See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236757270

Native American Representations: First

Encounters, Distorted Images, and Literary
Appropriations (review)

Article  in  Anthropological Quarterly · January 2003

DOI: 10.1353/anq.2003.0041

CITATION READS

1 271

1 author:

Susan Johnston
George Washington University
13 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Susan Johnston on 09 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BOOK REVIEW

Susan A. Johnston
George Washington University

BataJlle, Gretchen M. (ed.). 2001, Native American Representations:

First Fncoiinters, Distorted Images, and Literary Appropriations.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

A s an archaeologist who has worked with Native Americans, and as a parent

who is constantly faced with the impossibly naive picture of Indian people
that is presented to our children, the issues raised in the title oi this book are
of considerable interest to me. The many ways that Native Americans are rep-
resented m various media are not only an interesting academic problem; they
also impact the real lives of real people. That makes this an issue that should
not only be discussed among interested intellectuals, but also one that should
be brought to a wider audience.
While I didn't really expect this book to be one that I could recommend lo
the average person interested in improving the representations of Native
Americans in the real world (it is a conference volume after all, and so most em-
phatically not the real world), I found this book even more frustrating than I ex-
pected. In many ways, it represents both the best and the worst of what has
come to be called post-(fill in the blank—processual, colonial, modern, de-
constructionist) analysis. While some of the articles make some very good
points with varying degrees of success, many of them are so mired in jargon
that, even if there was a good point buried in them, it was difficult to figure out

561
Cirrtrhrn M li.it.iillc's Native Amaru tin Rrpicscntcitions

what it was. And I have a PhD in anthropology, I offer the following examples
from fhe book:

"One could say thaf this particular cross-culfural applicafion of Lyofard's

differend challenges his notion thaf the differetid signilies a negation, but
thaf would be foo reducfive,"

"Whaf such guides, as a whole, do is creafe a gap thaf one can read dit-
ferenfly: as hypocrisy, as fragmenfafion, as more or less infended suh-
version or dcconsfructinn, or as fhe manifesfafioti of a discursive prublerti
fhaf in our post-deconsfrucfionisf perspecfive leads fo fhe more or less au-
tomatic self-subversion of fhe discourses employed,"

"Field logics of cyclic interchange have made indigenous agency visible fo

colonized peoples if nof to fheir colonizers infoxicated by fhe violence of
dualities."

I understand fhe various poinfs being made, huf wuuld iiiosf people make fhe
effort?
This raises an inferesfing poinf fhaf I have rarely seen addressed in posf-
pro/col/mod/dec analysis. Since most academics, parficularly those who pres-
ent papers in fhe same symposium, already agree fhaf fhe represenfafions of
Nafive peoples range from suspect fo insulfing, why are we sfill wrifing papers
fhaf only other academics (and nof even all of fhose) can undersfand? Shouldn't
we be frying fo convince everyone else insfead?
Amid fhe jargon, however, there are some good points made here, in rea-
sonable language. Despife whaf seems fo me fo be an excessive number of ci-
tations of ofber aufhors, the firsf paper, by Louis Owens, makes an inferesting
poinf echoed in different ways by Kafhryn Shanley, David Murray and Hartwig
Isernhagen: in order for Nafive American wrifers fo reach fhe larger populafion.
fhey musf presenf fheir poinf of view in a way fhaf can be undersfood by
fhaf populatiun. However, by doing so, fhey may sacrifice fheir sfafus as "ouf-
sidcrs" or even comprumise their idenfify as "Indians." If is ironic when authors
commenf on how if is unfair fo impose a definifion of "Indianess" on anyone
and fhen go on fo suggest thaf popular wrifers such as N. Scotf Momaday and
Sherman Aiexie aren'f somehow "real Indians" because fheir writings appeal
fo non-Indians. Sfill, fhis is a good poinf—howfo convey fhe experience of be-
ing Nafive American tu someone who is nof Native American, without com-

562
 SUSAN A IIIIINSION

promising that identity. These authors suggest that this is done with varying de-
grees of success.
The papers by |ohn Purdy and Hartwig Isernhagen are spetific analyses of
particular media, Disney versus Native American film in the first case and the
state guides produced by the Federal Writers Project in the second. Purdy pro-
vides a useful analysis of generally little known (at least to me) Indian films,
along with his Disney discussion. Isernhagen's point about the ways in which
otherwise contradictory aspects of history can also allow for multiple interpre-
tations underscores the point that the reader has as much impact on the mean-
ing of a document as the writer does.
Jarold Ramsey and Kathleen M. Sands both address, in rather different ways,
issues raised by narrative literary forms. Both make the point that the collabo-
rative effort which produces these forms, traditionally interpreted as largely ex-
ploitative, are more complex. Ramsey argues that one cannot assume that the
narrator is a passive participant, but rather that an impressive literary product
can result from the narrator's translation from oral to written context. Sands, af-
ter a long discussion of her own feelings about translating a narrative autobi-
ography (which, to be honest, comes off as somewhat self-serving), makes a
similar point—that one tends to assume that the collector/editor of the narra-
tive has ail the power, when in fact it tan be argued that the narrator has many
ways lo both (.ooperate and resist in the telling of the tale. A. Lavonne Brown
Ruoff's discussion of Native American writings on buropean American culture
provides much more direct evidence of a similar point that Native Americans
were perfectly capable of commenting directly on the hypocrisy of the dominant
culture in their own writings, bypassing collector/editors altogether.
Finally, I must mention the well-written Afterward, by Kathryn Shanley. It is
ironic that such an eloquent summary should be made of a collection of arti-
cles that, while making a number of useful and important points, are so often
impenetrable.
I he major take-home point here is that we have written enough to convince
ourselves that we need to think about how people arc represented. Now what
we need to do is start working on everyone else. Perhaps every writer about
Native American representation should explain their points to an average
American, or Native American.

563
View publication stats