RGHIST616

Post 10 (14Nov Class)

Indians in Unexpected Places

Philip Deloria’s Indians in Unexpected Places attempts to recover what one could call the lost history of the Native Americans during the turn of the twentieth century. According to the author, most American historical narratives during this period essentially wrote the Indians out of history. Deloria argued that a significant number of Native Americans took part in modernity during this time and that they were not, as some would argue, simply anomalies. He suggested that they were representative of the larger Indian culture’s efforts to exist in the Anglo-dominated nation, some whose goal was assimilation. Indians were often defined by white expectations of Indians, whether it be their style of dress, their interaction with those elements that represent modernity (like the automobile), or careers. Those expectations also involved notions of Indian violence and passivity, with a shift from an ideology of violence to that of pacification.

A recurring term used in this course has been agency. Deloria’s book continues with this theme. His texts argued that Native Americans did possess a degree of autonomy in the world outside of the reservations. The author used Indian athletes, actors and musicians as the example of those who worked within the white world. Ultimately, they failed in their various endeavors, not so much because of their own actions, but due to the changing economic and social worlds around them. Both the movie and sports industry became more corporate. Indian actors were no longer desired as Hollywood became less interested in authenticity. Concurrently, the representation of Indians as violent savages in movies increased. Indian-based music, whether produced and performed by natives or whites, lost ground to jazz and blues.

Having not read all American histories of the turn of the century, I can not argue for or against Deloria’s argument that Native Americans (is that still the P.C. name?) were forgotten. I do believe, however, that he may have overstated his case in stating that a large number of Indians did participate in the modern world at that time. I am not suggesting that he is wrong, but simply that he did not present a strong enough case. Perhaps it is being a bit too critical, but if one wishes to show that the actions of a few are indicative of a whole, then it leaves the author open to the criticism that those are not truly representative.

His use of photography, particularly that of the woman in the hairdryer and Geronimo in the car, does serve as a good illustration of how many of us perceive or expect to see others. I have to admit that those pictures did catch my eye, though I did not chuckle. Of course, perceptions and expectations change over time, and those photographs probably had even more meaning during the time in which they were taken and published.

Like Deloria, David Lewis’ work, “Still Native: The Significance of Native Americans in the History of the 20^th Century American West”, also argued that the Indians have not disappeared. He goes even further in stating they Indians learned how to exist in the White Mans world, using the U.S. legal system to retake that which has been lost. Moreover, Native Americans gained a degree of economic control over their lives. Lewis goes further than Deloria in claiming that they had even more agency. He focused on what he called six broad areas of significance for the Indians during the twentieth century: persistence, land and natural resources, economic development, politics, symbols (symbolic presence), and the American Indian field of study. Within each, Lewis showed varying degrees of autonomy and modern sophistication (meaning working within the white culture) that native groups exhibited.

“Yet for all of the changes in their relationships with American society and the federal government, the mirror the larger reality of the American West as a federal colony…in the end still dependent”. (p226) This statement seemed at odds with the general theme that he appeared to be trying to convey.

Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945 George J. Sanchez

Sanchez’s main argument is “that Mexican-American cultural adaptation occurred without substantial economic mobility”. ( p.13) He was able to show that their economic status largely remained unchanged during this period. It may have been more accurate, however, to state that second generation Mexican-Americans adapted culturally. It did not appear that first generation immigrants adapted so much as their offspring, which is not too surprising.

I was particularly impressed with the author’s use of statistical data to back up his arguments. I do not recall during this course—it’s all a blur—seeing the other authors making use of numbers. Of course, the author had a wealth of information from which to draw from, unlike subjects of earlier periods.

While the book was generally stylistically a good read, he did have a tendency to switch to a mode of writing that we have discussed intermittently in class. When I read this kind of history-speak, I am reminded of interviews with William F. Buckley, Jr. “I argue that the emphasis in Chicano history on bipolar models that have stressed either cultural continuity or gradual acculturation has short-circuited a full exploration of the complex process of cultural adaptation.” (p.13). This is mind-numbing. Both when I read this sentence and typed it, my mind drifted off into space. I realize that this is not a substantive critical analysis of the book, but I find this style of writing pretentious.

Taken side-by-side, both books show the degrees of success that minority groups (Native Americans and Mexican-Americans) had in assimilating or adapting to the dominate Anglo culture in the West. While it seems that the Mexicans were more successful than the Indians in adapting, they were still considered essentially second-class citizens, whose worth was measured in their ability to provide cheap labor to the Anglos. When the economy took a turn for the worse and their services no longer needed, they were pushed aside and often forcibly repatriated. It is strange to consider that these groups had to adapt to another culture, when they inhabited the West far longer than the Anglos who took over.

Blog Responses:
I am not entirely sure that I agree with Dave’s final analysis of both books. While the Native American and Mexican-Americans maintained their unique cultural identity at that time, I am not sure that they were very integrated into American society. At that time, I believe it was less of a “melting pot”, and more of a tossed salad—all in the same bowl but each distinctive. I am interpreting this in the context of the periods in question, not during our current period.

I am not sure if this is relevant, but Sanchez wrote the name as Mexican American, as opposed to Mexican-American. Is not having it hyphenated a stylistic choice, or does it have another meaning?

posted by rgault @ 7:43 AM