Fresh Perspective on Four Souls, From Someone Who Hasn't Read it

For this last blog I decided to do an interview. In efforts to combat essay indecision, I had requested the help of a family friend. She graciously offered to answer any questions I had and, not wanting her knowledge and experience to go to waste, I am posting a conversation I had with her that deals a lot with the themes seen in Four Souls, as well as some common themes of the course overall. Gail Woodside is completing her PhD at Oregon State University. She has a degree in Native American Studies, as well as degrees in many other subjects. She is a mixed blood Native person, being part Apache and part Creek Indian. Please note that the answers are not always word-for-word direct quotes, as this interview was done over the phone and I can only write so fast, but the responses are very near to what was said and for the most part I have tried to keep the answers verbatim, and any rephrasing has been done as carefully as possible to prevent loss of the original meaning.

Have you ever read Four Souls by Louise Erdrich?
No, but I have read Louise Erdrich before, such as The Antelope Wife.

What would you consider some common Native American stereotypes?
People think we all look the same. We all have black hair and dark skin. We all speak the same language, ride horses and live in teepees—especially horses and teepees—and wear eagle feather bonnets.

What do you think about blood quantum?
Blood quantum was made to assign land to Native Americans and to make them become more like the colonizers, become “farmers.” At first, the government decided how much Indian blood a Native had based on how they looked, and then enrolled them in tribal nations. The problem is, you can be 100% Native, but the government only recognizes part of you because you can only be enrolled in one nation. It was convoluted in the beginning because percentage was based on appearance, which is not accurate. Very scientific. The idea was to take away land from the Native Americans and get rid of the “Indian problem.”

Do you think blood quantum is a problem between Indians?
We call it “intraracism.” It comes from generational trauma that arises from dealing with so many changes over the years, from being taken from your status as a human being, put in boarding school and deprogrammed. Their philosophy was “save the man, kill the Indian,” and my family was caught in that. You’re expected to be non-native in a world with an increasingly European “slant.” I think it’s not very common among Indians. It’s spotted, but it also depends on what part of the country you’re from, if you’re urban/rural, and if you’re on a reservation or not.

What makes a story specifically “Indian?”It depends on who wrote it, if it’s fiction or nonfiction, what the content is. Everything was traditionally oral, but we write down more and more as we lose Native speakers. It’s important to ask: who gave them permission to tell the story? Some things can only be told at certain times of the year. In fiction, you can tell by the content how true the material is, and how genuine the author’s intent was.

Can non-natives write about/for Native Americans?
If it’s about beliefs or stories they can if they work hard with the Native Americans, if they have a good heart and work hard to ensure what they’re writing is true. It has to be done with a lot of care. Some people just write to exploit the Native Americans. One non-native author ran his manuscripts by the Navajo Council to make sure he didn’t offend anybody.

What would someone who didn’t have a soul look/act like?
I guess a shape-shifter. We have stories about people who shift into wolf-dog-coyote creatures. They’re like witches, so to me it would be the shape-shifter that can morph itself into a dog-like creature. They’re evil because they have gotten into dark things, and they want to hurt you, to take your soul. It’s said they grind up human bones and blow them in your face, to make you sick. (*I personally thought this statement was especially chilling, and commented that it was like they were forcing death into you. Now that I read it again, it’s more like a living death…suffering.)

What if you have more than one soul? Can this be bad?
No, it may refer to different genders. Or may have something to do with their religious belief systems.

Louise Erdrich incorporates many Native stereotypes into her work, why would she do this?
To make people think. If you’re an Indian on a reservation, there is a lot of alcoholism, but not all Native Americans are drunk. There are a lot of stereotypes that people have about Natives. We don’t get free school, we have to pay taxes too, the government doesn’t give us all the money we’ll ever need, we’re not all unemployed… (*I just wanted to make it clear that the alcoholic Indian stereotype pervades throughout the continent, and is not solely associated with Reservation Indians. A common misconception is that Native people in general are alcoholics. Of course, we understand that this is not true.)

In the book Four Souls, one of the characters describes the soul as “what the owl pukes…the story—all that time does not digest” (71). What do you think of this statement?
That’s pretty interesting. We all know what those look like—bones and hair. I see it as skin and bones, but nothing on the inside. What makes their spirit, the essence of who they are, is not there. It’s like walking around without consciousness.

What is the significance of a name? Can being nameless have negative effects?
No, I don’t think so. Being named usually comes from relatives in the past, to preserve and honor the spirit of ancestors. But in the story, it’s like the boy was never given a name, so was never really a part of the people, so he is empty. Names depend on beliefs, so I’m not sure how to answer... because they didn’t give him a name, he continued to degenerate inside until there was nothing there. Sometimes we don’t name children until they’re 3 or 4. Until then, they have “baby names,” and they can change. (*at this point she describes how she’s had many names, and says that her current name was given to her when she graduated from college). Naming depends on tribal beliefs. Some tribes have naming ceremonies, which are a big deal.

What makes a place sacred?
That’s a really heavy question. It depends on who you’re talking to. To me, the whole world is sacred and needs to be treated with respect and beauty, because she is our mother, and we walk upon the bones of our ancestors. Sacred places are also places of emergence, where we emerged from another world into the world we are in now. It’s not a definition you can make that doesn’t have a 100 different meanings.

Does revenge ever really bring happiness?
No. It just makes things more complicated than they were before. It creates a continuation of negativity, which causes chaos and makes other things more negative. All of our actions have reactions. I think of it like a rain drop into a lake. One rain drop hits the surface and makes ripples that flow out. When other rain drops hit the surface, they form ripples as well and they can collide.

It was really interesting to talk to Gail. She was really knowledgeable and had a lot of personal experience that she could relate my questions to. I think a lot of people (including myself) are sometimes under the impression that all Native culture is very similar or even the same, but that’s not the case. Gail answers many questions by saying that it depends on the tribal beliefs, and some of her responses show the different interpretations that come from different cultural aspects. However, there are still many similarities. For example, she mentioned to me the story of the hero twins, who went around the earth getting rid of evil things and making it into a safe place that humans could survive in. This is a variation of the hero twins from the beginning of the course during our readings of the Popol Vuh. Overall, my conversation with Gail was fascinating, and I feel like I’ve definitely gained some new insight into the themes of Four Souls, as well as other themes that we have discussed in class.

Back to the Rabbit Theme

Darcy McNickle’s story “Hard Riding” focuses on elements of humor and absurdity and their contribution to survivance. However, it also brings me back to something that seems to be a common theme in this blog—trickery. The use of clever tactics clearly remains a central component to many methods of survivance. Its implementation has already been seen in the victory of the hero twins in the Popol Vuh, Elias Boudinot’s speech “An Address to the Whites,” and we have even discussed its potential within Lucy Thompson’s work, To the American Indian. The Indians in “Hard Riding” constantly stall the Indian Agent, and now have started “stealing” their own cattle. These Indians object to Brinder’s demand for a court, but rather than argue outright, they devise a much simpler, more effective means of getting their way. Giving at first the illusion of compliance, the Indians elect incompetent fools as judges. Stating their undeniable logic, Big Face explains through a translator “if people won’t listen to them, no one will mind” (166). This subtle mode of deception becomes the Indians’ humorous form of resistance to the demands of the Indian Agent and US government. Moreover, this mastery over the Indian Agent demonstrates a metaphorical control over the government of the United States. Further evidencing this command over their supposed captors is the Natives’ possession of the government-issued cattle. As oppressed and restricted as the United States maintains the Indigenous people, the Indians still manage to appropriate some form of profit from the dominating whites. Though not nearly enough to compensate for all that has been stripped of them, this small act of defiance serves to offer a sense of hope and possibility to struggling Natives, and also disproves the existence of “ignorant,” or otherwise unintelligent, Indians.

Blood Division

Inez Peterson’s “What Part Moon?” stresses the detrimental effect that quarrel over blood quantum has on the fight for Native American rights. Like “Only Approved Indians Can Play Made in the USA” by Jack Forbes, Peterson’s story argues that Indians only hurt themselves with battles over blood percentages. Constant suspicion about the “Indianness” of each other causes indigenous people to lose sight of their true target. Inez Peterson states plainly “if we divide ourselves, we are doing the work of the dominant culture; there is no need for them to keep us down, for we do it ourselves” (148). The amount of “Indian blood” a person has is inconsequential. What matters instead is their passion for what they believe in. Moreover, all movements need followers. If the Native movement demands pure blood, then their support will be dramatically insufficient. By denying the right to defend to Native mixed-bloods, the Native Americans essentially become hypocrites to their own cause, rendering their choice of survivance ineffective.
Furthermore, I really like Peterson’s “determination to deflate expectations of what a Native American woman should look like” (147). I find that her story reveals that whites are not the only ones with specific expectations for Native appearance (Teepees?), but Indians also seem to be guilty of stereotyping their own kind. Inez shows that in addition to blood quantum, physiognomy is irrelevant to who a person truly is or how they should be treated, and demonstrates her defiance by dying her hair red. This challenge is simple, but I believe it illustrates the triviality of blood and appearance constraints and perhaps suggests that the Native rights movement should instead be a movement for equal human rights, fought for by all races alike, not solely a few purebloods who look the part.

I'd Rather AIM to Succeed

This week we were shown two different portrayals of the Indian activist group, AIM. The first of these came with Mary Brave Bird’s somewhat combative chapter, “We AIM Not to Please,” while the other was the description of AIM participation in the occupation of Wounded Knee given in the video We Shall Remain. Although both relate the importance of AIM as inspiration to Native Americans lost from traditional ways, I believe that the movie allows a much more likeable illustration of the controversial group, and creates a more successful outcome for the Indian Rights campaign. We Shall Remain depicts AIM as the much-needed support for a noble cause. AIM quickly spreads word of the occupation at Wounded Knee, beckoning Indians from around the US to go and help their Native brothers and sisters. AIM in this light acts as the dramatic final stand against a dominant and apathetic government, or, as one man puts it, the little mouse holding up the finger before the big eagle swoops down and ends it. However, Mary Brave Bird’s AIM really just translates more as a bunch of reckless teenagers rallying for something they think they believe in. In Lakota Woman, everything important about the mission and purpose of AIM seems to originate from a source other than Brave Bird, who appears only to enjoy the excitement of rebellion. Much of the text quotes motivational speeches and rational for Indian opposition, such as one Chippewa man’s assertion that “every star in this flag [represents] a state stolen from Indians” (111). Nevertheless, this condemnation of the American flag by another activist examples Brave Bird’s lack of original ideas, and her subsequent adoption of mindsets and opinions that do not necessarily belong to her. Furthermore, Brave Bird criticizes the white man for racism, but then implements the same traditional “Cowboys and Indians” stereotype into her own work when she talks of Indian loathing for the “John Wayne” (112) kind of white man. She uses offensive and derogatory terminology like “honkies” (114) and describes proudly how the whites despise the obnoxious group. This kind of negative attitude from the white populace is highly detrimental to the overall goals of the movement, yet Brave Bird fails to make the connection between disgruntled, white voters and the refusal of “people who mattered” (117) to talk to the riotous protesters. In contrast, the Indian activists in We Shall Remain garner compassion and support from the whites, as exemplified by the white “hostage” store-owner who refuses to be “saved,” and instead declares fault with the US government. Additionally, the film describes the declination of famous Godfather actor, Marlon Brando, to accept his Oscar for Best Actor due to the stereotypical depiction of Native Americans in Hollywood motion pictures, reflecting the general sympathetic opinion of the American populace toward the Indian at the time. The favor that the AIM of the Wounded Knee documentary gains with the public, in comparison to the white, and even Indian disapproval, for Brave Bird’s AIM, is more profitable for the Native American cause. For this reason, the AIM of We Shall Remain demonstrates a more connotatively positive, and consequently more successful, form of survivance than the havoc and disorder associated with Mary Brave Bird’s AIM.

As promised:
"Mahstinshkah" is the Lakota word for "jack-rabbit."

Elias Boudinot--Honorary Rabbit

Taking the true trickster spirit of the rabbit into his work, An Address to the Whites, Elias Boudinot employs deception as his form of survivance. Boudinot incessantly praises the graciousness and generosity of the white people, and never neglects an opportunity to declare his adoration for the gifts of God. This leads many readers to believe that Boudinot suffers an identity crisis and wishes desperately for acceptance from whites. However, his flattery and apparent utter devotion to the Christian faith serve only as a clever strategy to illicit money from the white public. This shrewd Cherokee demonstrates a clear mastery over the will of his viewers and uses his understanding of Christian motivations to impel them to support his cause. Boudinot cunningly places Indian survival and civility in the hands of his white audience when he states “they hang upon your mercy…will you push them from you, or will you save them? Let humanity answer” (79). With this straightforward plea, Boudinot effectively gives his Christian listeners the powerful role of savior, essentially utilizing the demands of their religion against them. Boudinot also manipulates the white perception of the Native American with his depiction of the capability of Indians to be civilized. Quick to demolish the standing stereotypic image of a savage, Boudinot illustrates Indians that read, establish government, and act morally under the direction of God. The footnotes denounce the presence of these vast amounts of reading and Christianly-devoted Indians, but Boudinot knows his target too well. Contrary to his constant talk of an un-educated Indian, Boudinot exploits the ignorance of the white man to Native American progress to convince his audience of a changing Indian. Commonly misunderstood as a traitor to his nation, Boudinot actually acts as a very devious and sly proponent of Indian advancement. The comparatively insignificant orator takes on the dominating white man, and his ability to shape and influence the negative pre-conceptions of his audience at a time when Indians were less than respected by white people proves him a powerful component to the Native American cause. Like the rabbit tricks the hungry coyote, Boudinot uses illusion and artifice as his mode of survivance by fooling his audience with the promise of a better, more Christianly Indian.

Elias Boudinot receives a gold star from this reader, as well as the prestigious title of Honorary Rabbit. On a slightly unrelated note, “tsi-s-du” is the Cherokee word for “rabbit.” To learn how to say rabbit in other languages, comment and reap the invaluable rewards of an interlinguistically extended vocabulary.

Post Script - Interested in word choice? Look up the origins of “prestigious.”

By the way...your head is actually a pumpkin

Book II of the Popul Vuh recounts the decapitation of one of the heroes, Hunahpú, and the ensuing story of its reattachment. The version given in the Reader describes the improvised head as a turtle, however, I believe that this is an error in translation. Rather than a turtle, the makeshift head is actually a gourd, or some sort of squash. The depiction given of the artificial head is incoherent within the context of the text. For example, the treatment of the turtle after its use has expired does not correspond to the treatment of animals in the rest of the work. Other animals bargain with the two boys and are rewarded when they help the twins, such as the rat and the messenger hawk. In contrast, Xbalanqué shows gratitude by shattering the shell of the turtle with a stone, essentially killing it. The supposed turtle receives the worst treatment of all the animals, though its job of assisting in the restoration of one of the heroes is arguably the most important. Moreover, the shell breaks “into a thousand pieces like seeds” (153). At the mention of seeds, the idea that the turtle is really a pumpkin conforms more logically. Also, the father of the two boys faced the same dilemma. Like Hunahpú, Hun-Hunahpú’s head was taken and placed in a tree, upon which fruit magically grew. To fully avenge their father, it seems fitting that the twins would reverse the process by beginning with a fruit-head and concluding with the complete body. Finally, the squash was domesticated in Mesoamerica. As one of the few things domesticated in that region, it would seem that the Maya would be proud of their accomplishment and include it in their story, like they did corn.

What's with the Title?

As an Animal Science Major, I find it important to illustrate the significance of animals in the world. When allowed creative liberty, I always manage to include animals in some way. Giving an animal title to my Native American Literature Blog just seemed so obvious. I specifically chose the rabbit over all the other amazing and intriguing animals because I find these creatures especially interesting. For instance, the rabbit has long back feet because the increased surface area allows for instantaneous speed, and large ears for better heat dissipation and sound capture. Other than their exaggerated extremities, I am fascinated by the cultural impact of rabbits throughout the world. Incidentally, the rabbit plays a huge part in Indian literature and folklore. In the Popol Vuh, a rabbit helps the legendary twins, Hunapú and Xbalanqué, overcome the Lords of Xibalba. Most frequently assuming the role of trickster, the rabbit is fast in both wit and movement. Furthermore, I find the rabbit’s brand of cunning and foolery particularly important to the theme of “survivance.” Due to the white man’s often less than favorable image of the Indian, I believe the employment of clever tactics has become key to Native American success.

Truthfully, this blog is named after my own rabbit “Wally,” a 14lb Flemish Giant (hence the origin of “Great”). He’s pretty exciting all by himself, but connections to Native American legends are present nonetheless. Coincidentally, “Great Rabbit” also happens to be a Native American god. Also known as Mishaabooz, Manabohzo, Chi-waabooz, and countless other (undoubtedly purposely) bewildering names, Nanabohzo (“Great Rabbit”) is the trickster god of the Ojibwa. This deity is a king of deception and is even praised as the maker of the Earth. Additionally, this devious spirit is capable of transformation, effectively making him a master of disguise. Not impressed by a bunny creator? Aztec mythology describes a group of 400 rabbits, known as Centzon-Totochtin, who were the gods of fertility, parties, and drunkenness. The depiction sounds like an ancient Indian fraternity to me, but I don’t think Phi Gamma Rabbit will be organized anytime soon in Davis, much to the dismay of the students I’m sure.

(Information about Native American Lore found at www.godchecker.com)