The Red, White, and Blue Indian: Nipo Strongheart and Native Rights in the Age of 100% Americanism

Saturday, January 9, 2027: 1:50 PM
Galerie 6 (New Orleans Marriott)
Andrew H. Fisher, College of William and Mary
After the United States entered World War I in 1917, the federal government launched an intense propaganda campaign to instill patriotism or “100 Americanism” in a heterogenous population that held mixed feelings about the conflict in Europe. Ironically, although many Native Americans were not yet U.S. citizens, settler society expected them to support the war effort and prove their loyalty to America. Many did so, but often for their own reasons and with goals that transcended mere service to “Uncle Sam.” This paper uses the case of Nipo Strongheart to illustrate how wartime propaganda could serve multifaceted and even subversive ends in the hands of Indigenous people.

Born George Mitchell, Jr., the man who became “Chief Strongheart” was living in New York City and working in the entertainment industry when Congress declared war on the Central Powers. He promptly registered for the draft but never saw combat. Instead, Strongheart spent the war years as a paid propagandist for the United War Work Campaign and the Patriotic Service League. Appearing in Indian regalia, he encouraged civilians to buy war bonds, exhorted young men to join the armed services, and visited military camps to inspire the troops with tales of Native heroism on battlefields past and present. Like other so-called “Red Progressives,” he believed that Indigenous loyalty and sacrifice during the war would finally earn Native Americans full citizenship. At the same time, however, his speeches criticized white treatment of the “First Americans” and their stereotypical representation in contemporary mass media. Strongheart thus challenged settler colonial discourse and expressed Indigenous ethnic pride even as he supported the wartime drive for 100% Americanism among new immigrants. This complicated (even contradictory) stance suggests that propaganda can serve purposes beyond state control and perform personal work at odds with the settler logic of elimination.