Can somebody please tell me why wooden Indians are offensive?

Thanks for asking. 

Native Americans say they are offended by the stereotype promulgated
by the iconic "wooden indian" as a stoic, wooden figure, unworthy of
the same respect accorded Caucasians. Whether carved in real wood, or
in person, Native Americans were depicted as not having feelings, and
therefore, "no better than animals." We understand differently, today,
of course.

Part of the difficulty in understanding why the wooden indian is
offensive also might be a matter of geography, and individual culture.
In various areas of the country, and within various social groups,
there are different degrees of sensitivity to Native American
heritage, ranging from complete neutrality, to approval to dislike and
distrust. Those preconceptions will likely carry over into our own
opinions.

I've located some background material on Cigar Store Figures, and the
stereotypes involved from the Native American perspective. I've quoted
an excerpt, and recommend reading the full article. (We're permitted
to quote only short excerpts from copyrighted materials.)

"The Cigar Store Indian Chief is a figure loaded with contradictions.
The image of the Native American suggested divergent mystiques in the
mind of the tobacconist's frequenter. First the natives introduced the
tobacco plant to the English settlers and therefore remained connected
to the product. However, by the late nineteenth century the natives
were no longer the actual source of tobacco, which was raised by the
labor of blacks and poor whites. Neither did these figures represent
laborers anyway. The proud chief, even if he was scouting or hunting,
represented a savage correlative to the white gentleman who was the
target market. Many of these figures offer cigars by hand, and are
thus noble though emasculated servants. The Chief stood on the
pavement as an idealized, romantic, and enigmatic Other to attract the
white businessman in need of a good smoke."

Peace Party | Wooden Cigar-Store Indians
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/woodenna.htm


The "Big Chief" sterotype is detailed as well, and several
theories/opinions of offence are offered. One excerpt: "Where did the
"chief" stereotype come from? One theory is that it started with
George Catlin's 1832 portrait of the Mandan chief Four Bears. See In a
Chief's Portrait, the American Indian Image Is Cast for more.

Paintings, dime novels, Wild West shows, and movies cemented the image
over time. Honoring the Plains chief in full headdress became a way of
expiating our guilt over decimating the Indians. "We killed them all
with guns or smallpox, but look how regal they were in their prime."

Peace Party | The Big Chief
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/chief.htm


When offence is taken, at the time feelings are hurt, or even later
on, there really is no real way of "taking it back." The offence is
out in the open, it's understood differently by both sides, and the
feelings engendered are just "there", irregardless of whether amends
are made or not. Some can forgive, others not. I imagine that it would
take quite a bit of apology, affirmative action, or quite a bit of
untaxed gaming money to make up for the offenses committed against the
"original owners" of the area now known as the United States, by both
the government(s) and private individuals.

I am sure the Commentary to this question will continue to be lively,
and offer you additional viewpoints. If you have questions about the
materials, links, or opinions I've provided, please, feel free to ask.

---larre


Search Strategy | Google Search Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"cigar store indians" "native americans"

I find wooden Indians offensive for the same reason that I find Black
"lawn jockeys" offensive.

I would feel insulted if a racial or ethnic group to which I belonged
were turned into a mascot. A symbol of this type seems to say "aren't
they quaint," or "how cute they are," which may seem like praise, but
is (accurately, I think) perceived as demeaning by members of minority
groups.

It's a legitimate sign of a tobacconist going back to 17th century
England, connecting tobacco with the Indians of Virginia. Statues or
carvings or pictures were used to identify shops because most people
couldn't read English. Some of the woodcarvers who made these statues
in 19th century America were Indians. And they are being made again
today, for collectors.

Wooden Indians certainly have an interesting history. But times have
changed. I am not surprised that persons of Native American ancestry
are offended by these vestiges of the past.

Many racial references that were once considered acceptable are now
considered offensive.

Are you saying wooden Indians mock Native Americans in the same way
that black lawn jockeys mock African Americans? Black lawn jockeys I
can agree with, because in my mind, they are making blacks look like
slaves, but wooden Indians are just standing there. Okay, maybe they
are a little shorter than a full size Native American, but their
features aren?t emphasized, they aren?t holding the door open for
anybody, they certainly aren?t holding a lantern so the white man can
see the walkway.

What about suits of armor? Do they mock Knights?

Doe?s the plastic Ronald McDonald at every McDonald?s mock clowns?
Clowns are probably a minority, right?

I?m obviously being sarcastic, but I guess I?m looking for something
in history that says at what point, or what feature, of a wooden
Indian makes them offensive. Do they represent something that I am not
aware of? Do they have a past that I do not know?

I think the wooden Indians are easily compared to the "lawn jockey"
because they signify a more discriminatory time toward the end of
Native Americans'natrual prominence in this country when they were
prohibited by law from entering into business establishments and
consorting with "white men". Instead they were forced to stand
outside, nearby normal business traffic areas where the shops were
located and hawk their hand made wares for pennies, having been
virtually reduced to beggars by their more afluent oppressors. Many
were even made to become living museums where people would come and
"examine" them and in spite of it some often turned the experience
into meager profit by selling beads, cheap cigars or other merchandise
he would only afford to those who came to gawk at "the Indian".

Yes, you're right, wooden Indians "are" just standing around, and I
can't point you to a specific reference to it but I would logically
assume that it's the historical REASON why their lifelike counterparts
were "just standing around" that makes the issue an offensive one.

Regaards;
tutuzdad-ga

Wooden Indians are not anywhere as near offensive as Dead Indians and
there were plenty of those around during the 'pioneering days'.

Surely whatever conclusion people come up with it will be thought of
as barbaric and old-fashioned at some time in the future. Conversely,
that same conclusion will also be thought of as acceptable by the same
people at a different time. Just look at the change in acceptability
of the words, coloured and black. These two words have (at least in
the UK) over the years had peaks and troughs of acceptability ? if you
doubt this, just get your hands on the guide book for judge?s language
in the English courts. I'm sure that the fate of the wooden indians
will be no different...