Native American criticism
August 9, 2004 8:33 AM Subscribe
What's an Indian, Anyway? Just one of the essays exploring real vs. fake in Native American culture posted At Wanderer's Well. Lots of opinionated reviews of the work of Louise Erdrich, N. Scott Momaday, Tony Hillerman, Ursula K. Le Guin and many others. The surprisingly rich personal site from a former academic (who now calls his departure from scholarly publishing "felicitous") offers hours of reading with detailed side-trips and fascinating links.
An Indian is a native or inhabitant of India. The rest are just pretenders. :-D
posted by riffola at 8:54 AM on August 9, 2004
posted by riffola at 8:54 AM on August 9, 2004
Call me naive, but I've always assumed that the answer to "What's An Indian, Anyway?" is, you know...someone from the country of India.
And in order to eliminate any further confusion over Indians versus Indians, maybe a new nomenclature is in order. How about if we refer to "American Indians" as "Native Americans?" Oh, wait, that would include me, since I was born here in America, thereby making a native of America.
Well, how about if we refer to Native American Indians as "Tribal Americans," since their primary means of identification and cultural association is through their respective tribes?
Damn. Labels are strange things.
posted by davidmsc at 8:54 AM on August 9, 2004
And in order to eliminate any further confusion over Indians versus Indians, maybe a new nomenclature is in order. How about if we refer to "American Indians" as "Native Americans?" Oh, wait, that would include me, since I was born here in America, thereby making a native of America.
Well, how about if we refer to Native American Indians as "Tribal Americans," since their primary means of identification and cultural association is through their respective tribes?
Damn. Labels are strange things.
posted by davidmsc at 8:54 AM on August 9, 2004
Labels are strange things.
Indeed, which is why it's important not to give them too much power. The first link makes that point nicely, I think:
The BIA in exasperation arbitrarily divided the mixed-bloods of Oklahoma into Indian and non-Indian when they could no longer sort out who was who. Some of their decisions were, to put a nice face on it, 'politically motivated.' (Oil had just been discovered in Oklahoma; guess whose land?) Momaday's birth certificate reflects the BIA decision. His life experience, and the work he created, not that birth certificate, are what matter, what make his 'Indianness' significant.
Anyway, I find the "native American"/"Native American" distinction to be useful for the problem you raise, davidmsc. In print, anyway.
posted by mediareport at 9:06 AM on August 9, 2004
Indeed, which is why it's important not to give them too much power. The first link makes that point nicely, I think:
The BIA in exasperation arbitrarily divided the mixed-bloods of Oklahoma into Indian and non-Indian when they could no longer sort out who was who. Some of their decisions were, to put a nice face on it, 'politically motivated.' (Oil had just been discovered in Oklahoma; guess whose land?) Momaday's birth certificate reflects the BIA decision. His life experience, and the work he created, not that birth certificate, are what matter, what make his 'Indianness' significant.
Anyway, I find the "native American"/"Native American" distinction to be useful for the problem you raise, davidmsc. In print, anyway.
posted by mediareport at 9:06 AM on August 9, 2004
I, a white guy, have a bunch of Indian friends, and it's always a pain telling stories to others because I have to explain why I'm talking about people with these crazy names, so it's always "Indian, I mean Asian Indian, not Native American."
Ideally, I guess, I wouldn't have to say anything, but when I'm asked, "Amit...is he Iraqi?!" I feel I have to clear up the confusion.
posted by CrazyJub at 9:13 AM on August 9, 2004
Ideally, I guess, I wouldn't have to say anything, but when I'm asked, "Amit...is he Iraqi?!" I feel I have to clear up the confusion.
posted by CrazyJub at 9:13 AM on August 9, 2004
i always liked the Canadan term "First Nations" (the term "nation" might not be totally accurate in all cases, but it still sounds good, and is distinctive ...) "First Peoples" would be just as good.
fascinating find, mediareport. thanks very much. i'm looking forward to reading the LeGuin essay later.
i think most US "first peoples" prefer the term American Indian to Native American. not sure ... "peoples" is a funny word ...
posted by mrgrimm at 10:17 AM on August 9, 2004
fascinating find, mediareport. thanks very much. i'm looking forward to reading the LeGuin essay later.
i think most US "first peoples" prefer the term American Indian to Native American. not sure ... "peoples" is a funny word ...
posted by mrgrimm at 10:17 AM on August 9, 2004
Call me naive, but I've always assumed that the answer to "What's An Indian, Anyway?" is, you know...someone from the country of India.
Naive.
Like we have no other words that do double-duty or have dubious origins in the English language.
posted by rushmc at 10:32 AM on August 9, 2004
Naive.
Like we have no other words that do double-duty or have dubious origins in the English language.
posted by rushmc at 10:32 AM on August 9, 2004
You don't call tribal Australians um Antarticans do you? So why confuse tribal Americans with some other people?
posted by riffola at 10:43 AM on August 9, 2004
posted by riffola at 10:43 AM on August 9, 2004
Yeah, but they've been called that for a long time and have been calling themselves that for a good while now. That's a strong argument in favor of "Indian" as far as I'm concerned.
I don't really like it, though. But I'm kinda an unreconstructed liberal type of person.
I've been preferring aboriginals for awhile now, though. For very generalized use. In conversation here in the US, I say "Native American", but will probably eventually completely switch over to "aboriginals" in the generic and preferentially use the tribal name when at all possible (since I'm not that happy lumping these disparate people all together anyway).
Anyway, I really liked the linked essay. The "blood" idea strikes me as deeply regressive 19th century racial ideas that are all bunkum anyway. It's cultural and, more importantly, it's most likely natively (as in, "from birth")cultural. But that's problematic, too, since we still have these racial ideas so strongly.
As a practical matter, the best definition is probably the one that excludes wannabes (that is, those who are not "racially" aboringal in any significant way and not natively cultural) but is otherwise very inclusive.
It's nice to see this writer think so highly of Hillerman. As an anglo native New Mexican, I've always had the impression that he handled things very sensitively and informatively.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:05 AM on August 9, 2004
I don't really like it, though. But I'm kinda an unreconstructed liberal type of person.
I've been preferring aboriginals for awhile now, though. For very generalized use. In conversation here in the US, I say "Native American", but will probably eventually completely switch over to "aboriginals" in the generic and preferentially use the tribal name when at all possible (since I'm not that happy lumping these disparate people all together anyway).
Anyway, I really liked the linked essay. The "blood" idea strikes me as deeply regressive 19th century racial ideas that are all bunkum anyway. It's cultural and, more importantly, it's most likely natively (as in, "from birth")cultural. But that's problematic, too, since we still have these racial ideas so strongly.
As a practical matter, the best definition is probably the one that excludes wannabes (that is, those who are not "racially" aboringal in any significant way and not natively cultural) but is otherwise very inclusive.
It's nice to see this writer think so highly of Hillerman. As an anglo native New Mexican, I've always had the impression that he handled things very sensitively and informatively.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:05 AM on August 9, 2004
Perhaps this gentleman knows what an Indian is! (mp3, and apologies for the tangent)
posted by solistrato at 12:17 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by solistrato at 12:17 PM on August 9, 2004
Okay, Riffola. On Thanksgiving Day, you're telling me that you eat /the former Ottoman Empire/ off the best /most populous nation in the world/?
When I was a kid (i.e., until I left graduate school), it was considered appropriate to, when one described a third party as "Indian", gesture either with two fingers raised at the back of the head or one finger pointing to the center of the forehead to clarify.
More polite was "an India-Indian or a Native-American-Indian"?
Most polite was "Would his ancestors have been more likely to be named Singh or Running Bear?"
I generally say "Native American Indian" now when referring to, say, Tecumseh. Just to cover all bases.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:11 PM on August 9, 2004
When I was a kid (i.e., until I left graduate school), it was considered appropriate to, when one described a third party as "Indian", gesture either with two fingers raised at the back of the head or one finger pointing to the center of the forehead to clarify.
More polite was "an India-Indian or a Native-American-Indian"?
Most polite was "Would his ancestors have been more likely to be named Singh or Running Bear?"
I generally say "Native American Indian" now when referring to, say, Tecumseh. Just to cover all bases.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:11 PM on August 9, 2004
Using the same word to describe people from two separate parts of the world, where only of the two sets actually live in the place where the name is derived from, is silly. Turkey, the bird, is not another group of people, nor is china, which btw is a slang for Chinese porcelain.
posted by riffola at 2:39 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by riffola at 2:39 PM on August 9, 2004
gah it should read "where only one of the two sets actually live in the place..."
posted by riffola at 2:43 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by riffola at 2:43 PM on August 9, 2004
Jeez, riffola, talk about silly. Europeans take the land and impose their own culture and history, and you're more worried about the "silliness" of the continued use of the conquerors' descriptions than about the much deeper issues raised by native and non-native responses to that conquest?
Ok, ok, we get it. Now would you mind elevating the discussion a little bit or getting lost? Unless you want to restate your position yet again, that is.
posted by mediareport at 3:01 PM on August 9, 2004
Ok, ok, we get it. Now would you mind elevating the discussion a little bit or getting lost? Unless you want to restate your position yet again, that is.
posted by mediareport at 3:01 PM on August 9, 2004
Among Indians I have heard all versions, depending on the context. Although you hear "Native American" or "First Nations" when cautiously approaching a discussion, once you get familiar it becomes "Indian" or more often "Indin."
Americans have a hard time navigating between myths (i.e. "the melting pot") and historical realities since so much of our collective identity is based on subscribing to a template of national myths instead of the European concept of a state being something that used to be a kingdom and then became a national boundary after 1848 tossed the monarchs.
While we Americans believe "We are all equal" we have to face the fact that a black voter in Florida runs a damn good risk of electoral disenfranchisement, and also that Native Americans (see - formal usage!) have specific laws that pertain to them and not to other American citizens which are based on very old and fundamental constitutional laws. Indian tribes have legally defined identities and rights by law. That's why you can't just start a casino in your home. That's also why you can start a private business in your home town, yet trying it on the Pine Ridge Reservation might be a heck of a lot more difficult. There is no official "Minister of Black/Jewish/Cajun Affairs." There is the BIA.
Given that "Indian" identity can be advantageous ("Hey! Let's get some of that casino money!") at certain historic periods, tribes are pretty strict about defining who is and who isn't considered a part of their community. Utes require 1/4 blood or more. Oklahoma Cherokees require you to have an ancestor mentioned on the 1908 Dawes Roll, which means that something like 170,000 people can claim to be enrolled Cherokees with very little native blood at all, while some Cherokee full bloods who still speak the language like the Kituwha are not enrolled as Cherokee at all.
posted by zaelic at 3:11 PM on August 9, 2004
Americans have a hard time navigating between myths (i.e. "the melting pot") and historical realities since so much of our collective identity is based on subscribing to a template of national myths instead of the European concept of a state being something that used to be a kingdom and then became a national boundary after 1848 tossed the monarchs.
While we Americans believe "We are all equal" we have to face the fact that a black voter in Florida runs a damn good risk of electoral disenfranchisement, and also that Native Americans (see - formal usage!) have specific laws that pertain to them and not to other American citizens which are based on very old and fundamental constitutional laws. Indian tribes have legally defined identities and rights by law. That's why you can't just start a casino in your home. That's also why you can start a private business in your home town, yet trying it on the Pine Ridge Reservation might be a heck of a lot more difficult. There is no official "Minister of Black/Jewish/Cajun Affairs." There is the BIA.
Given that "Indian" identity can be advantageous ("Hey! Let's get some of that casino money!") at certain historic periods, tribes are pretty strict about defining who is and who isn't considered a part of their community. Utes require 1/4 blood or more. Oklahoma Cherokees require you to have an ancestor mentioned on the 1908 Dawes Roll, which means that something like 170,000 people can claim to be enrolled Cherokees with very little native blood at all, while some Cherokee full bloods who still speak the language like the Kituwha are not enrolled as Cherokee at all.
posted by zaelic at 3:11 PM on August 9, 2004
Native American or First American or First Peoples or how about aboriginal or we just call it Indian Market starts in 2 weeks!
Interesting post. I just finished “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” last night.
posted by jabo at 3:23 PM on August 9, 2004
Interesting post. I just finished “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” last night.
posted by jabo at 3:23 PM on August 9, 2004
I liked his reviews, and in particular I never thought about this kind of reading of Le Guin.
That is all.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:54 PM on August 9, 2004
That is all.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:54 PM on August 9, 2004
mediareport, yes, you are right, the tribes should be helped in every way one can to preserve their values and traditions, and at the same time helping them keep up with the rest of the country.
posted by riffola at 4:34 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by riffola at 4:34 PM on August 9, 2004
Many (most?) of them no longer have any interest in preserving their traditions, riffola, and their values are often pretty much the same as those of other Americans. It's never a good idea to marginalize and patronize a population, even (especially?) when your motive is "their best interest."
posted by rushmc at 7:09 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by rushmc at 7:09 PM on August 9, 2004
Many (most?) of them no longer have any interest in preserving their traditions
It’s my experience here in New Mexico that tribal leaders are very concerned about preserving tribal traditions. I do agree that it isn’t good to marginalize or patronize. I think they get a lot of that.
...the tribes should be helped in every way one can to preserve their values and traditions, and at the same time helping them keep up with the rest of the country
You know, that’s almost word for word what whites told the Indians when they were forcing them onto reservations in the late 1800’s. Really, I just read about it (see post above).
posted by jabo at 7:47 PM on August 9, 2004
It’s my experience here in New Mexico that tribal leaders are very concerned about preserving tribal traditions. I do agree that it isn’t good to marginalize or patronize. I think they get a lot of that.
...the tribes should be helped in every way one can to preserve their values and traditions, and at the same time helping them keep up with the rest of the country
You know, that’s almost word for word what whites told the Indians when they were forcing them onto reservations in the late 1800’s. Really, I just read about it (see post above).
posted by jabo at 7:47 PM on August 9, 2004
Many (most?) of them no longer have any interest in preserving their traditions, riffola, and their values are often pretty much the same as those of other Americans.
Sorry, rushmc, but experience teaches me the contrary of your assertion. If you have some proof of your claim, I'd sure like to see it, and I'd bet that I'm not alone in that.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:47 PM on August 9, 2004
Sorry, rushmc, but experience teaches me the contrary of your assertion. If you have some proof of your claim, I'd sure like to see it, and I'd bet that I'm not alone in that.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:47 PM on August 9, 2004
WHy don't one of you folks wondering just ask us what we wanna be called for a ethnic background?
As for Me I'm Mohawk, and an American, Not an Indian or a "native" as that conjures up, Savages and cannibalism. (Yes I know we have a history on that),.
I'm as related to the Navaho as a Swede to a Turk..
so it matters that distinction, so when in doubt ask "what nation?" or in the vulgar, '"What Tribe?".. we are glad to talk about our heritage and identity...
posted by Elim at 9:24 PM on August 9, 2004
As for Me I'm Mohawk, and an American, Not an Indian or a "native" as that conjures up, Savages and cannibalism. (Yes I know we have a history on that),.
I'm as related to the Navaho as a Swede to a Turk..
so it matters that distinction, so when in doubt ask "what nation?" or in the vulgar, '"What Tribe?".. we are glad to talk about our heritage and identity...
posted by Elim at 9:24 PM on August 9, 2004
RushMC seems to me you may have gerneralised from a confused source.. if you haven't already ASK? and if you have WHO told you that? please dont guess.. that leads to stereotyping.. AND I KNOW we are all to smart to do that here?!?!?!
posted by Elim at 9:27 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by Elim at 9:27 PM on August 9, 2004
I'm Oglala Sioux. I am frequently asked about my ethnicity and I generally refer to myself as "Indian," but that usually prompts people to ask "lndian from India or Cowboys-and-Indians Indian?" It's pretty annoying. I think I'm going to start telling people I'm German.
posted by mokujin at 10:10 PM on August 9, 2004
posted by mokujin at 10:10 PM on August 9, 2004
Welsh? That's funny.
Elim: Why don't one of you folks wondering just ask us what we wanna be called for a ethnic background?
I couldn't agree more; I've never understood why it's such a huge problem to follow other folks' preferences for self-description. McAllister, for instance, switches between "Indian" and "Native American" as if they were both acceptable, so I did the same.
So, do any of the, er, First People here want to weigh in on McAllister's author reviews? He's pretty harsh on Vine Deloria, for instance, and the take on Frank Waters on the same page is fascinating.
posted by mediareport at 6:54 AM on August 10, 2004
Elim: Why don't one of you folks wondering just ask us what we wanna be called for a ethnic background?
I couldn't agree more; I've never understood why it's such a huge problem to follow other folks' preferences for self-description. McAllister, for instance, switches between "Indian" and "Native American" as if they were both acceptable, so I did the same.
So, do any of the, er, First People here want to weigh in on McAllister's author reviews? He's pretty harsh on Vine Deloria, for instance, and the take on Frank Waters on the same page is fascinating.
posted by mediareport at 6:54 AM on August 10, 2004
It’s my experience here in New Mexico that tribal leaders are very concerned about preserving tribal traditions.
As we know, leaders do not always represent the viewpoints of the majority.
I'm not suggesting that no Indians want to preserve these traditions, and I certainly favor providing assistance to those who do. I just think it's a big mistake to try to force them down the throats of those who aren't interested, just because of their bloodlines. To me, that's as racist as trying to eradicate the traditions completely.
Sorry, rushmc, but experience teaches me the contrary of your assertion.
YMMV, but I've lived and travelled all over the Southwest and it's quite apparent that many Indians are like Elim and self-identify predominantly as "Americans," in both nomenclature and culture. Which shouldn't come as a shock, as many Americans descended from European or other cultures make no effort to preserve the culture of their forefathers, beyond perhaps a family recipe or two.
posted by rushmc at 10:26 AM on August 10, 2004
As we know, leaders do not always represent the viewpoints of the majority.
I'm not suggesting that no Indians want to preserve these traditions, and I certainly favor providing assistance to those who do. I just think it's a big mistake to try to force them down the throats of those who aren't interested, just because of their bloodlines. To me, that's as racist as trying to eradicate the traditions completely.
Sorry, rushmc, but experience teaches me the contrary of your assertion.
YMMV, but I've lived and travelled all over the Southwest and it's quite apparent that many Indians are like Elim and self-identify predominantly as "Americans," in both nomenclature and culture. Which shouldn't come as a shock, as many Americans descended from European or other cultures make no effort to preserve the culture of their forefathers, beyond perhaps a family recipe or two.
posted by rushmc at 10:26 AM on August 10, 2004
Perhaps this gentleman knows what an Indian is! (mp3, and apologies for the tangent)
Not necessarily a tangent:
posted by piskycritter at 1:13 PM on August 10, 2004
Not necessarily a tangent:
Bush on Native American Issues: When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st century at a gathering of minority journalists he responded: "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a ... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity." Jesse Jackson makes light of Bush's remarks at the conference and we speak with Mark Trahant, the reporter who asked Bush the question.It's painful to listen to, but Bush really does a bad job of responding to Trahant's question.
posted by piskycritter at 1:13 PM on August 10, 2004
Yes, piskycritter, Bush does a pretty bad job, but a few lines later in the show we get this:
JESSE JACKSON: The President explained. You just didn't understand. Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity. If you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand.
BRENT MERRILL: You're right. I didn't understand that.
posted by zaelic at 12:27 AM on August 11, 2004
JESSE JACKSON: The President explained. You just didn't understand. Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity. If you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand.
BRENT MERRILL: You're right. I didn't understand that.
posted by zaelic at 12:27 AM on August 11, 2004
« Older cin-o-matic | Sudsy! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mediareport at 8:41 AM on August 9, 2004