Is The First Amendment A Friend To First Nations?

The current cinema blockbuster “Twilight” is, on the surface, a teenage vampire movie set in the somewhat unusual location of Forks, Washington. While the film doles out helpings of the standard teen angst, parental alienation, and enigmatic vampires typical for this genre, it also contains an interesting subplot – the vampires will not tread upon the traditional lands of the Quileute Tribe. This is due to the (cinematic) fact that Quileute members are descended from wolves, and evidently retain the power to shape-shift into supernatural wolf-hybrids that are deadly to vampires. An uneasy truce prevails between the two camps, with the Tribal members keeping constant watch on the local “undead” and remaining ever-ready to defend the Tribe’s territory against vampire incursions. Given the film’s success at the box office, a sequel appears inevitable, with a Battle Royale between the Forks Vampires and the Quileute Wolves as its likely centerpiece.

The Quileutes are a real-life Chimakuan Tribe living along the Quileute River on the Olympic Peninsula in northwest Washington state. The Tribal members depicted in the film are striking in every sense – stoic, wise, humorous, and physically appealing. As an added bonus, they possess the aforementioned supernatural powers, which clearly set them apart from the rest of the local community. Although it would appear that the filmmakers sought to cast the Tribal members in a positive light – and even provide them with physical and moral advantages over the rest of the population – they also unquestionably depict the Native American characters in the film as something other than purely human. While certainly legal under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, do such mass-media portrayals of Native peoples as “different” serve to perpetuate negative generalizations - and thereby damage the culture and dignity of an entire people?

While current films may capture the most immediate attention, popular attitudes toward even the oldest interactions between Native peoples and European immigrants still reflect stereotypes engendered through various forms of media. Plimoth Plantation in Massachusetts features a re-creation of an English village from the 1600s and a Native American homesite, and Native American guides offer historical insights into the earliest connections between the two peoples. Yet a number of the thousands of people who visit daily bring with them startling misconceptions about the Native people, which still persist and are promulgated through free speech. Paula Peters, a member of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, said one of the first things she learned when she started working at Plimoth in Massachusetts 30 years ago was: "People will say things that will hurt you." She’s overheard parents reprimand their children by saying, "If you don't behave I am going to leave you with this Indian squaw and she will cook you for dinner." Native docents at Plimoth have endured inquiries from guests such as "Where do you get your alcohol?" and "I thought we killed all of you." Officials who run the site work to educate visitors by putting up signs asking them to avoid stereotypes, and showing a short film at the beginning of the tour explaining what really happened when the Pilgrims first arrived on the continent.

To what extent have the essentially unbridled freedoms of the First Amendment served the interests of Native peoples? Freedom itself, in the absence of the power to effectively exercise it, is often of little value for those to whom it is ostensibly granted. The percentage of traditional media outlets owned or controlled by Native Americans is small to an extreme, leaving Tribal members with a correspondingly small amount of power to shape the portrayals of their people, history, and culture through these outlets. The negative and often fraudulent portrayals of Tribal members in film, television, books produced by the mainstream media cast a pall over Native heritage throughout the 20th Century. As we near the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, Native peoples will need to be increasingly proactive in their use of new-media forms such as YouTube, blogs, and mobile communications technology in order to create an accurate and forward-thinking consciousness regarding Tribal issues. These forms of communication are acting to decentralize the transfer of information, bringing a global audience within the reach of anyone possessing an Internet connection and the determination to put forth a positive message. Capitalizing on these technologies can and should bring the freedoms of the First Amendment to bear for the benefit of all Native Americans.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (1) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Christina Wygant - December 1, 2008 5:16 PM

From animalistic portrayals of African slaves in travel narratives during the 1780s; to “scientific” accounts of anatomy gradations of Native Americans (and others) during the 1790s; to demonic depictions in Punch of the Irish during the Great Famine of the1840s, individuals have been racialized by the dominant voice as demonstrated in the material cultural production of knowledge. With a blatant history between culture and imperialism, one must ask if similar ideological structures are at play today. Be it so, when movies such as the recent Twilight incorporate mythological representations of Native Americans—and in this case the Quileute Tribe—connections to previous cultural displays of racialized beliefs can easily be drawn. Is this movie one more example of marginalizing and categorizing a group of people according to past knowledge systems or, does this movie empower the Quileute Tribe because their representation could be viewed in a positive light?

As depicted in the movie, the members of the Quileute Tribe (as demonstrated through four males) have mystical abilities which enable them to recognize vampires while others (non-vampires and non-Native Americans) remain naive of any differences. This particular tribe of Native Americans is portrayed as wise, all knowing, and “good”, whereas the vampires are portrayed as eerily strange and possibly “bad”. Yet, both groups are represented as different, with animal-like instinct, and not quite human.

Although it can be argued that these members of the Quileute Tribe are viewed in a more positive if not super-heroic light, does this characterization of these Native Americans mimic earlier ideological systems? Could one argue that the movie’s mysticization of the tribal members is yet another way of differentiating, or as Edward Said in his 1978 Orientalism calls “orientalizing”, the Native American because of (post)colonial power relations? What are the gender implications of not representing female tribal members in this movie? Is it of relevance to question whether or not the Quileute Tribe was consulted regarding approval for these representations? Is it of significance to ask whether or not the mystical beliefs in the film characterize those of the Quileute Tribe? What are the cultural implications for these depictions regardless of whether or not tribal members were consulted?

Assuming that a sequel will be filmed, it is curious to note how the “good vs. evil” scenario will not only be demonstrated between the Native Americans and vampires, but also how these portrayals will affect future material cultural productions of knowledge.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.

Remember personal info?