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.
