1911 - ".. the pictures grossly exaggerate true Indian life, portraying to the youth of our country that which is entirely false."

In February of 1911, Native American delegates were visiting President Taft to discuss land issues, and their "handlers" (for lack of a better term) started taking them to see the new Moving Pictures at the theaters. At this time, films did not have sound and dialogue was starting to show up in dialogue titles. There was a huge push to censor violent movies, especially those that influenced young children, and American Indians, seeing themselves on film, were none too pleased.

The Washington Post went with the headline: "Indians in "Uprising" and "Moving Pictures, not white man, now their foe" - which, of course, continued the play on the Indians vs White Man stereotype.

The article went on to say: "Objecting to the manner in which they are portrayed in motion pictures, shown in the various theaters in Washington.. call the matter to the attention of the President."  The delegation wanted "to get Congress to enact legislation prohibiting motion pictures in which the Indian is portrayed as a cannibal, etc."  Over 46 delegates signed the petition. 

Un.A.Sud, editor of the Indian Observer, wrote: "The Indian department, and in fact the Christian people, as well as all others having the welfare of the Indian at heart, should rise up with one accord and pronounce a curse upon the present-day so-called Indian productions that are being presented to the public by means of being thrown upon screens at all the little, old 5-cent moving-picture theaters throughout our broad land. I, as editor of the Indian Observer, a paper that is championing the cause of the Indian,hereby vigorously protest against the Indian scenes as representing actual incidents in the lives of the American Indian. If the greater per cent were no absolutely false, demoralizing in character, and acted by white actors, painted up and bedecked with feathers, but were good scenes, acted by real Indian, I would have no objection; but the pictures grossly exaggerate true Indian life, portraying to the youth of our country that which is entirely false."

He goes on to say that he watched "Curse of the Red Man", and it was not as he expected. He disagreed with the plot, the "curse" (which was whisky, of course), and the film itself: "These characters were all acted by white actors painted up a little to look like Indians. Is this a true representation of Indian life? No!"

I found a few stills and newspaper ads for the movie. See for yourself.

Notice the character sitting on the floor to the left. 

1911 advertisements for The Curse of the Red Man 

It's important to note here that, at this time, theaters would often have large posters and cut-outs outside their doors that advertised various films. The delegates may have been exposed to this type of advertising, since it was so common, as were the "Blood and Thunder" Indian pictures that only grew in number and popularity, even after this (first of man) protest.

PS: Here's a description of such posters, from a 1911 Letter to the Editor (it's at the end of this post)  "a string of vividly-colored posters" would be strung across the entrance, "depicting murderous Indians, in the act of scalping their captors, who were on their knees, seemingly pleading for mercy; then, on an adjoining sheet, a young hero, in the act of rescuing an unfortunate girl, who had been cast into the waters of a canal by a Desperate Desmond, and in reward for his bravery, received a knife through his heart, the blood stains clearly showing on his shirt." ... "There were, at least, eight or ten of these posters, each one of a more blood-curdling nature than the other."

1911 Letter in Moving Picture World Magazine