood the criticism fairly well, until cracks in his narrative armor began to appear with Return of the Jedi.  The highly merchandisable cuteness of the Ewoks and the wretched sentimentality of the "family photograph" at the conclusion -- when ghosts of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, and Darth Vader appear with Luke and company --  foreshadowed things such as Jar-Jar Binks.

What the duck?

Sure, there was his involvement with the Indiana Jones series.  But when people wanted to talk about Lucas as if he possessed undiluted genius, I had a standard response to them: "Always remember three words: Howard. The. Duck."

I waited nearly 20 years between the release of Return of the Jedi and A New Hope, only to be horribly and bitterly disappointed in the crapulence Lucas threw at us and was somehow proud of.  I then began to think perhaps Howard the Duck was the norm and the first Star Wars movies were the exception.

Now it seems Lucas was not satisfied ruining my expectations for the Star Wars prequels.  He now wants to ruin the originals.

Still lame.

Back in 2004, in the re-release of Return of the Jedi, Lucas replaced the original image of Sebastian Shaw, the actor who played Darth Vader during the brief moment when we saw beneath his mask, with Hayden Christensen, who played Annikin Skywalker in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith.

I don't really care about that.  That doesn't make that cinematic moment less groan-worthy than it already was.  I say that Lucas is determined to ruin his legacy because, in the latest Blu-Ray release of Return of the Jedi, he is injecting groan-worthiness where it had not existed before.  (Link to story about changes.)

In a key scene, Luke is saved and Darth Vader turns against the Dark Side -- he stops the Emperor from Tazering Luke with the Force and tosses him down the funhole of a Death Star.  In the original scene, Darth does all of this silently.  In the "improved" version he says "Noooo!"  Twice.

I understand the problem Lucas might have felt he was addressing.  There is a lot of emotion going on in Darth Vader's mind in this scene and he makes some key decisions.  But the character's face is hidden behind his famous mask.  Giving Darth dialog, however inarticulate and unconvincing it might be, would communicate to the audience what he was thinking and feeling.

But there is no problem for Lucas to solve here.  We do not need any verbal assistance to make up for a lack of facial cues from Darth Vader.  His actions tell us what he is feeling.  Tossing one's boss into a pit of blue fire is not very ambiguous.  But that wasn't enough for Lucas, the Master of Obviousness.

Seeing this revised scene made me think about the peculiar convention of the wordless close-up.  Most films have at least some of them.  The shots rely upon crucial information being communicated through the close-up of an actor's face, which focuses the viewer's attention on the emotions taking place within the character.  Even when that face is relatively expressionless, the audience can be trusted to understand what is happening beneath the calm surface.  This is partly through the dialog and action that surrounds the close-up, but it also is through the audience's training.  We have been taught how to understand such film conventions by watching thousands of hours of film and television.

The Searchers (1956)

A famous example would be a scene with John Wayne in The Searchers.  After his character, Ethan, and others have determined that they have been lured away from the settlements by the Comanche and that all of their families are in great danger, the posse races back to save them.  But Ethan knows their horses cannot make the hard ride.  Racing back will kill their mounts, which will keep them from saving the families AND leave them without horses.

He is left behind and wipes down his tired horse.  Across his still somewhat stoic face we see the concern and fear for what might be happening to his brother's family.  No dialog.  No scenes of mayhem.  No overwrought expressions.  Some of his frustration is evident in the way he wipes down the horse.  He is helpless and he hates that.

In film studies we talk about "reading" images.  But with many wordless close-ups, we are not really reading the face of the actor -- at least not reading it separate from the dialog and actions that have come immediately before or that will follow.  We must admit that a face without dialog can sometimes be ambiguous.  But if the elements surrounding the close-up are clear, the viewer is not so much reading the face in the close-up as he/she is projecting expected feelings onto that character -- or what they would be feeling themselves.  In a sense, the face can be like an empty space that the viewer fills in.

My evidence for this is Team America: World Police, a film with no actual faces, only puppets.  This movie has close-ups and reaction shots of puppets.  Some of them are rigged to have expressions, but many times the faces do not change during the shot.  The emotions are conveyed through actions and dialog.  However, in some scenes we are given reaction shots from puppets who are showing no reaction and who have no dialog or actions for cues of their emotions.  But the audience, I believe, understands what is going through the character's mind.  The close-up functions as a time not for the audience to "read" the face and decipher its meaning, since there is nothing there to read on the surface.  Instead, the audience uses the time of the close-up to register or sense more deeply the emotions and thoughts of the character they are projecting there.

In this scene from Team America, the leader of the agents tries to recruit Gary Johnston to join them.  The scene includes reaction shots of Gary during the pitch, but, of course, his face never changes.  Yet somehow the audience understands what he is thinking and understands when he declines the offer.

If you think about it, what is Darth Vader but a large puppet?  If we can understand Trey Parker and Matt Stone's marionettes, then we do not need George Lucas's help to understand one of the world's most iconic villains in his moment of redemption.

From the Arab Spring Fashion Collection

 

By the time I post this, Moammar Gadhafi may be among the ranks of the unemployed, if not the unliving.  Despite the dramatic events in Libya, this picture of rebels advancing on Tripoli struck me as rather familiar: It looks like a shot from a Banana Republic ad campaign.  

Our Striped Pique Polo Shirts keep the rebel on the go feeling cool and comfortable -- and the horizontal stripes are slimming, just in case dodging rockets has kept you from the gym.

Our Relaxed Fit Cargo Pants have roomy pockets that can carry extra ammunition for a firefight, or your digital camera to capture the good times on your own Road Trip to Tripoli!

A Swiss Military Classic Watch can take whatever punishment Gadhafi's goons can dish out.  What time is it?  It's time for regime change!  Spring Break Libya-style! 

Banana Republic 2011 Spring Collection

My imagination here is not far off the mark from some fashion ads I have seen.  They seem to follow advice similar to that offered by a blog about fashion photography:  "Location, location, location! Getting the right location is important if you want to convey a narrative within your shot.  For example if the clothing and beauty styling are edgy, hard or provocative you may want to consider an urban setting , alternatively for spring/summer and natural fashions find a rural environment like; a field, meadow, beach, woodland or river bank."

Fashion photographers, such as those for Banana Republic, often place their subjects in settings that contrast interestingly with the clothing being worn by their beautiful models.  Apparently the incongruity of the backdrop with the clothing draws the reader's eye and can excite the imagination.  The settings also can make the clothing seem more interesting, suggesting an intriguing though often cryptic narrative -- look at the amazing lives of people who wear clothes like this!  

Banana Republic 2010 Holiday Collection

My rugged four-by-four will take me wherever my Milan  platform peep-toes won't!

Hey, babe, look at this firewood I chopped myself in these Clarks Desert Boots!  Sorry about stepping on your windshield wiper!   

(What does Banana Republic have about people standing on their vehicles?)

On the one hand, these ridiculous fashion images -- unrealistically beautiful people in "real" situations -- prepare us for images such as the one from Libya, images of real people in extraordinary situations.  And yet an image like this from Libya also show us how ridiculous the ad campaigns are.  How adventurous would these anorexic hipsters be when the gunships move in?

 

... and walk humbly with your dog.

Gracie

Meet Gracie.  She is my newest teacher.

She is an older dog that lives at my mother's house in Fort Worth, Texas.  This year she had a stroke.  You cannot tell from this picture but now she is rather lopsided.  Her head tilts markedly to her left.  Her left legs are weaker than her right legs, and so she takes a somewhat circular route where ever she goes. 

Gracie has learned to get around pretty well, considering the obstacles she now faces.  For instance, she leans her weak side against the kitchen cabinets and furniture.  She seems to use some of these objects to help guide her to where she wants to go.

During my recent visit to my mother's house, Gracie was on my mind a lot.  As I watched her move about, as I admired her perseverance and her adaptability, I thought of her situation as an apt analogy for the experience of being human.

Gracie must concentrate to take simple steps.  She must be patient not only with her slow pace but also with her unsure ability to head in the right direction.  If only humans would learn to be so mindful of each step -- literally and figuratively -- that we take.

Although most humans are not as visibly impaired as that old dog, they are not as agile and capable as they assume themselves to be.  Too often we veer off our intended paths and wind up, like Gracie, somewhere we did not desire.  Too often we move too quickly.  Too often we are confident in abilities we do not possess -- or that we should possess more carefully and with greater appreciation.

The word we would use for Gracie, and for humans in a similar predicament, is "disabled."  It is true that her stroke has impaired her physical and mental abilities, but as I watched her move around the house and in the yard I kept thinking that being a human can be seen as a kind of disability.  Even if we have not suffered a stroke, we all move through the world with imperfect bodies and minds.

Walt Whitman

My time with Gracie raised issues that I contend with each semester that I teach the sophomore-level American literature survey at my university.

On the one hand, we read "Song of Myself" by Walt Whitman.  In it, Uncle Walt tries to inspire his readers by the miracle of their bodies and their souls.  He tells his reader, "You must habit yourself to the dazzle of the light and every moment of your life."  In other words, you must become accustomed to the miraculous nature of life and of yourself.  In the introduction to the book that contains this great poem, Leaves of Grass, he writes that if the reader follows his instructions, "Your very flesh shall be a great poem."  He wants you to believe that you possess great abilities.

Stephen Crane

But on the other hand, in class we also read Stephen Crane's short story "The Open Boat."  In this famous story, a group of men are in a lifeboat after a ship wreck.  They need to get to shore, but they must approach it at the right place and in the right conditions or risk being drowned.  They do not know where along the coast they are located, for instance, nor what currents lie between themselves and the shore.  Their ability to act effectively is seriously impaired by their inability to accurately perceive and understand their surroundings.  Crane does not seem to share Whitman's optimism.

Yet, I think they are both right.  Humans are miraculous.  And humans are seriously impaired.  Our humanity should be the source of great inspiration and great humility.

Gracie has adapted to her loss of balance and control by leaning against the kitchen cabinets.  Is this much different from the man who has been hurt too often by others and has learned to keep up his defenses, to trust few people and let few people get close to him?  Is this that much different from the woman who has received little support and love from others and so has learned to not trust herself or value herself?  Is that much different from the man who is mean and aggressive because he assumes everyone is out to treat him that way too?

I realize that you may not agree with me at first.  After all, Gracie's adaptations seem admirable, but aren't my  human examples unfortunate rather than praiseworthy?

I am not so sure.  Our emotional defenses in many ways are good friends to us.  That is one reason we cling to them: They have helped us.  Gracie's system works.  That fortress around a human heart has kept out some injuries and pain.  That lack of confidence has reduced the risks taken and therefore has reduced the number of failures.  Aggression has many times dominated others and kept them at bay.

Defenses are types of adaptation, are they not?  This is not to say our defenses always serve our best interests in the long run.  This is not to say these adaptations are the only options.  This is not to say that we never outgrow our adaptations.  But this is an attempt to better understand them and to be more patient with them.

My thoughts bring to mind  a quote you may see from time to time: "Be kind.  Everyone you meet is fighting a great battle."  Although there is confusion about who said this or the exact wording of the quote, watching Gracie reminded me of the truth of its sentiment.

When I come across these adaptations or defenses in others I try to keep in mind that, like Gracie, these people are trying to make their way through the world with impaired abilities to accurately perceive or navigate their paths.

When I come across these things in myself, I try to be mindful of my own impairments and my own adaptations.  I keep Gracie in mind, and I look at my own adaptations with compassion.  I want to be like Gracie and to keep moving and learning and adapting.

+ + +

P.S. -- My title is taken from one of my father's favorite Bible verses.  Micah 6:8 -- "What does the Lord require of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Preschool: The Government's Sinister Plot

Listen to "The Case for Preschool" at Planet Money.

Can nap time, juice boxes, and finger painting save the nation?

A study by Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckamn indicates those things -- in the form of preschool -- can certainly help.

He studied two groups of underprivileged children: one group that was enrolled in preschool and one group that wasn't.  When those students were contacted years later, Heckman found that the kids who had attended preschool were HALF as likely to have been arrested and on average earned a THIRD more money than their non-preschool counterparts.

While those who attended preschool benefited personally, society in general benefited by having fewer people in prison and people contributing more to the economy.  Therefore, Heckman concluded, the government reaps big rewards from every dollar it spends on preschools.

What did those students learn in preschool?  Important skills for communicating with others and controlling their emotions (among others).  Those skills are often times lacking in adults who have trouble staying in jobs (or out of jail).  But it seems that learning those skills after our earliest years is very difficult. 

Rick Santorum fighting The Man.

But to Rick Santorum, whose presidential aspirations are little more than fodder for The Daily Show, preschool is just another way for the American government to get its hands on young minds so it can indoctrinate them.

He said recently, "Of course, the government wants their hands on your children as fast as they can. That is why I opposed all these early starts and pre-early starts, and early-early starts. They want your children from the womb so they can indoctrinate your children as to what they want them to be. I am against that."

Santorum has a point.

Preschool is about indoctrination.  So are all schools.  And churches.  And newspapers.  And television shows.  And movies.  And even families.

Think of a society as a biological organism.  One of the major purposes of any organism is to reproduce itself.  Human societies are like that.  They work in ways obvious and hidden to reproduce themselves, and they do this through things such as preschools.

Living things pass on their traits to the next generation through their DNA.  We could think of a society's DNA being the stories and activities that embody its values (traits) that it wishes to pass on.  As children, we learn values through games we play and from activities as simple as forming a single-file line.  In narratives ranging from Horton Hears a Who to The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, from the Oregon Trail to the Trail of Tears, from Rosa Parks to South Park, American society imprints itself on its members.  This is especially true of those narratives that are used and studied in educational environments, such as school. 

An institution through which a society reproduces itself was given a name by French cultural critic Louis Althusser: Ideological State Apparatus.  (You can see that he was an academic and not a poet.)

You've been pwned, comrade!

He attempted to understand how the ruling class of a society educated its working-class population to not only accept its lower rank in the pecking order but to participate eagerly and defend it as correct and good.  He wanted to understand how people, like the Borgs from Star Trek, were assimilated into a vast organization, how they became like cogs in a machine.  Althusser wrote:

To put this more scientifically, I shall say that the reproduction of labour power requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also, at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order, i.e. a reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology for the workers, and a reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression, so that they, too, will provide for the domination of the ruling class....

Louis Althusser

Althusser's pessimism in understanding how socializing institutions work is not necessary.  I believe all societies do this -- reproduce "the rules of the established order," even if those rules include skepticism about those rules.  The distinction between the pessimistic understanding and the optimistic understanding is that the pessimist calls this indoctrination and the optimist calls this education.

Since he is so suspicious of government schools, we should not be surprised to know that Santorum has home-schooled his children.  I doubt he would say he has indoctrinated them.  That is what happens at the state brainwashing centers.  I am sure he would say that he is educating his children, instilling them with the proper values.  But I believe what he has done at home could be easily described as indoctrination.

But one wonders just how dangerous are the ideas being pounded into the heads of our three-year-olds.  Sharing?  Using words?  No hitting?  Taking turns?  Putting away your toys when you are finished with them?

While those skills make people more pleasant to be around in general, those skills do make for better workers in a capitalist system.  Or in a socialist system.  Or even on a pirate ship.  So in that sense, Althusser's critique of schools as assimilating people into an economic system holds true.  But what else could they do?

I realize that part of Althusser's real critique is that the workers he described were being persuaded to participate in a system that was not designed for their benefit.  But that is a matter of whether what is taught is true or false, is good or bad.  My point is that all societies "indoctrinate" their children with their values, regardless of what those values are.

According to Heckman, preschool instills important foundations for a successful life.  According to Santorum, preschool is instead Big Brother's groupthink training program.  

They're both kind of right.