Stereotypical depictions of Native Americans perpetuate historic mistreatment

Right around this time of year, elementary school students craft paper hats complete with colored feathers and buckles, trace hand-shaped turkeys and don’t learn about the truth behind Thanksgiving. This past Thursday, families across America prepared turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing and still didn’t learn about Thanksgiving.

Right about now, we go to class, study, work, go about our daily lives and still don’t acknowledge the injustices that Native Americans face today. This, of course, is just an extension of the historic mistreatment of Native American tribes and our unwillingness as a country to own up to how we marginalize these groups.

Children may learn about pilgrims, “Indians” and the first Thanksgiving, but it’s a narrative told through a white lens: Christopher Columbus discovered America and the Indians helped the pilgrims. Then everyone had a wonderful feast and it all worked out without any conflict.

Schools conveniently neglect to mention the genocide of almost an entire population of people. Reparations and small slivers of land alone won’t fix this damage or change how many people perceive and treat Native Americans today.

And while we can’t necessarily tell young children stories of mass murder and rape, we also shouldn’t exploit these stories and twist the narrative so that the portrayals are completely inaccurate. That’s wrong. And these misrepresentations silence the voices of those who have been brushed aside and forgotten for far too long.

Stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination against Native Americans are nowhere near gone. If anything, it’s even more obvious now how little significance we place on Native American tribes and their cultures.

Native Americans are used as sport mascots and team names. Their culture is stolen from them and used for Halloween costumes or festival-inspired outfits. In film and television, they are depicted stereotypically or are just absent altogether.

This suggests that Native Americans are just characters who serve no greater purpose than as a stereotype, unworthy of being heard or seen. These portrayals are ubiquitous and only serve to perpetuate the notion that Native Americans aren’t real people with real stories.

But a people aren’t a mascot, costume or stereotype. To depict Native Americans as such dehumanizes them and can have adverse effects. Clearly, systemic prejudice and dismissal of Native Americans is still prevalent. Mocking and using their people and culture for entertainment and aesthetic purposes is salt in a wound that hasn’t even healed.

Furthermore, appropriation of Native American culture takes away from even more significant issues facing their communities, like poverty and a lack of educational and job opportunities. These injustices may not be as public as the use of a racist team mascot, but they can be much more impactful. The United States Census Bureau reported Native Americans have the highest poverty rate of any ethnic group — 28.3 percent, compared to the national average of 15.5 percent. Poverty and education can affect a multitude of other factors that determine quality of life — available job opportunities, physical and mental health, food security.

The high school dropout rate among Native Americans aged 16 to 24 was 11 percent in 2012, the second highest after Latinx/Chicanx groups, according to the Pew Research Center.

This needs to be seriously addressed.

While there is no direct correlation between these factors and the portrayal and treatment of Native Americans in our society, it’s certainly not just a coincidence. Poverty and high school dropout rates among white people were far less than those of nondominant groups. There’s an institutional hierarchy of importance in U.S. society, and Native American groups have been pushed to the bottom rung of that ladder.

Thanksgiving and beyond, we need to acknowledge these issues. If we continue to blindly and apathetically take part in a holiday without considering the history behind it, we only perpetuate and allow these inaccurate depictions and stories to exist. These issues need to be addressed, and until they are, the wounds of Native Americans won’t heal.

Written by: Jeanette Yue — jyyue@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

The successes and failures of a revolutionary 1950’s sitcom

I Love Lucy, a TV show from the 1950’s, is often regarded as the show that changed sitcoms forever. I was not aware of this, or any of the thematic and topical issues at play in I Love Lucy, when my family and I watched episode after episode rented from the local video store.

All I knew about I Love Lucy at 8 years old was that it was funny, it made me feel warm inside to watch with my family and it provided a lot more screen time than I was used to getting. Yes, it was a different time. And look at me now! Watching hours upon hours of sitcoms online. How glorious!

In order to write about I Love Lucy properly, I began to re-watch the show; within 10 minutes it hit me how much I had missed in my youth. My mind immediately wandered to discussions of the limiting suburban-era family dynamic, women’s suffrage, the infrequency of interracial relationships on TV and the male-oriented dogma on the appearance of women. There were so many more blatant socio-cultural issues on I Love Lucy that completely escaped me when I was younger.

What, if anything, was I drawing from the show at 8 years old? If I had none of these thoughts or reactions, was I really watching at all? I wonder if the Lucille Ball I knew at that time was the same one enjoyed by viewers in the 1950’s — a goofy, crazy and loveable comedienne, slapstick in her routine — but someone completely disjointed from her clearly (to a more mature viewer) screwed-up circumstances.

The structure of I Love Lucy is built around Lucy’s relationship with Ricky Ricardo, a Cuban musician played by Desi Arnaz, who was Lucille Ball’s husband in real life. Lucy discusses the marital conflicts she faces with her best friend, Ethel, who lives in the same building with her husband, Fred. The two scheme absurd answers to these problems. Ethel is the archetypical female best friend, always offering solutions to the comical situations Lucy falls in, and always falling into them alongside her. Fred is an archetypically grumpy husband who disparages Ethel’s looks and depresses the mood.

In an article in Paste Magazine, “How I Love Lucy Defined the Modern Sitcom,” Chris Morgan discusses the significance of I Love Lucy and its contribution to the sitcom as we know it today. Morgan notes that I Love Lucy was the first of its kind to shoot a multi-camera show in front of a live audience, a practice that sitcoms continue today. It wals also the first show to air reruns, which garnered high ratings and paved the way for syndication. These conventions seem commonplace now, but it’s thanks to I Love Lucy that we are unsurprised to hear of a multi-camera, live sitcom shot on film, in which the two stars are also producers and its episodes run more than once.

I Love Lucy is also notable today for its topical subject matter. In a Huffington Post article: “Why Lucille Ball Was More Revolutionary Than You Think,” Lily Karlin notes that I Love Lucy was the first show to discuss and show a pregnant woman (Ball was pregnant with her first child in the first year of the show’s run). She continued to break convention in the years to come.

Ball was the first woman to own a production company (Desilu Productions was co-owned with Arnaz, at the time that I Love Lucy was aired) and the show became one of the only to feature a multi-ethnic couple. Ball had to fight the network to co-star with Arnaz because of his Cuban origin.

I Love Lucy managed to be simultaneously revolutionary and traditional, appealing to audiences so powerfully that it remains well-loved today. Despite its provocative elements and the avant-garde style of its filming, the undertone of the show revolves around the strict, normative family structure of the time. While Lucy constantly challenges the patriarchy in her home, the very fact that the show itself centers around her relationship re-establishes male dominance in her household and life.

Often, just when the viewer thinks that Lucy is truly challenging the gendered leadership in her life, Ricky’s interests or the sub-plot and circumstances surrounding the challenging conflict indicate that the status quo goes unchanged.

For example, in one episode, Lucy notices that Ricky has been ignoring her. After reading a sexist book about marriage, which says that male disinterest is the fault of the wife, she dresses up for breakfast to win Ricky’s attention back. The irony and unfairness and lack of realism in this is obvious to the viewer, and her attempts to attract her husband’s attention are unsuccessful.

This family dynamic is one that a viewer would likely never see in the family-oriented sitcoms of 2016. Although they borrow heavily from the structure that I Love Lucy introduced, and in many ways mimic the general themes, a viewer seldom sees Modern Family’s Claire, worrying genuinely about the disinterest of her husband, Phil. More often than not, we see Claire irritable and angry with Phil, and frequently critical of his foolishness.  

I Love Lucy manages to be at once subversive and old-fashioned, which might make its continued syndication problematic, especially for young, socially unaware viewers. However, from my vantage point, it’s a great lens through which one can understand the evolution of humor, TV and family life.

Written by: Stella Sappington — sasappington@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.

The importance of Obama’s humanity moving into a Trump administration

I sobbed for a good half-hour on election day.

Partly because Donald Trump had just become the President-elect for our nation, but mostly because it finally hit me that President Barack Obama wouldn’t be leading our nation anymore.

Not only are we seeing the exit of one of the most charismatic, humble and inspiring leaders that this nation has ever seen, but we are also saying goodbye to a man that made sweeping changes to gun control. We are saying goodbye to a man who swiftly responded to national tragedy countless times. We are saying goodbye to a man who called for reform, and when he didn’t get the support needed for it from Congress, signed executive orders to implement changes that many felt were necessary.

Following the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama addressed the nation in his usual eloquent fashion. He promised to “use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators…[because] we can’t accept events like this as routine.” And he tried to do just that, signing a series of executive orders in January that attempted to curb gun violence.

One of the reforms he passed was to strengthen federal background checks by improving processing rates and redirecting more law enforcement to that cause. The mandate also states that no matter where a gun seller is conducting his or her business, they must be licensed and able to conduct background checks. In re-allocating more law enforcement resources to background checks, Obama’s executive order creates accountability on the part of gun sellers.

But it still doesn’t close the straw-purchasing loophole that so many criminals go through to purchase guns. Furthermore, background checks aren’t required at a state level, and only 11 states have extended the background check requirement to some private sales of guns and handguns.

The executive action also included a commitment to improve the quality and accessibility of mental health care to those Americans in need. Obama proposed a new $500 million investment to help individuals with mental illness. In the proposal, he aimed to increase accessibility of mental health care by expanding the service capacity of hospitals and the behavioral workforce. Obama’s eventual goal, through this executive order, is to protect our communities by increasing access to mental health care and eventually lowering the number of deaths caused by suicides — the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.

Not only are Obama’s actions so exemplary of his legacy as president, but they also speak well to his character. When you listen to the speech he gave after the Sandy Hook shooting, you can hear the pain in his voice. You can see the empathy in his eyes. When he says he wants to increase accessibility to mental health care so that troubled individuals don’t die in vain, you believe him.

On Jan. 20, 2017, our country will say goodbye to President Obama and a reluctant hello to a man who uncritically supports the Second Amendment. That’s within his right, because everyone, including Donald Trump, is entitled to their opinion. But it’s when those opinions get in the way of real progress that problems arise.

In response to a CNN interview question asking what we should do about gun violence in relation to mental illness, he responded, “These are sick people. This has nothing to do with guns, this has to do with the mentality of these people.” And when asked what we should do to curb violence in a different interview, he argued that gun laws really have nothing to do with a solution and that it was natural for people to “slip through the cracks.”

A callous and careless response to a serious question is exactly what you would expect from Trump, but it’s still shocking, considering how much gun violence factors into today’s sharply divided America. In fact, the United States’ gun violence problem has everything to do with the laws and nothing to do with the inevitability of people “sometimes” making mistakes.

After the Sandy Hook shooting, President Obama pleaded with the nation to not “accept events like this as routine.” Donald Trump has not shown the same kind of commitment to the nation’s safety.

Remembering President Obama and his character for the next four years will be vital if we are to hold Trump accountable in moments of crisis. Keep Obama’s morals and values in the back of your mind. Because when 2020 rolls around, we need to elect someone like him for president.

Written by: Tamanna Ahluwalia — tahluwalia@ucdavis.edu

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.