Only Good Indian

As the twentieth century ends, we are still asking the crucial question. What is the historical reality? Will it always remain elusive , complex, and controversial? The essays in diis book support this conclusively, shedding newlight on the whole subjectof ethnicity and human freedom. In die Introduction, the editors ask ifthe study ofHollywood's Indian is still a frontier worthy of exploration. The answer is a resounding "yes," offering many opinions and insights to ponder. When Thomas A. Edison premiered his kinetoscope at the 1893 Chicago Columbian World's Exposition, he chose the exotic Hopi Snake Dance. Here we have the stereotypical depiction ofnatives. Children ofmy generation grew up with the bloodthirsty savage, out to scalp and burn; when we played "Cowboys and Indians," the White cowboys were die good guys, the Red Indians, the bad. A long intellectual and artistic tradition was in place. There was a frontier cliché: the only good Indian is a dead Indian. When did Hollywood first show this kind ofstereotype on the screen? A poster ofan early silent movie—now in the Oklahoma Historical Society—suggests an answer. It features William Desmond in A BroadwayCowboy, described as a "pippin comedy drama, peppy, spicy, and zippy." Certainly itwas not zippy for Native Americans, for die heroic Desmond "... kills six Indians after breakfast every day." Ken Nolley gives us more details on image-making in his fine essay "The Representation ofConquest," and Frank Manchel in, "Cultural Confusion." Ofparticular note is the contribution of Hannu Salmi, Professor ofCultural History at Finland's University ofTurku. He points out diat the American film tradition has made an impact there, but with a different ethnic minority—the Lapps. In America die tension is between the tame East and die Wild West. In Finland, the dichotomy is nordi versus south. But the inherent ethnic conflict is the same. Native Americans were shown as environmentally sensitive "noble savages" widi much to teach a culture burdened with technology and pollution. In his opening essay, TedJojola picks LittleBigMan as "a milestone in Hollywood cinema," which includes one ofthe finest acting roles ever by an Indian actor, Dan George, who portrayed Old Lodge Skins. Pauline Turner Strong contributes the final essay, "Playing Indian in the 1990s: Pocahontas and TAe Indian in the Cupboard." Despite certain flaws, and unabashed commercialism , she finds that "the dream of tolerance and respect for all life" is clear in these films. She hopes that "playing Indian may offer genuine possibilities for unlearning these (old) processes and imagining new ones—for learning things we never knew we never knew." (203) This diought sums up the real achievement ofthis fine book, which will now be basic for anyone working in diis area. The excellentbibliography, by Steven Mintz, will be helpful in that process, too. - "Thorny Issues" continued from page 98 Overall , Dr. Edwards examines the 84 Korean War motion pictures discussing such pertinent ideas as whyJohn Wayne never fought in this "forgotten war," the legacies and myths associated with these titles, and neglected themes and events. Scrupulously researched and highly informative, this book clearly analyzes every facet ofan important cinema movement. While many titles are available about war films in general—plus a strong collection ofWorld War I and II pictures —this reference book highlights a neglected genre. What are the strengths and weaknesses ofthis period? How did the motion picture industry respond? What conclusions can be drawn? A Guide to Films on the Korean War explains all. Vol. 28.3-4(1998) | 99 ...