Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Choctaw owned 14 percent and <strong>the</strong> Creek 10 percent. 15 These are not small<br />
numbers, though a large majority were owned by a few elite families. White<br />
people also enslaved Native people. The history is clear. A popular myth<br />
that Black people perpetuate suggests that a large majority <strong>of</strong> Native people<br />
owned <strong>the</strong>ir Black ancestors. That is not true. The movie Harriet, in two<br />
scenes, falls into <strong>the</strong> trap <strong>of</strong> this myth. <strong>An</strong> unidentified Native male who has<br />
no lines <strong>of</strong> dialogue stands in <strong>the</strong> background among <strong>the</strong> Black and white<br />
slave catchers trying to capture Harriet Tubman.<br />
It makes me wonder why <strong>the</strong> producers and scriptwriters included that<br />
detail in <strong>the</strong> first place? Was Harriet Tubman actually followed by Native<br />
slave catchers? Did <strong>the</strong> producers and scriptwriters want a more inclusive<br />
history by including a Native person? Did <strong>the</strong>y want to show Native<br />
complicity in slavery? The script does not make this clear. 16 In failing to<br />
give <strong>the</strong> person context and a history, we can perpetuate <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> Native<br />
invisibility and erase <strong>the</strong>ir own motives for even engaging with<br />
enslavement. While it was wrong for <strong>the</strong> Five Tribes to own Africans, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
existed in a time where white settlers were encroaching on <strong>the</strong>ir land. They<br />
made a difficult and terrible choice to own slaves. <strong>An</strong>d let me be clear:<br />
Native slave masters weren’t better than white ones. 17 To say that Native<br />
people were being benevolent is some sick historical mythology, bordering<br />
on reproducing <strong>the</strong> Noble Savage stereotype. If we could ask some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
enslaved Africans, I’m sure <strong>the</strong>y ain’t want to be enslaved at all, whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir treatment was benevolent or not. Owning Africans was an egregious<br />
practice, regardless <strong>of</strong> who <strong>the</strong> owners were.<br />
I recognize that as a Hollywood production, this film can’t cover<br />
everything, and that you have to do things for dramatic effect. None<strong>the</strong>less,<br />
Native characters can’t exist as some fantasy to serve simply as a foil for<br />
Black freedom. If Black and <strong>Indigenous</strong> solidarity is important, we also<br />
have to be fair in our approach to portraying each o<strong>the</strong>r on <strong>the</strong> big screen, in<br />
<strong>the</strong>ater, on television, in music. I wouldn’t be mad about a Native slave<br />
catcher if <strong>the</strong> character had some dimension to him. Instead, all we see is a<br />
Native man, along with Black male slave catchers, trying to capture a Black<br />
woman. We can do better than this, and our future visual media must<br />
engage in some forms <strong>of</strong> solidarity.<br />
TECUMSEH AND THE FIGHT FOR INDIGENOUS JUSTICE