Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:20:13 -0500
Subject: re: museumizing the other/native.....


I would suggest that this "museumizing" trajectory is arguably most clearly
visible in the way Native Americans or Indians or, as Vizenor suggests,
'indians' with an ironic hint, are portrayed. And Michelle, I do think it's
pervasive - extremely so. Since the 1800s at least, dominant popular and
scholarly culture has suggested that 'the Indian is dying out' - which
contributed not just to a static image of the authentic, but dead,
'Indian,' whose culture can only be housed in a museum, but also to the
romanticization of 'the Indian' - once they're no longer a threat, they can
become a romantic metaphor for freedom, for nature, for nobility. 

(I use the term 'Indian' (in quotes) in this particular discussion because
I'm talking about a particular representation that goes by the name of
'Indian,' the representation you see in "Last of the Mohicans,"
"Pocahontas" or "Dances with Wolves" or the Boy Scouts or Karl May novels
or a million other places. That's what springs to mind for most people
within the dominant culture when they think of the term "Indian,"
unfortunately. This representation doesn't have a whole lot to do with the
lived reality of Native/fourth world/tribal/(self-described) Indian people,
in which case the politics of naming becomes another issue.) 

I'm actually planning on teaching a course next semester on "The Rhetoric
of 'The Indian,'" where we're going to examine these representations, as
well as resistances to these representations. I'm interested in how a
predominantly non-Native group of students will respond to this
deconstruction of the romantic/dead/museumized "Indian," which is rather
central to a particular conception of American history/identity (and all
this in Texas, which is particularly invested in romantic notions of the
frontier past). 

I know that in grade school, the only reason why my class didn't just
accept these stereotypical views of Indians is because my wonderful teacher
Mrs. Oliver criticized the textbook, which was presenting this view (as
well as the view that America was "empty" when the "explorers" arrived from
Europe). Still, there was only so much she could do against the whole
trajectory of representation... 

The idea that there are contemporary Native people who are living within
their culture and the dominant culture (not that I could point out to
anyone clearly where one culture begins and another ends, and I wouldn't
say those are the only two cultures going on either), who are living within
a vibrant, hybrid culture, is threatening to this romanticized/museumized
view - and so they're elided, or even not considered "real Indians,"
because they don't live the way the 'Indians' in the museums do and thus
can't be 'authentic'...

I'd actually begun this research into museumizing with a particular
interest in the case of Ishi, a California Yahi man who was "discovered" in
1911 and who thereafter lived in a museum and was considered a living
anthropological specimen and was billed as "the Last Wild Indian in North
America." (Funny how there's been so many Last Indians...) And hopefully,
my project (in my limitless free time - ha) will expand to look at the way
not only Ishi, but Native American culture generally has been museumized -
the ideas that it's a thing of the past, they were or are a tragic dying
race, and Indian culture is static and lost except in museums. There's a
lot more to be said about this, of course... 

Certainly, the New Age movement has also played a not insignificant role in
further popularizing stereotypical, static depiction of 'Indian' culture
and traditions - all under the guise of being respectful of traditions.
Don't get me started on that right now, or this message won't ever end. 

Even in reviews of Native American literature, these stereotypes are
purveyed - there was a review in the New York Times that Louis Owens quotes
in his book "Other Destinies, Other Worlds" - I can't find the exact quote
right now, but essentially the author used the past tense whenever he was
talking about Indians. That use of the past tense is very common when
talking about "Indians" - a seemingly simple use-of-language issue that
means so much more... 

As you can see, I'm very interested in this topic, but for the sake of
brevity (which I think I've already lost!), I'll stop here, at least for now. 

Miriam




----------------------------------
mschacht-AT-mail.utexas.edu  (Miriam Schacht)

Assistant Instructor, Dept. of English
University of Texas at Austin
Parlin 108, Campus Mail Code B5000
Austin, TX 78712




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---