Walking Both Worlds: African-Native American Realities

This is a talk I gave at Diversity Conference in Łódź not long ago. I am going to develop it into a decently publishable piece. 

Let's start with some names first:  

Jimi Hendrix - his grandmother was Cherokee, Edmonia Lewis - her mother was Ojibwe, James Brown - part Apache, Langston Hughes - part Native American, Michael Jackson - Choctaw ancestry on his father's side and Blackfoot ancestry on his mother's, Rosa Parks - descended from a Native American slave, Will Smith - part Native American, Tina Turner - identified as Cherokee and Navajo, Oprah Winfrey - part Native American.

Since the early days of US history, Native Americans and African Americans have been linked by fate, by choice, and by blood. Generalizations about relationships between American Indians and African Americans are difficult to make. Time, place, and circumstance shaped the overall parameters. The nature of relations was neither inevitable nor uniform, and interactions varied from amity to enmity. European power in the South rested initially on African labor and Indian land, so from the very beginning colonizers had a vested interest in regulating the races. By the time the United States emancipated its slaves, a pattern of interaction had developed that pitted the two peoples against each other. It has to be remembered that Native Americans, African Americans and Whites, built America together. Their contributions and their interrelationships have filled libraries with scholarly studies, and history texts. The relationship between Europeans and Native Americans and between Europeans and Africans have been thoroughly studied. But one relationship has not. The relationship between red and black people has been neglected. Historian Carter G. Woodson called it “one of the longest unwritten chapters in the history of the United States.”

In 1986, William Katz’s book Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage shed light on the existence of individuals of blended Native American and African American cultural and racial heritage. Black and Indian were terms that seemed to cancel one another out in the minds of some potential readers. These two words and the conceptualizations that accompanied them appeared divorced to critics – as areas of personal and community identity as well as fields of intertwined intellectual inquiry. Black Indian was therefore a category akin to ghost in the 1980s, barely visible, threatening yet incredible, haunting the edges of the American imaginary.

            The incredulity of this public reaction was due to the logical establishment of separate historical literatures about Native Americans and African Americans since the turn toward production of scholarly work on black and native people in the 1960s. It was also due to the long tradition and ongoing tendency for major works in African American history and Native American history to analyze these groups in relation to white historical actors and the U.S. government rather than in relation to other groups of color. Pernicious cultural definitions of race also structured this division, as blackness has been capaciously defined by various state laws according to the legendary one-drop rule, while Indianness has been defined by the U.S. government according to the many buckets rule. While one drop of black blood makes a person black in American legal and commonsense culture, Indianness can only be demonstrated by an overwhelming amount of Indian blood, quantified in the formula of blood quantum. In practical terms set forth by American officials, “Black” did, in fact, cancel “Indian” out. Anthropologist Circe Sturm has effectively described this difference between systems of racial categorization for blacks versus native people, writing: “The rules of hypodescent played out in such a way that people with any degree of African American blood were usually classified exclusively as Black.” What Sturm is trying to say here is that a Black/Indian multiracial combination yields “Black,” while a White/Indian multiracial combination yields “Indian.”

            The expulsion of the Cherokee Freedmen have risen some questions about whether individuals of Native and African American heritage are “wannabe Indians.” Jack Forbes, a noted authority on the relationship between the political manipulation of ancestry and the racial classification of African Americans, Native Americans, and “red-black” people, alludes to a less entertained idea, particularly that the right to self-determination and definition is the right of not only groups but also individuals. For the sake of discussion we need to as the following questions. First, what is a Black Indian?, Second, What motivates some African Americans to claim Native American heritage? The definition of a Black Indian remains unclear and the diversity of what it means to be a black Indian elusive if we do not have answers from the people themselves. Therefore, using a person-centered ethnographic approach allows us to address some general racial expectations of individuals with blended African American and Native American heritage. So, what motivates people who look “black” to claim to be Indian? When answered in a manner divorced from lived experience, this question produces many misplaced expectations about black and Indian mixed-bloods and demonstrates the fixity with which American race-making practices ascribe blackness. The question is of vital importance because it engages the problematic American cultural practice of assessing and assuming identity from skin color. It also lies at the intersection of what Americans – including other Native Americans – expect of people who look “black,” and how Afro-Natives are raised and socialized within their families to understand themselves. Racial expectations have affected how black and Indian mixed-bloods have been understood and why some are motivated to forcefully assert their culturally specific or generic Native American heritage despite their “black” appearance.

            One set of expectations urges black and Indian mixed-bloods to accept that they are black and stop “pretending” to be Indian. This scenario requires individuals to forget that they have Indian relatives and remember that it is skin color that determines who they are. Other expectations suggest that African American and Native American mixed-bloods are only trying to claim that they are Indian based on a remote ancestor, since some Native Americans were historically known for providing sanctuary for runaway slaves. These expectations about African and Native American mixed-bloods create several misconceptions, such as

1)      assessments of heritage from skin color are viable and accurate;

2)      family composition and lived cultural practices can be determined from an individual’s skin color; and

3)      skin color may indicate personal motivational forces.

Anthony Wallace and Raymond D. Fogelson draw our attention to the importance of understanding the types of identities Americans create to cope with inconsistencies between self-understanding and racial recognition. They suggest that individuals are simultaneously themselves and extensions of groups, and the combination may create “an ideal identity, an image of oneself that one wishes to realize; a feared identity, which one values negatively and wishes to avoid; a ‘real’ identity, which an individual thinks closely approximates an accurate representation of the self or reference group; and a claimed identity that is presented to other for confirmation, challenge, or negotiation in an effort to move the ‘real’ identity closer to the ideal and further from the feared identity.”

Thus, while navigating the racial expectations of others – particularly from peers invested in the maintenance of “real Indianness” and “real blackness” – within the contexts of everyday interpersonal interactions, a black and Indian individual with a real identity as one-eighth Cherokee, for example, may assert an ideal identity as three-quarter Cherokee when around Native Americans or Caucasians who do not like black people or believe “real” Indians have high blood quanta. This individual might also claim to be a half-blood Cherokee raised traditionally in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, out of fear of being seen as a black “wannabe Indian” when surrounded by other African Americans or Native Americans who believe black people cannot also be Indians and do not look “Indian enough.” Despite a thorough illustration by Wallace and Fogelson of the dynamic nature of identity struggles among Native Americans, serious misunderstandings regarding whether or not individuals of blended African American and Native American heritage are really “Indian” continue in academics and society.

            Robert Keith Collins using examples from ethnographic research with African American and Choctaw mixed-bloods enumerates three primary categories of Afro-Native American identity – “blooded” Indians, Freedmen, and reclaimers – and illustrates the salience of American Indian blood-quantum policies and the importance of kinship in the lives of African American and Native American mixed-bloods.

            It is also worth mentioning that no other group better demonstrates the misplaced expectations that black and Indian  mixed-bloods should be regarded as black than those who were tribally enrolled by their families at birth, possess a Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) card, or both. This group consists of individuals with varying degrees of Native American blood above and below the one-quarter blood marker: this is the degree that is commonly used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and many tribal nations to recognize an individual as Native American. In practical terms, this means that some black and Indian individuals may be of one-quarter or more Native American blood (verified by a CDIB card) and enrolled in a federally recognized nation (verified by a citizenship enrollment card). Others may possess CDIB cards reflecting blood quanta less than one-quarter Indian, which may make them nonstatus Indians and ineligible for services in the eyes of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In a similar manner, individuals with blood quanta below one-quarter may find themselves ineligible for enrollment – even though they possess a CDIB card – in nations that require a blood quantum of one-half. For example, among the Oklahoma Choctaw and Cherokee, tribal members trace their lineage through descent from one or more enrollees from the Dawes Roll of 1906 to prove citizenship eligibility. It means that any degree of Indian blood can be possessed be descendants from the final Dawes Rolls.

            “Blooded” individuals are often raised with a broader sense of self and consider their blackness part of their Native American history. Self-understanding as an “Indian”, as Robert Keith Collins tells us, may be more associated with immediate, extended, and adopted family ties – such as mother, father, friends of family, clan, and moiety kin – than with their tribe or blood-quantum card. Robert Keith Collins’ studies of  black Choctaw life experiences, conducted in southeastern Oklahoma and the San Francisco Bay Area, have revealed that knowledge of what one’s skin color represents to social peers is usually acquired during interpersonal interactions with nonfamilial peers. Consequently, parents and grandparents (even those without black blood) raised black Choctaw children with a variety of life strategies needed to cope with the prejudices of others. These strategies involved speaking English and Choctaw at home, reinforcing both Choctaw and African American cultural practices at home (i.e. attending local Juneteenth celebrations and Stomp Dances, going to an English-speaking Pentecostal church, singing Christian hymns at home in Choctaw).

            A second type of Black Indian is the Indian Freedman, or Freedmen descendant. They are most commonly found among the Five Civilized Tribes – Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. These individuals were slaves, or descendants of slaves, owned by Native American masters. Freedmen possess varying degrees of Indian blood; the amount is often below one-quarter and they are usually not recognized with CDIB cards. Their slave status and visible African American heritage (as determined by Dawes enrollment agents) originally relegated them to the Freedmen rolls, regardless of their degree of Indian blood. Some nations, such as the Choctaw and Creek, have nonetheless allowed movement from the Freedmen rolls to the blooded rolls for those disenfranchised during an enrollment process that did not recognize the children of Indian men and slave women. Chickasaws, on the other hand, outright expelled their Freedmen in the late 1800s and subsequently refused to recognize them.

            Freedmen descendants have recently been the source of great media controversy, particularly because the Cherokee and Seminole nations have sought legislation to expel their Freedmen descendants and dissolve their Freedmen rolls, claiming these people possess no Indian blood and no longer practice Cherokee or Seminole culture.

            The reclaimers, as a third type of Black Indian, represent individuals of varying degrees of Native American blood who are seeking to reclaim this ancestry by asserting a cultural-specific (sometimes several) or generic Native American identity. The cultural-specific Native American background for many of these individuals is as elusive as their culture-specific African background; many know only that “grandmother was an Indian.” On the other hand, some individuals know their cultural-specific Native American heritage but simply are not enrolled, while others are members of state-recognized tribes that are not recognized by the federal government.

Another type of reclamation can be found among one of the least-discussed populations of Native America: the ever-growing number of Native American individuals and families who are refusing to enroll their children or seek CDIB cards because they disagree with enrollment and/or blood quantum assessment procedures.

Nowadays, Black and Indian mixed-bloods are under heavy suspicion. In interpersonal interactions with nonfamilial others they are expected to be consistent as far as their skin colors and self-understanding are concerned. When they are not consistent, other people may feel free to challenge their assertions of Native heritage. In a way, this practice of identity negation helps motivate such individuals to challenge the misplaced assumption that they should “just be black.”

Being a Black Indian may be examined in terms of three defining conditions: “blooded” Indians, Freedmen, and reclaimers. These conditions involve a range of personal experiences of black and Indian mixed-bloods which, in turn, might motivate individuals to assert their American Indian heritage despite social forces that encourage them to “just be black.” Robert Keith Collins suggest that the motivational forces behind self-understanding and identity should be an area of central importance to scholars investigating Native American and African American identities and interactions.

These three types of Black Indian identity raise more questions for consideration, such as: how class aspiration influence the way a mother chooses to raise her children, the advantages that she may seek for them, and how the children translate these desires into their own lives.

 

Which Witch Is Which? A Very Short Introduction To Navajo Witchcraft

The Navajos form the largest Indian tribe within the United States. Their country stretches hundreds of square miles across northern New Mexico and Arizona. It is a land of arid, sage-studded wastes, awesome canyons, and rock-ribbed mountains. Scattered in secluded encampments and living in eight-sided, dome-roofed hogans, the Navajos get by tending flocks of sheep; making silver and turquoise jewelry, and brilliant-hued blankets; and growing corn, vegetables, and fruit trees in an occasional pocket where rainfall collects or a spring overflows.

Navajo religion, in terms of complexity and richness of ceremonialism, matches that of the neighboring Pueblos. Navajos seem to have borrowed, perfected, and incorporated into their own ritual patterns many aspects of supernaturalism belonging to the village Indians. Another thing worth mentioning is that Navajos were far away from the centers of Spanish settlement in colonial times, therefore were rarely troubled by Catholic friars. However, after 1870 they started to experience the inroads of American missionaries. Representatives of Protestant, Mormon, and Catholic groups competed against one another to attract the largest membership among the Indians. Although the missionaries have preached in Navajoland for a hundred years, their work can barely be considered a success. One needs to realize the fact that many aspects of Christianity are in direct contradiction to Navajo religious beliefs and taboos.

One thing that Christian teaching has not been able eliminate is the Navajos' fear of the dead and of ghosts, a dread that is close to a tribal phobia. In their belief, contact with the dead is considered to be the worst horror that can be experienced or imagined, that is why a great deal of ceremonial procedure is aimed at exorcising evil resulting from chance encounters with the bodies of the departed. Detailed taboos and ritual formulas are rigorously observed by all members of the tribe to counterbalance the harmful effects of an accidental brush with a ghost or witch or by tripping over a corpse. When seen in this light, it may be easily understood why the Navajos look with abhorrence upon a religion such as Christianity that portrayed its holy hero as a god risen from the dead.

Ghosts and witches appear in both Navajo religion and mythology, and since witches cause death through some kind of diabolic acts, they are treated with special revulsion. In Navajo teaching, the deities First Man, First Woman, and Coyote are responsible for introducing witchcraft. Leaving the Underworld the three of them went through different levels of the universe before reaching earth and wherever they when, they practiced witchcraft which made them very unpopular. In the Seventh World they came across Cat People who were witch themselves, but First Man humiliated them and claimed their evil power. When they reached the surface of the world, the deities saw the forebears of the Navajo living untrained and in total confusion and addicted to all shapes and forms of antisocial behavior. First Man and First Woman promised to provide them with stability and knowledge but, unfortunately, there is a price for everything under heaven. With such an organized world the Indians also had to accept witchcraft, disease and death.

More to follow soon.

Native American Identity and Cultural Appropriation in Postethnic Reality

Here's a paper I gave in the international seminar Neo-philology at the threshold of the 3rd Millenium. Multiculturalism, integration and relation in literature, culture, linguistics and methodology of teaching foreign languages.

Native American identity is not only a hotly debated issue in Native American Studies but also it is one of the recurring themes of recent Native American literature. However, one cannot understand Native American identity without a clear understanding of mythology.

Myth is not only a statement about how the world is supposed to function but, more importantly, it “embodies a sense of reality that includes all human capacities, ideal or actual.” Therefore, we can safely make the assumption that myth is a type of story that enables a holistic image to permeate and shape consciousness, consequently providing a consistent and empowering matrix for action and relationship.

            Myth is based on visionary experience and the ability to achieve a vision is a mark of maturity. Vision is believed to be a way of becoming whole, of substantiating one’s special place in the universe, and myth is one of the ways of confirming vision’s place in the life of all people. We need to bear in mind that myth is a story of a vision. Taking into consideration the fact that myth is a “vehicle of transmission, of sharing, of renewal,” we cannot but assume that “myth acts as a lens through which people can discover the reality that exists beyond the limits of simple linear perception.” In this way, people can rediscover their true identities. Myth functions as an affirmation of self that transcends the temporal. It guides our attention towards a view of ourselves, a possibility, that we might not otherwise encounter.

However, the problem of American Indian identity encompasses centuries of colonial and postcolonial displacement, imposed peripherality, and cultural denigration. The recovering or rearticulation of an identity is a process reliant on a rediscovered sense of place as well as community.

            From the standpoint of the theory of narrative, the homing motif is crucial to many genres of Native writing. William Bevis (1987: 582) tells us that “in Native American novels, coming home, staying put, contracting, or even regressing to a place, is not only the primary story, it is a primary mode of knowledge and a primary good.” In practical terms, any Native American novel which employs such a narrative technique tells a story of an individual who has been away from his tribal community for some time returns home and finally discovers his identity by staying. There is also a traditional tribal elder, who is treated with great respect, triggers the resolution of the plot. That elder is usually a relative, parent or grandparent, with whom the protagonist develops a new personal bond. The ending sought by the protagonist is considerably connected with tribal past and place. This “homing” plot describes “tribal past as a gravity field stronger than individual will.” (Bevis 1987: 585)

            Surprising as it may seem, tribalism is not just an individual’s past and tribe is not just lineage or blood relationship; home is not just a place. “Grounded Indian literature is tribal; its fulcrum is a sense of relatedness. To Indians tribe means family, not just bloodlines but extended family, clan, community, ceremonial exchanges with nature, and an animate regard for all creation as sensible and powerful.” (qtd. in Bevis 585) Therefore, certain grounds exist for supposing that identity for a Native American is not a question of discovering “one’s self,” but of finding a “self” that is transpersonal and comprises a society, a past, and a place. According to Bevis (1987: 585), “to be separated from that transpersonal time and space is to lose identity.” Moreover, the tribal “being,” consists of  three elements: society, past, and place. Society of the tribe is not just company, it is the law. Consequently, the protagonist attempts to establish a meaningful bond with a meaningful structure; he becomes a healthy man through long-established social ritual and a self-respecting man through deeds traditional to his people and necessary for them. The second constituent of tribalism is its reverence for the past. The tribal community, which facilitates meaning, continues through time and turns to the past for authority. Tribal reality is deeply conservative and the notions of progress and a fresh start are not indigenous to America. Native Americans believe that past is part of tribal authority and culture and therefore part of identity. What is more, the present has no meaning if it is separated from the past. The third element of tribalism, is the place. Place within Native American context usually denotes the reservation which is not only a place where people are stuck but also it is the home.  (Bevis 1987: 586-592)

            Still, one may be tempted to ask, using Erikson’s language, how is it possible for a young Sioux Indian to have an extremely motivated and synthesized ego if the core cultural realities of buffalo hunter and warrior no longer exist? Issues of Native American identity are complex not only because of legal and tribal criteria but also they are clouded by images that have been projected onto American Indians.

            Such images can be divided into two separate categories: one positive that of the Noble Savage and one negative that of the Ignoble Savage. According to Vickers, the former category is “1) glamorized as the Noble Savage, representing a lost or vanishing human species deemed worthy of emulation or sustained nostalgia; 2) seen as a harmless, childlike race in need of self-improvement, education, civilization, and conversion; 3) permanently consigned to an idealized past, frozen history as an artifact who can be appreciated philosophically and aesthetically but who has no present political reality; 4) seen as a good example to his/her people, having been converted and/or civilized by the dominant culture; and/or 5) considered to be a subservient yet honorable character, capable of assisting the dominant culture in the fulfillment of its destiny (the “my man Friday” syndrome).” (4)

The latter category, on the other hand, “1) lacks a recognizable psychological reality; 2) does demonstrate only negative connotations, that is, as murderous,  primitive, one-dimensional, naked, heathenish, full of gibberish or devilish; 3) is portrayed as “less than human,” and lacking any conscious or moral motivation; 4) has skin color or racial features that are exaggerated, or taken as sufficient to deny him or her human status; 5) has no historical or cultural reality; and/or 6) is, by biblical definition or inference, a “child of the devil” and a hostile Other.” (5) Such positive or negative stereotypical representation of Native Americans not only may be or is regarded as contributing to their dehumanization and displacement but also is likely to facilitate subject/cultural appropriation and misrepresentation. (Vickers 1998:  5)

There is no denying the fact that misrepresentation has taken place and continues to take place in how the minority cultures are treated in fiction and in film. The Hollywood Indian, similarly to its literary ancestor has taken many forms, but two aspects remain the same, namely, difference and savagery.

The movies have created four distinct Indian characters. “First, the noble savage, reflecting Enlightenment preoccupations and romantic ideals, is the child of nature, a spiritual creature, and a proud warrior, endowed with superhuman strength, grace, and bravery. Excellent examples of the noble savage include the Lakotas in Dances with Wolves and Cochise in Broken Arrow.” Second, the less noble, but honorable close companion who is willing to help and sacrifice for white heroes. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Tonto of the Lone Ranger series exemplifies this character. Third, the ignoble savage “has been depicted as resistant, stoic, marauding, treacherous, amoral, and barbaric. A determined enemy of white settlers and soldiers alike, he is the subhuman counterpart to the noble savage.” Finally, it must be emphasized that the Hollywood Indian has been clearly male, “only occasionally giving indigenous women more than a sideways glance, and then, almost invariably as the mythic Indian princess, for example, the title character in Pocahontas.” Such “cinematic representations of Native American cultures and histories have shaped perceptions, practices, and policies. They have encouraged misrecognition of American Indians, warping understanding of their lives, capacities, values, and cultures. Moreover, such distorted understandings of culture and history continue to justify the conquest of Native America, contribute to denial of genocide, and reject the vitality of indigenous sovereignty.” (King 2006:28)

For Native Americans appropriation originates from “the taking of native land itself, the extinguishment of native title through treaties, and the historical repression of cultural practices through state-sponsored violence and legal sanctions. Cultural appropriation flows from these practices in native North America.” It is worth mentioning that identity can also be appropriated. It happens when cultural practices are removed from the locations and social relationships that provide their meaning and power, the core aspects of identity are also eliminated. “Therefore, appropriative practices often result in cultural harm, or in a dilution or distortion of cultural identity. Appropriation occurs when images of American Indians lodge themselves in non-native sign systems where they are assigned new meanings.” (Berman 2004: 384)

A telling example of this is the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams.  Native American mascots reduce indigenous peoples to fragments mistakenly thought to epitomize or portray them. “In the world of sports, Indian imagery breaks down the complexities of Native lives as lived, reassembling them through four dimensions: 1) physical features, invariably nose, skin color, or hair; 2) material culture, including buckskin, feathers, and/or headdress; 3) expressive forms, particularly dance and face painting; and 4) personality characteristics like stoicism or bravery.” Before we look at the particular instances, let us see what the significance of some of the dimensions is.

Firstly, a headdress is a symbol of tribal or clan affiliation and of association with specific spiritual powers, the headdress demonstrated the status and wealth of the wearer and suggested the suitable response from others. The simplest headdress was a single eagle feather, a symbol of status among the Plains people. The brave became a warrior after his first killing of an enemy and was allowed to wear the feather. However, one needs to differentiate between a traditional headdress and a war bonnet. In Plains societies, a war bonnet was one of the most valued articles that a warrior could possess. The war bonnet was one way  warriors documented their achievements in battle. (Barrett and Markowitz 2004: 348) A warrior might make four to five bonnets in his lifetime, each one slightly different from the others. Although the war bonnets were not worn into battle until the result was confirmed, they were always worn in religious gatherings. (Barrett and Markowitz 2004: 781-782)

Secondly, feathers were used for decorative and symbolic purposes. Feather symbolizes trust, honor, strength, wisdom, power and freedom. They could be used to represent spiritual powers and actual achievement of the wearers. The most valued and significant feathers used were those of the eagle. Eagle feathers were especially important in constructing a war bonnet. A white feather with a black tip was preferred. Among the Dakota Sioux, each feather had a particular meaning depending on how it was shaped or painted, for example, a red spot painted on top represented the killing of an enemy. A split feather served as a medal of honor, indicating the warrior had been wounded in battle. (Barrett and Markowitz 2004: 287)

Thirdly, dances have always played a highly significant role in Native American life. The American Indians believed that the earth and all living creatures were possessed by spirits which were understood and controlled by a great number of elaborate dances and songs. Therefore, Native Americans never separated religious occasions from social ones. There were dances for hunting, fishing, rites of passage, rain, and success in warfare. (Barrett and Markowitz 2004: 202-204)

Euro-Americans started using Indian imagery in athletics at the close of the nineteenth century. It happened due to “a number of societal shifts such as the close of the frontier, the end of armed conflict with indigenous peoples, and an associated push to assimilate Native Americans, the expansion of the American empire, and a crisis in what it meant to be and become a man. At the same time, Indian imagery emerged from a long tradition of playing Indian in the United States.” Playing Indian allowed them to shape a uniquely American identity, marking their young nation, emphasizing its democratic values, independent spirit, and historic birthright. The appearance of Native American mascots mirrored the trajectory of the American empire. On the one hand, such mascots are trophies, the prize of conquest, repeating the tendency of the settlers to take and remake Native places and practices without consent; on the other hand, encourage citizens and communities to validate who they are and where they came from.

 The mascot issue first surfaced in the 1960s when the National Congress of American Indians in 1968 launched a campaign to bring an end to the use of Indian sports mascots and other media stereotypes. At the same instant, the American Indian Movement’s founding chapter expressed resentment that calling a team Redskins was as offensive as Niggers, Spics, or Honkies. Many Native Americans consider the word Redskin as an absolute insult to the point of refusing to say the word publicly. (Johanson 2007: 144) In 1998, a coalition of American Indian artists, activists, and attorneys petitioned the Trademark Trials and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent Office to revoke the registration of the “Redskin” trademark because the racist term and associated images violate the Lanham (Trademark) Act. In 1999, the Trademark Trials and Appeal Board ruled in favor of petitioners, however, in September 2003, a federal district court reversed the earlier decision. (Breman 2004: 388)

The term Indians is not openly insulting. Surprising as it may seem, it is the context that may be the problem, not the name itself. In the case of Cleveland Indians, the decisive factor is “the face of stupidly grinning, single feathered Chief Wahoo.” In 1972,  in the context of a lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians, Native activist Russell Means openly criticized the image of Chief Wahoo: “That Indian looks like a damn fool, like a clown and we resent being portrayed as either savages or clowns.” (qtd. in Johanson 147) Means not only stressed the fact that such images perpetuate stereotypes, but also turned to racial analogy to further his argument against mascots. “Take the Washington Redskins … Redskin is a derogatory name … what if we called them the Washington Niggers, or Washington Rednecks, or Washington Polacks?” (qtd. in Johanson 147)

Similarly to Indians, the term Braves is not offensive for many Native Americans. They are not thin-skinned enough to be offended at being called Indians or Braves. It is the  “culture-demeaning antics invoked to boost team spirit in the name of the Braves, most notably the Tomahawk Chop” that is offensive. The Tomahawk Chop involves the synchronized lifting of arms to background music that could “be described as the soundtrack to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “Hiawatha” on a bad-hair day,” as Johanson puts it. (148)

Even if it is possible to accept that the use of Indian imagery in sports originates from a genuine desire and well-meant effort to honor the ideals and commemorate the memory of indigenous peoples, such motives, however, neither wipe out nor justify the detrimental consequences often connected with Native American mascots. Sadly, “educational institutions with Native American mascots provide clear and powerful testimony to the harmful effects associated with the continued use of Indian imagery in sports.” Firstly, such mascots present a distorted image of American Indians. Secondly, they resort to stereotypes and caricatures therefore they misinterpret the cultures and histories of Native nations. What is more, mascots encourage students and the broader community not to recognize and understand Native Americans for who they are, thus they contribute to the ongoing marginalization and exclusion of indigenous peoples. (King 2006: 67)

 It is hard to escape the obvious conclusion that despite the opposition of American Indian leaders, negative effects, and current controversy, educational institutions and sports team will likely keep Native American mascots for the immediate future. There are approximately five reasons such nicknames and symbols will remain popular for the time being. Firstly, there is not a shared understanding about what it means to use Indian imagery. As a matter of fact, most Americans have limited understanding of the history of stereotyping and racism. Secondly, the ongoing debate is not a dialogue, but a cultural battle between entrenched positions. Thirdly, individuals and institutions have fashioned elaborate traditions that make mascots powerful as ways to know oneself, recall the past, have fun, and bond with others. Fourthly, Native American mascots are lucrative. Fifthly, as long as movies and journalism, not to mention educational institutions themselves, continue to shape public opinion about American Indians through partial, superficial, inaccurate, and even stereotypical accounts of indigenous peoples, Native American mascots will thrive.

 

"No bo czasem zmyślamy coś, byle tylko mówić."

Jakiś czas temu, będąc na świeżo po pisaniu pracy magisterskiej z Saula Bellowa, znajomy Amerykanin zasugerował abym zapoznał się z twórczością dwóch młodych amerykańskich pisarzy pochodzenia żydowskiego. Jednym z nich był Jonathan Safran Foer, autor powieści Wszystko jest iluminacją (2003, polskie wydanie) (Everything is Illuminated).

 Jonathan Safran Foer odwiedził Ukrainę, aby odnaleźć kobietę, która ocaliła jego dziadka przed zagładą z rąk hitlerowców. Sam jej nie znalazł, ale stworzył bohatera, którego poszukiwania zostały uwieńczone sukcesem. Tak powstała debiutancka powieść Foera, Wszystko jest iluminacją, która nie tylko wzbudziła kontrowersje, ale i pochwały takich pisarzy jak Salman Rushdie. Powieść stała się też inspiracją dla Lieva Schreibera, który na jej podstawie napisał scenariusz i wyreżyserował film o tym samym tytule.

Bohaterem powieści jest Jonathan, młody amerykański Żyd, który po śmierci dziadka otrzymał od swojej babki starą fotografię. Był na niej młody mężczyzna, dziadek, oraz tajemnicza kobieta, Augustyna. Okazało się, że ta kobieta uratowała mu życie, udzielając schronienia w swoim domu podczas wojny. Dziadek Jonathana pochodził z Trachimbrodu, niewielkiego sztetla na Ukrainie. Jonathan postanawia pojechać tam i odnaleźć Augustynę. Ukraińskim przewodnikiem i tłumaczem Jonathana zostaje Sasza, który niezbyt radzi sobie z angielszczyzną. Kierowcą zostaje dziadek Saszy, który ma nie tylko problemy ze wzrokiem, ale również ze swoją przeszłością. Do grupy dołącza też wierna, acz nadpobudliwa suka, o wdzięcznym imieniu Sammy Davis Junior Junior. Wszyscy wyruszają w podróż, która dla każdego z uczestników zakończy się inaczej, niż mogliby się spodziewać.

Jest to książka trudna, momentami troche irytująca, chaotyczna ale jednocześnie niezwykła. Jest to książka o poszukiwaniu swoich korzeni, własnej tożsamości, odpowiedzi na pytania, które w końcu mieliśmy odwagę  zadać. Jest to też swoista wizja tego, co może się zdarzyć, kiedy już znajdziemy to czego szukamy. Wszystko jest iluminacją opowiada też o potrzebie dokumentowania wydarzeń, o tym jak ważna jest pamięć przodków, dzieki której wiemy kim jesteśmy.
"Ale najgorzej miały dzieci, choć bowiem na pozór mogłoby się wydawać, że nie zdążyły jeszcze nagromadzić aż tylu nękających wspomień, świerzbienie pamięci dokuczało im wcale nie mniej niż starszym sztetla. Wlokące się za nimi sznurki nie były nawet ich własne, lecz zawiązane rękami rodziców i dziadków - do niczego nieprzymocowane, luźno zwisały z ciemności."
To jacy jesteśmy i jak się zachowujemy wynika po części z tego jacy byli nasi przodkowie. Może jednak warto pamiętać, że każdy element historii jest tak samo ważny i nasze życie może być dla kogoś inspiracją w przyszłości.

Warto też zauważyć, że poza miłością, winą czy przebaczeniem, jest to książka o książce, książka, która w pewnym sensie powstaje na naszych oczach. Prawdopodobnie jest to pierwsza książka o Holocauście, której treścią jest sam proces przekładu, a ostateczna wersja wydarzeń jest wynikiem swoistych negocjacji amerykańskiego pisarza z jego ukraińskim tłumaczem. W takiej konstrukcji powieści można doszukiwać się pewnego niepokoju, który towarzyszy kolejnemu pokoleniu pisarzy żydowskich, którzy urodzili się kilkadziesiąt lat po wojnie i nie doświadczyli Holocaustu. Jedynie pośrednie relacje, opowieści rodzinne, oficjalne dokumenty historyczne, filmy czy literatura są dostępnymi źródłami na ten temat. Nieliczni już świadkowie tych wydarzeń też nie są bardzo pomocni, nie pamiętają, nie chcą pamiętać lub tworzą własną historię, która ma im pomóc żyć z brzemieniem winy lub strachu.

I jeszcze na koniec:
"Muszę ci powiadomić, Jonathan, że jestem bardzo smutny persona. Chyba zawsze jestem smutny. Może to oznacza, że w ogóle nie jestem smutny, bo smutek to coś niżej niż zwykłe usposobienie człowieka, a ja zawsze jestem to samo. Skoro tak, to może jestem jedyny człowiek na świecie, który nigdy nie smutnieje. Może jestem szczęściarz."

"Każdy Kurtz ma swojego Marlowa."

Timothy Irving Frederick Findley, nieformalnie nazywanym Tiff lub Tiffy, był kanadyjskim powieściopisarzem, dramaturgiem jak również aktorem odnoszącym sukcesy. Dzięki Thorntonowi Wilderowi, Findley zaprzyjaźnił się z aktorką Ruth Gordon, której praca jako scenarzystka i dramaturg, zainspirowała go do pisania. Po tym, jak Findley opublikował swoje pierwsze opowiadanie w "Tamarack Review," Gordon zachęciła go, aby zajął się pisaniem na poważnie i w latach sześćdziesiątych porzucił aktorstwo na dobre.

Dwie pierwsze powieści Findleya The Last of the Crazy People (1967) oraz The Butterfly Plague (1969), po raz pierwszy zostały opublikowane w Wielkiej Brytanii i Stanach Zjednoczonych po tym jak zostały odrzucone przez kanadyjskich wydawców. Jego trzecia powieść, The Wars (1977), została przyjęta z wielkim uznaniem w Kanadzie oraz uznana za najlepszą powieść roku 1977 (Governor General's Award for English-language fiction), a w 1981 na jej podstawie powstał film pod tym samym tytułem.

Styl pisarski Findleya określany jest jako Southern Ontario Gothic. Jest to swoisty rodzaj powieści grozy, której miejscem akcji jest południowe Ontario, czyli Toronto oraz inne większe przemysłowe miasta, takie jak Windsor, London, Hamilton, St. Thomas czy St. Catharines.  Ale tak właściwie to o czym jest taka powieść grozy z południowego Ontario? Zazwyczaj jest tak, że powieść grozy opisuje i analizuje zło oraz jego rolę w ludzkiej duszy. Podobnie jest też i u Findleya. Wszyscy bohaterowie oraz ich działania skierowane przeciwko ludzkości, logice, moralności są piętnowane w imię małomiasteczkowej protestanckiej moralności i hipokryzji tak charakterystycznej dla tego regionu.

To tyle tytułem jakby wstępu.
Dzisiaj chciałbym opowiedzieć o ksiażce Findleya, Headhunter (1993). Akcja powieści dzieje się w Toronto opętanym tajemniczą chorobą zwaną sturnusemią, przenoszoną przez szpaki. Lilah Kemp, schizofreniczka, obdarzona niezwykłymi mocami, przez przypadek uwalnia Kurtza z 92 strony Jądra ciemności Josepha Conrada. Kurtz nie jest tylko wytworem jej wyobraźni, jest również szefem Instytutu Psychiatrii Parkina w Toronto. Jednak z powodu przyjmowanych leków na schizofrenię nie jest w stanie umieścić Kurtza z powrotem na łamach książki, a tym samym  zmuszona jest odszukać Marlowa, który pokonałby Kurtza
Rupert Kurtz, jako psychiatra, nie jest zainteresowany polepszaniem stanu zdrowia psychicznego swoich pacjentów, bardziej interesuje go to jak daleko moga sie posunąć, aby zrealizować swoje najbardziej wynaturzone, niebezpieczne i często nielegalne pragnienia i fantazje. Szczególną radość sprawia mu manipulowanie wysoko postawionymi pacjentami, pozbawiając ich pieniędzy, zdrowych zmysłów lub tego co z nich pozostało a czasami nawet życia. W momencie kiedy Kurtz wydaje się być niezniszczalny, pojawia się Charlie Marlow.

Ale o co chodzi w tej powieści? Timothy Findley prawdopodobnie chce zlokalizować bądź też nazwać współczesne jądro ciemności. Jeżeli człowiek się zmienia, to czy ta zmiana pociąga za sobą pojawienie się nowych form obłędu, nowej ciemnej strony, może niekoniecznie mocy, ale na pewno ludzkiej psychiki? Findley nie do końca realizuje swoje założenie, że każdy Kurtz ma swojego Marlowa, ponieważ okazuje się w trakcie podróży w górę rzeki, że Kurtz jest o krok dalej, poznał kolejną odsłone strefy cienia. Z drugiej strony, według Findley'a, pojawienie się Marlowa jest wynikiem swoistej wdzięczności wobec Kurtza, nie tylko za doświadczenie zła ale również za znalezienie nowego sposobu walki z nim.

Nowa proza kanadyjska

Debiutancka powieść Alexiego Zentnera, Dotyk, jest historią wyimaginowanej osady Sawgamet, ukrytej głęboko w leśnych ostępach na północnym zachodzie Kanady oraz jej założycieli, rodziny Boucherów.
Początek powieści jest swoistym zakończeniem, zamknięciem pewnego cyklu. Narrator, Stephen Boucher powraca do swojej rodzinnej miejscowości aby doglądać konającą matkę. Stephen, anglikański pastor, który wychował się w Sawgamet, w atmosferze tradycyjnych wierzeń i ludowych obrzędów. W przeddzień śmierci matki, Stephen, pracując na mową pogrzebową, przypomina sobie historię życia i śmierci swojego dziadka i ojca. Wspomnienia te sprawiają, iż czytelnik staje się uczestnikiem swoistej historii  tragedii rodzinnej.

Zentner przedstawia przeszłość poprzez kluczowe postacie z dzieciństwa Stephena - jego dziadka Jeannota, jego ojca Pierre'a, oraz jego ojczyma Earla. Wszystko wydaje się być istotne i częścią większego planu, nawet przejście na emeryturę Earla, anglikańskiego pastor, jest ważnym elementem całej historii. Zentner pokazuje w jaki sposób rzeka i las, które stanowią podstawowe źródła utrzymania, kształtują mieszkańców i określa ich tożsamość. Mieszkańcy Sawgamet zaczynali jako poszukiwacze złota, a wraz z wyczerpaniem się zasobów złota, stali się drwalami lub właścicielami sklepików. Warto pamiętać, iż tożsamość to bardzo złożona kwestia, nie jest stała i dana na zawsze, gdyż nawet śmierć nie jest w stanie zatrzymać dalszych możliwych zmian. Ale ten temat będzie poruszony w moim bardziej akademickim projekcie. ;-)

W pierwszy rozdział powieści wplecione zostało opowiadanie, o tym samym tytule - "Dotyk," za które Zentner otrzymał nagrodę O'Henry'ego. Rozdział opowiada historię śmierci ojca i siostry Stephena, jednocześnie wprowadzając dwa motywy przewodnie - zimno i śmierć. Zmieniają się bohaterowie i okoliczności, jednak koniec jest zawsze taki sam - ktoś umiera podczas zimy. Żal i strata bliskiej osoby, w pewnym sensie dodają kolorytu powieść, jednak autor, zachowuje właściwe proporcje między żyjącymi i tymi którzy zginęli, tym samym zapewniając czytelnika, iż gdzieś pośród tej tragedii tli sie jeszcze iskierka nadziei. Pomimo  rodzinnych nieszczęść, powrót Stephena do Sawgamet daje nadzieję, iż może wszystko nie jest stracone.

Ale czym właściwie jest Dotyk?
Jest w pewnym sensie historią osadnictwa. Nastoletni Jeannot rozkręca interes w puszczy tylko dlatego, ze jego pies nie chce dalej iść. Okazuje sie, że w miejscu w którym zatrzymał sie pies, Jeannot znajduje duży kawałek złota, który nie tylko zapewnia mu ekonomiczne bezpieczeństwo ale również rozpoczyna gorączke złota.
Jest też swoistym studium duchowości. Duchowość w powieści reprezentuje nie tylko anglikański pastor, który jest narratorem, ale również duchy z indiańskich legend. Otaczający Sawgamet las zamieszkany jest przez wektiko i qallupiluit - mityczne stworzenia, które polują na ludzi i dzieci. Poza zimnem i śmiercią, wiara jest jakby kolejnym motywem w powieści. Można się zastanawiać czym jest wiara i w co wierzyć. W powieści ta wiara chrześcijańska przplata się z wierzeniami Indian. Mieszkańcy Sawgamet wierzą, iż las, który jest źródłem utrzymania i stabilizacji ekonomicznej, jest również niezbadaną siłą, która potrafi wymierzyć ludziom sprawiedliwość.

The Two Wolves - A Cherokee Story

 A young boy came to his Grandfather, filled with anger at another boy who had done him an injustice.

The old Grandfather said to his grandson, "Let me tell you a story. I too, at times, have felt a great hate for those that have taken so much, with no sorrow for what they do. But hate wears you down, and hate does not hurt your enemy. Hate is like taking poison and wishing your enemy would die. I have struggled with these feeling many times."

"It is as if there are two wolves inside me; one wolf is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way. But the other wolf, is full of anger. The littlest thing will set him into a fit of temper."

"He fights everyone, all the time, for no reason. He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great. It is helpless anger, because his anger will change nothing. Sometimes it is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, because both of the wolves try to dominate my spirit."

The boy looked intently into his Grandfather's eyes and asked, "Which wolf will win, Grandfather?"

The Grandfather smiled and said, "The one I feed."