Previous
Chapter 1. Forget Columbus
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in The Inconvenient Indian, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
History and Mythology
Racism and Systemic Oppression
Land
Sovereignty
Summary
Analysis
King begins an anecdote about playing “cowboys and Indians” with his brother and some neighborhood friends when he was a young boy. He remembers how nobody—himself included—wanted to be an Indian. King compares his childhood self to Straight Arrow, a character from a popular radio show of the same name that ran from 1942 to 1952. Straight Arrow was a Comanche man who was adopted by a White family and acted as a White man named Steve Adams. When danger arose, Straight Arrow would don “traditional” Comanche clothing, a golden bow and arrow, and ride a Palomino stallion named Fury to fight evil. Like Straight Arrow, King donned a cowboy outfit to “hide [his] secret identity.”
King recalls this anecdote to show how the broader culture of North America teaches Native people to reject and feel ashamed of their indigenous roots. Even Straight Arrow, a heroic indigenous character in popular culture, was compelled to only display his indigenous identity on rare, special occasions. King thus learned from a young age the unfortunate and damaging lesson that, in North America, having indigenous heritage is often framed as undesirable.
Themes
King commences a broad overview of White-Indian interactions in North America over the past few centuries. Since the establishment of colonies in Plymouth, Jamestown, and Quebec, among other places, Indians became a significant part of life for European settlers and appeared throughout their art, literature, and pop culture. During this period, while disease had greatly diminished Indian populations, survivors were not yet relegated to reservations. For this reason, they were “more difficult to ignore,” states King.
King’s remark that Indians were “more difficult to ignore” before they were moved to reservations speaks to the idea he proposed in the previous passage: that mainstream American culture thinks that indigenous people are best hidden from public view. The idea here is that Indians are a problem that needs to be pushed to the side if they cannot be gotten rid of entirely.
Themes
While explorers who were simply passing through and relied on Indians to navigate untraversed lands had mostly positive interactions with Indians, settlers who lived in close proximity to Indians had more negative perceptions of them and resented having to share land they had mistakenly believed would be entirely free for their taking. Additionally, settlers’ Christian worldview equipped them with logic that persuaded them to form a dual image of the world, differentiating only between “light or dark, good or evil, civilized or savage.” King sees the “cowboys and Indians” games of his youth as a distilled version of this duality.
Whites who needed Indians—explorers for whom Indians were convenient guides—got along well with Indians. Settlers who wished to develop Western homesteads and towns without the supposedly “savage” influence of the neighboring Natives, in contrast, had more strained relationships with their Native neighbors. The settlers’ worldview that crated a dual image between “light and dark, good or evil, civilized or savage” helps contextualize the racist ideology that settlers used to justify their view of Indians as an impediment on their new settlements.
Themes
King frames the years between the early 17th century and the late 19th as a period of “continuous[] ‘not sharing’” between colonists and Indians. This “not sharing” led to a series of wars over land disputes, including the 1622–1644 war between the Powhatan Confederacy and the Virginia Colonists, and the 1637 Pequot War fought in Connecticut and Rhode Island, for example. The years in which battles weren’t actively ongoing weren’t peaceful, either, and saw the U.S. government repeatedly make and break treaties and peace agreements with its Indian neighbors.
King’s assessment that the years between the 17th and 19th centuries may be defined as a period of “continuous[] ‘not sharing’” suggests that, at its core, Indian-White tensions may be seen as the consequence of their desire to claim and covet land.
Themes
Get the entire The Inconvenient Indian LitChart as a printable PDF.
Five years after the 1890 massacre at Wounded Knee, the New York Times published an article (which was first published in England’s Westminster Review) that claimed that Canada had never engaged in an Indian War. King argues that this logic is misleading, citing a number of conflicts, such as Duck Lake and Cut Knife, that, perhaps, aren’t considered “proper ‘Indian’ conflicts,” since they involved the Métis. Though the Westminster Review’s claim isn’t technically false, King argues that it purposefully disguises Canadian aggression against its Aboriginal people.
King’s criticism of Canada seemingly not characterizing wars waged against the Métis as “proper ‘Indian’ conflicts” (since the Métis are of mixed race, having indigenous blood as well as French blood) suggests that Canada adjusts its definition of who is and isn’t indigenous to suit its preferred narrative. Only a few decades before the publication of the Westminster Review article, Canada’s Protestant population was engaged in war against the Métis, but here, they seem to claim that the Métis aren’t Indian to falsely suggest that Canada treats its Native population less violently than the U.S.
Themes
King segues into a discussion of race. The concept of race has been in existence at least as far back as the Egyptians, who established racial categories for “Egyptians,” “Asiatics,” “Libyans,” and “Nubians.” In 1775, German anthropologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach put forth five categories of race: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Ethiopian, American, Indian, and Malayan. In the late 19th century, Charles Darwin argued for the superiority of Europeans over other races. In James Fenimore Cooper’s 1841 novel The Deerslayer, he argues that Indians and White men both had “gifts” from God: the White man, Christianity, and the Indian, “wilderness.” While Cooper’s ideas sound almost “progressive,” they imply that Indians lacked the pre-frontal cortex necessary to understand God, and White men, with their Christianity, were intellectually superior.
Darwin published his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species (1859). In this book, Darwin introduced the theory that populations evolve through natural selection, which dictates that organisms better adapted to their environment are the ones that will survive and reproduce. Darwin’s theory employs the phrase “survival of the fittest” to describe the process by which supposed superior organisms are selected to procreate. Darwin’s evolutionary theories were later adopted by the philosopher Herbert Spencer to create Social Darwinism, an inherently racist ideology claiming that Europeans were a superior race. Social Darwinism attempted to justify imperialism on the grounds that it eradicated the world of inferior races and cultures. This type of ideology informed and justified settlers’ treatment of North America’s indigenous population.
Themes
Cooper’s logic establishes a clear boundary between the Indians and Whites, explained and justified by “divine sanction.” Adding to this boundary were commonly held beliefs about certain attributes that Indians possessed as a racial group. For example, some early North American literature characterized Indians as “pagans” and savages. Other works, such as Lydia Marie Child’s Hobomek (1824) reimagined Indians as romantic, tragic figures: as “noble, honest, and trustworthy,” but only at the level of the individual, which did little to negate the racism directed toward Indians in North America.
Cooper’s racism applies Darwin’s theory of evolution to Christianity, claiming that European superiority is justified by "divine sanction," something evidenced by Europeans’ willingness to let God into their lives and Natives’ rejection of Christianity. Even comparatively sympathetic attitudes toward Natives—such as Lydia Marie Child’s—weren’t all that much better, implying that outlying Natives were “noble, honest, and trustworthy,” adjectives that might better be used to describe an obedient dog than an actual human.
Themes
King describes the painting of George Catlin, Charles Bird King, and Paul Kane, who traveled west and painted the Indians they encountered along the way. Such paintings were the basis of later cinematographic renderings of Indians in the Western films of John Ford, D.W. Griffiths, and Kevin Costner, among others. King also cites the Wild West shows of the 19th century as influencing the popular culture view of Indians. Shows such as Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show performed across the country and abroad. Initially “Indians” were played by White men in redface, but later, actual Indians, such as Jack Red Cloud, Sitting Bull, and Red Shirt joined them often. Although these shows were often commercialized and crass, showrunners treated Indian performers well and paid them for their work.
King establishes how popular culture and the arts further embellished on North America’s already racially charged, biased perception of Native Americans. In this way, he suggests that Indians have been objectified and dehumanized in America’s collective imagination, relegated to caricatures from movies or performers in vaudeville shows like Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show.
Themes
Wild West shows culminated in James Earle Fraser’s 1915 sculpture The End of the Trail, the most well-known Indian image of the 20th century. The sculpture depicts a dejected Indian man atop his resisting horse. Today, variations on the original work exist all across the U.S., pasted on the sides of motels, restaurants, and rest stations.
King sees The End of The Trail as the natural end of the Indian portrayed in these stereotypical, racially charged elements of popular culture from the previous century. The sculpture suggests that the Indians of those works is dead and has no place in contemporary America. This sheds more light onto King’s repeated claims that North America views Indians as inconveniences that are best moved out of sight.
Themes
Next, King delves into an overview of Indian representation in Hollywood. Between 1894 and 1930, Hollywood made over 100 films depicting “real” Indian people and their “authentic” culture. After 1930, it produced an additional 300 films. “Indians were made for film,” King contends wryly, noting the “exotic and erotic” visual features of Indians favored by filmmakers, such as the feathers, face paint, and loincloths.
King further demonstrates how American popular culture objectifies Indians. His wry remark that “Indians were made for film” implies that stereotypically “exotic and erotic” images of Indians are made for White consumption—for entertainment. This passage also further asserts the idea that Whites can only see stereotypes of Indians—not their true culture.
Themes
King establishes three categories of Indians in film: the “bloodthirsty savage,” who was most common, the “noble savage,” who assisted Whites in their struggles against the savage Indians; and the “dying Indian,” who was a product of a bygone era that existed before White settlers’ arrival. Regardless of which type of Indian a film featured, the inevitable moral put forth was a yielding of the Native people to “Christianity and Commerce.” Early directors like D.W. Griffiths and Jay Hunt cast White actors in Indian roles. However, early films featured a number of Indian actors, too, such as William Eagle Shirt, a Lakota. James Young Deer and his wife Lillian St. Cyr, Nebraska Ho-Chunks who worked with Griffith, even had their own film company, though they’ve largely fallen into obscurity over the years.
King suggests that White people not only see Indians as inferior, but also have trouble conceiving of them outside the context of White culture. The image of Native people in North America has therefore been refracted through the problematic lens of White culture, which breaks the Indian population down into three reductive categories. The “bloodthirsty savage” is thus a violent enemy who threatens to disrupt the White, Christian world; the “noble savage” stereotype accepts and acquiesces to the racist idea that Indian culture is inferior; and the “dying Indian” represents the Indians from a time that no longer exists.
Themes
Chauncey Yellow Robe, a Lakota who played Indian roles in various films, including 1930’s Silent Enemy, spoke at the conference of the Society of American Indians in 1913 about the film industry’s inhumane representation of Indians as savages, which Yellow Robe saw as representative of the country’s broader view of Indians.
Chauncey Yellow Robe’s theory that the film industry’s treatment of Native people reflects the nation’s broader view of them mirrors King’s own view: North America sees its Native population as relics of the past that no longer matter.
Themes
King continues his analysis of historical stereotypes of Indian peoples, describing the illustration of an Indian on horseback seen on paper currency in circulation in the U.S. from 1899 to 1914. King notes how the headdress that Running Antelope, the Lakota who served as the model for the illustration, was wearing might not have been an authentic Lakota headdress but a Pawnee headdress instead (the Lakota and Pawnee were enemies during this time.) There have been a number of other commemorative Indian images put forth by the U.S. and Canada over the century, including various stamps depicting Indians.
Again, the reproduction of an Indian image onto paper currency shows how White culture has historically objectified and dehumanized Indians, viewing them as commodities and objects rather than people with meaningful lives and cultures. That the illustration of Running Antelope might feature the man wearing a Pawnee headdress further shows how little respect Whites had for Natives—they see them as images for their consumption, which is why no care was taken to ensure that Running Antelope was depicted wearing an authentic headdress. King thus highlights the unfortunate fact that cultural authenticity seems to not matter very much when the consumer is ignorant and uninterested in that culture.
Themes
King reveals which famous Indian he’d like to see depicted on currency: Will Rogers. Rogers was a Cherokee who performed as a vaudeville player and appeared in Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show. He made his first film appearance in Laughing Bill Hyde in 1918 and went on to act in 50 films, becoming one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood by the 1930s. Rogers was also a renowned social commentator and humorist who wrote over 4,000 newspaper columns, and he was even nominated as the Anti Bunk Party candidate for president.
Will Rogers is an outlier, compared to the other prominent historical Native figures. After all, he did well in White America, both socially and financially.
Themes
Rogers was never cast as an Indian, since he “didn’t look Indian enough” to Hollywood. Still, he’s one of two Indian actors to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. The other Indian actor with a star is Jay Silverheels, a Canadian Mohawk, who apparently did look “Indian enough” and played Indians. His most famous role was Tonto in the Lone Ranger TV series. King describes Tonto as “North America’s Indian.” He was “trustworthy, loyal, [and] helpful” to his White counterparts. Tonto was proof that Natives had learned the civilized behavior settlers had “shared” with them. While Silverheels has been criticized for playing a “Stepin Fetchit role,” it was a job, and one of the first that depicted an Indian as nearly equal to his White sidekick.
King’s remark that Rogers “didn’t look Indian enough” might help explain his success in the Hollywood industry and the broader American culture. He didn’t look like an Indian—an inconvenience North Americans would rather clear away and ignore—so he was embraced and allowed to succeed. “Stepin Fetchit” refers to a famous Black vaudeville performer. He acted under the stage persona “Stepin Fetchit,” which many have suggested played up negative stereotypes of Black Americans as lazy and scheming. So, when people call Tonto a “Stepin Fetchit role,” they mean that Tonto was harmful to the image of Native Americans since he reinforced existing negative stereotypes of Native Americans that existed in White North America’s collective imagination. In this instance, that Tonto is “trustworthy, loyal [and] helpful” reaffirms the negative stereotype of the “novel savage” that existed in earlier films.
Themes
King wonders whether Indian representation in film and television really has an impact on North America’s perception of the Indian. He considers the controversy of non-Indian actors being cast in Indian roles before coming to the conclusion that, regardless of whether Indian roles are played by Indians or non-Indians, the “truth” Hollywood depicts about Indians is rarely truthful.
The concept of representation is a relevant issue today, as well. King tends to think that Native people have more vital, pressing concerns to deal with than their representation in Hollywood—or, at least, that restoring the broader narrative surrounding Native culture is the most important thing to address.
Themes
King breaks down typical Indian film roles into two categories: historical Indians and contemporary Indians. Most Indian actors play historical Indians, though directors seem to have no problem filling these roles with racially ambiguous Italians, Mexicans, and Greeks. However, directors are more likely to cast real Indians in contemporary Indian roles. In the past 20 years, such films as Powwow Highway (1989) and Smoke Signals (1998) have offered less stereotypical visions of contemporary Indian life. Additionally, Native filmmakers, such as Phil Lucas and Alanis Obomsawin, are changing the way Indians are depicted on-screen with documentaries depicting contemporary Native life. Unfortunately, not many people watch documentaries, nor are documentaries an accurate depiction of reality, merely “an approximation.”
That these two categories of Indian—historical and contemporary—exist today suggests a shift in a positive direction of Native representation in film, since King has just established that older Western films tended only to show romanticized, exoticized visions of Indians of the old West, which fail to correctly depict Indian culture.
Themes
