April 2, 2012
The Indian Girl
When I first read Pauline Johnson's article, I was somewhat confused. It seems as though she is making the argument that Indian girls in literature are not represented accurately. Instead of illuminating the complexities that are essential to the personalities of specific tribes, the Indian woman get thrown into 'Pocohantas' type roles and are never expressed accurately in Modern fiction. The author, whose father was from an indian tribe, says "Let us not only hear, but read something of the North American Indian "besting" some one at least once in a decade, and above all things let the Indian girl of fiction develop from the "dog-like,""fawnlike," "deer-footed," fire-eyed,""crouching,""submissive" book heroine into something of the quiet, sweet womanly woman she is, if wild, or everyday, natural, laughing girl she is, if cultivated and educated, let her be the italics, even if the author is not competent to give her tribal characteristics." I don't read any native american literature, but if I did, I would make sure that the Indians featured do not meet any of these aforementioned descriptions. For the author's sake, I would make sure that the Indians I read about were not described in such savage, oppressed terms. I would even read the occasional story, written by a Canadian, about the Indian 'besting' somebody. I do not know when this day will come, but when it does I won't forget this authors article. Is this what Johnson is would want me to say?
3 comments:
I can't speak for Johnson, but I would say that a more productive reaction to stereotyped and detrimental representations of Native Americans is not simply to shy away from them because they're "wrong," but to be critical of them. When taking classes about race, gender, or any other group, attention is always given to the depiction of the group in the media. Students are taught to have a critical eye when interacting with such media. It is important to be aware of it and to inform others about it. Unfortunately this can sometimes make watching movies or reading books a less joyful occasion. When I come in contact with a stereotyped or harmful depiction, it can certainly ruin a book or movie, and other people do not always understand the gravity of such a depiction. They might tell you that you're taking it too seriously. But something I have come to understand is the power relationship implicit on such a statement. How nice it must be to be able to brush off such a depiction as "no big deal" when it is not a representation that has any effect upon you? Meanwhile it perpetuates negative feelings towards another. Perhaps this is the larger picture that Johnson might argue.
While I will agree that Johnson thinks Indian women are portrayed inaccurately in fiction, her argument is much more complex than that. Johnson begins her argument by stating that the American heroine of the time is not chained to the conventions and stereotypes of their respective race. She writes "The author does not consider it necessary to the development of her character, and the plot of the story to insist upon her having American-colored eyes, an American carriage, an American voice... he allows her to evolve an individuality ungoverned by nationalisms"(385). In essence, the heroine of modern fiction is not explicitly tied to her national identity. This is not the case with the Indian woman, "she must not be of womankind at large, neither must she have an originality, a singularity that is not definitely 'Indian'"(385). For Johnson, the modern fiction heroine is able to transcend national identity to become a uniquely individual character. The Indian heroine, on the other hand, is expressly tied to her Indian identity. This is further compounded by the fact that there is rarely any tribal distinction within romances concerning Indian women(386). Additionally, the love affairs of the Indian heroine are inevitably similar across the board of literature, "she is always desperately in love with the young white hero"(387). What Johnson seems to be arguing for, then, is a depiction of an Indian heroine whose story is not wrought with conventions and stereotypes concerning her nationality, but whose struggle, and the nuanced depictions of this struggle, transcends her race and expresses a universal sentiment. By focusing on her individuality as opposed to the stereotypes that oppress her, the writer can tell yet a more distinct yet universal story.
I agree with Janelle--I think not reading the literature is only turning a blind eye to something that is still a dominant part of Indian writing. The more proactive approach would be to either promote authors who sway away from this stereotype or to write (the latter applies mainly if you would fit the group being discussed). I also agree with Sean about what Johnson is arguing for, but wonder if one could start writing about an Indian woman in a way that could release her from the previous ideas of her culture, and not only continue to compare her to stereotypes from past writings. Even if the writer is an Indian girl and writes about an empowering girls struggle, would critics still compare her to previous "Pocahontas" literature? I think yes.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.