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."