Why do you want to write about Indians (money,
passion)? What do you really
know about Native Americans? For example:
“Are you aware of the numerous groups that make up the term
“Apache” (such as Mescalero, Membreno, Lipan, Chiricahua, Coyotera,
Jicarilla, San Carlos, White Mountain, etc.)?”
In this book you will find Mihesuah’s
recommendations on how to write about American Indians (the do’s and
don’t’s). The book
contains information about everything from obstacles and stereotypes/myths
to editing and submitting written work to a publisher.
One of the problems with the book is it does not say who the
intended audience is. If the
book had been written strictly as a guide for writers, students, and
scholars (in general) to get published, I would recommend it.
Instead, however, it incorporates an American Indian theme that
seems to be directed to non-Natives who wish to write about Natives.
While the book is informative, it left me with a nagging question
about the appropriateness of its perspective.
Why not direct the book to young (or as yet unpublished) Natives
who might aspire to be authors; rather than discussing topics with
non-Native peoples that perpetuate the stereotypical images and paper
genocides?
Things to
think about
I understand that tribes want more control of the
information that is written about them, and I understand why.
However, I don’t necessarily want the tribe to tell me what I can
and cannot write or who can and cannot interview me or to determine the
worth of my words. Like it or not, our First Amendment right to freedom of
speech is guaranteed; and, if we say a sovereign tribal nation has the
right to approve or publish books, wouldn’t that be a denial of our
basic right to speak freely?
“If you are familiar with a tribe’s religion,
then you already know you should not discuss it” (Mihesuah, p.21.)
How does one distinguish between religion and everyday practices in
indigenous culture, particularly when viewing them from the outside?
If one cannot make such a distinction, how can they be encouraged
to write about any aspect of Indian life?
Here is an example: If
you interview two members of five different families and ask them about a
particular aspect of a ceremony, how many different answers will you get
about the ceremony? Ten? Each
person sees and has a uniquely personal way of seeing and understanding
the ceremony through their own lens.
If one of them presents that personal view as specific instructions
or protocol for everyone else to follow, nine others will say it’s done
differently. Is this the
reason why we have so few Native writers?
In chapter 2, Stereotypes and other myths, Mihesuah
tries to dispel several myths in popular culture about Native people and
by doing so has created a few more; e.g., “There is no way the tribes
could have known about one another – much less gotten together to
cooperate – long enough to repel the initial invaders” (p. 24).
Is she saying there were no trading routes, scouts, messengers, or
inter-tribal gatherings? Wasn’t
that an inter-tribal gathering at Sand Creek?
“All Natives are full-bloods” (p. 28).
Raising the issues of blood quantum and enrollment criteria with
non-Natives is scariest of all—especially since both derived from
federal efforts to control and limit Native populations.
We as a people need to understand that blood quantum was not an
Indigenous idea, but rather purposeful form of paper genocide used by the
U.S. Government to renege on treaty obligations.
It has become a form of internalized oppression among our own
people, and by using the terminology for full-, half- or quarter-bloods we
are perpetuating our own demise.
Marlette
Grant-Jackson – ITEPP-CRC
More Resources
