Jessica Crabtree

“Whether the noble Indian is shedding a tear for a 1960s’ environmental public service commercial or being saved by the great white hope Captain John Smith in the recent Disney movie Pocahontas, hints of self-pity and romanticism continue to haunt American Indians in film. While Hollywood no longer portrays American Indians as painted and uncivilized savages, waving tomahawks and scalping the innocent European settlers, contemporary movies maintain the stoic `Indian’ image smothered with sentimentality…”

Read the entire article from Cultural Survival

The Pocahontas Paradox: A Cautionary Tale for Educators
From Journal of Navajo Education, Fall/Winter 1996/97
Cornel Pewewardy, Ph.D. (Kiowa/Comanche)

An exhaustive writing about Native stereotyping in film and particularly its effects on Native youth.

Below: Heroine or hazard? Legend or liability?

(You can find the editorial version of this post under the title “Reframing Columbus Day” on Worldpress.org, an online magazine for independent journalism.)

---

Recently I posted about research positing a link between peoples of the Na-Dene/Athabaskan family (e.g. Navajo, Apache, Tlingit) and Central Asian refugees of Genghis Khan’s conquests. The connection, based on physical, cultural & religious similarities and linguistic and genetic evidence, has been proposed for decades but is only now being verified by concrete evidence.

The implications of such a realization are staggering – but no more than those of other recent discoveries challenging our conceptions of the early Americas.

In time for Columbus Day this year I thought it would be appropriate to note a few of the major convulsions in the established historical record that highlight the fact that the “era of Columbus” is now over. It’s already firmly established that Columbus didn’t discover America; and the illusion that the Americas existed in a bubble of cultural isolation is being shattered with every new finding of global interchange. But beyond that, it’s time to observe this ideological regime change by questioning whether Columbus is really so important after all – and what that means in the context of America’s colonial and imperialist legacy.

1: Norse Colonies & the First Native American in Europe

The presence of Scandinavians in North America before Columbus is well-established. At present they lay title to being the first Europeans to set foot on American soil. But one of the major revelations of the past year was the evidence of the earliest Native Americans in a European country – not as chattel transported via the English and Spanish slave trades, or even as diplomatic attaches to European monarchs – but as part of the saga of Norse exploration along the Atlantic seaboard.

The ill-fated Norse colony of L’anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, dating to the 11th century, may have shared less than ideal relations with their Beothuk neighbors, according to extant records; but their association may have been closer than those records indicate. It remained for DNA science to reveal that many present-day Icelanders carry the genes of Newfoundland’s extinct indigenous populations, indicating that this Norse emigration was, at least on one occasion, a two-way street. This discovery marks a milestone in our understanding of early European involvement in North America and raises numerous questions about the nature and extent of the interaction between these groups.

2: Polynesian Trade with the Pacific Coast

There is a growing body of evidence that Polynesian sailors reached the Americas long before the 15th century, setting up an exchange that left clues on both sides of the Pacific. The Polynesians are an optimal candidate in the search for pre-Columbian contact, because they had both the technology and the motive to reach the Americas.

The prime evidence:

• Chickens – Ancient remains of chickens found on the coast of Chile predate the arrival of domesticated breeds introduced by European colonists. There were no chickens indigenous to the Americas; they are native to southeast Asia where they were first domesticated and later brought as far east as the Pacific islands. Obviously their presence in Chile could not be explained as a simple case of migratory spread. The carbon dating of the chicken bones gave them a tentative age of 600 years, right around the peak of the Polynesian’s Pacific expansion.

(National Geographic: Polynesians – And Their Chickens – Arrived in Americas Before Columbus)

• Sweet potatoes – As part of the Columbian Exchange, many of the New World’s important native foodcrops – including maize, potatoes, and cacao – were transported to Europe, Asia, and Africa where they became fundamental commodities. One of these crops, the sweet potato, has been cultivated for more than 5,000 years by peoples in Central and South America, where it first originated. Apart from direct human introduction, it is difficult to account for sweet potato cultivation by the Polynesians dating back more than a millennia. (Sweet potatoes propagate through tubers or plant cuttings, not by seeds that can be windblown or spread by birds.) It is even more difficult to explain how they came to be called by almost identical names in both regions.

There are even deeper connections on the horizon. Many researchers point to linguistic similarities and parallels in artifacts found in the Polynesia Pacific (including Easter Island) and in America’s Pacific coast cultures. Such suggestions of an information and technology exchange may be circumstantial at best. But there is considerable support rising from other fronts, not the least of which is recent DNA research confirming the exchange of much more than just trade goods.

3: Tibetan origins of Athabaskans

(continue reading…)

The portrayal of Native Americans in the arts and media is fraught with controversy and contradiction. It’s a disputed territory where art, stereotype, politics, and propaganda intersect. It’s hard to think of another artistic genre where the subject can so easily be glorified and demeaned at the same time. And because of the checkered past of the modern Native American experience, sometimes the line between the two can be disturbingly fine.

In a post I did a couple of months ago I wrote about Edward Curtis and the “smiling Indian” controversy. My question was, how much responsibility did early 20th century photographers have in manufacturing stereotypes of Native Americans – in particular the image of the “stoic” Indian – and how did that influence popular opinion through the mass-media later in the century?

The reason the works of early photographers have come under such scrutiny is because their pieces became the groundwork for the way media would approach Native Americans for the next century. The popular appeal of Native Americans as a cultural symbol was much the same around the turn of the 20th century as it is today. It was customary to portray them with the usual templates – the noble, stoic warrior race; the romanticized breed of nature’s children; the “vanishing kind”; and so on.

Granted, the period around turn of that century might well have been the worst time to be an Indian. Tribal lands (and sovereignty) had been wrested away in shocking proportions; resistance movements had been brutally crushed one by one; Indian children were being forcibly re-educated under the residential school system; Native languages and religions were outlawed and the very existence of many Native lifestyles was in question. In this setting it is partly understandable why so many people would be interested in projecting that idea that Indians were about to disappear altogether.

But as we know today, Indians did not disappear. Their perennial humor, ingenuity, and fortitude have helped carry them through the horrors of colonialism and the reservation system. And while their ways of living have changed and adapted, they have been largely successful in reclaiming their cultural identity. Part of that is by actively challenging and confronting false or misconstrued representations of their history and heritage.

It’s not only the Indians who are concerned with this kind of integrity. Artists, and those seeking to be well-informed about art, bear the responsibility of seeing works of historical or cultural significance in a critical way. When evaluating such pieces, one asks what the photographer or artist is trying to communicate when they represent their model in a certain way – what are they saying, both intentionally and unintentionally, about their concept of the subject? What is the overall tone of the portrait? Is the apparel authentic? This is where details such as a mere facial expression can become such a hotly disputed topic.

Case Study: Gertrude Kasebier

On the subject I thought it would be interesting to compare the work of a near-contemporary of Edward Curtis – Gertrude Kasebier, an American photographer who made Indians a major part of her portfolio. While she did not combine the extensive ethnographic travels that made Curtis’ work so significant, it was obviously an unusual subject for a female photographer of her day. She compiled a striking photographic collection – some documentary, others very personal and intense – that essentially showed how the Native American fit into her world.

Bio

Kasebier was born Gertrude Stanton in 1852 and grew up alternately in the environments of the industrialized East and the frontier West, giving her an early taste of both worlds. An unhappy marriage led her to seek a creative outlet in photography, and in her late thirties she began formal study in the US and abroad. Counter to all decorum, she began to establish herself professionally, and by the 1890′s she was operating out of her own studio and was in demand for lectures and commissions.

Kasebier’s first foray into Native American portraiture came when Buffalo Bill’s “Wild West Show” visited New York. Like many artists, she was drawn to the expressiveness in the faces of the Indians she saw. She began by photographing the Lakota performers and later expanded to documentary work during a brief tour with the show. While the project comprised a relatively small portion of her output, it resulted in some of her finest and best-known pieces.

Above right: Gertrude Kasebier, c1900 (Wikimedia Commons)

During the pinnacle of her career, Kasebier was considered one of the elite of modern photographers, complete with a distinguished clientele – and scathing professional rivalries. Her strong business sense – and certainly her ambition – not only preserved her career but made her a role model for many enterprising young women of the new century. She was a leading figure of the emerging pictoralist movement. By the 1920′s, an elderly woman past 70, she retired and dismantled her studio. She died in 1934, leaving her collection in the hands of her daughter, who followed in her footsteps.

Kasebier’s Indians

So what makes Kasebier’s Indian portraits different from those of her contemporaries such as Curtis or Rinehart? Also, what bearing did the fact that she was a woman trying to make a career in a male-dominated society have on her portfolio?

Some of Kasebier’s portrait pieces appear to represent Indians in what to our modern sensibilities seems the most detached, iconic, and predictable way.

Take this one for instance: a person who sees it is likely to think, “That’s the quintessential Indian chief.” Complete with the feather headdress, he could have been the model for a college sports mascot – which is exactly why pictures like it are such a problem for people today who recognize the “stoic Indian” stereotype and the false connotations that go along with it. So often there are underlying ideologies that are implied, like the elephant in the room, that once accepted become part of a passive stereotype – like the myth of the vanishing race.

Above: Whirling Horse, an Indian Chief (Library of Congress)

But my argument is that it’s not necessarily the fault of the artist if the subject he/she presents has a double-life as a pop icon. It isn’t equitable to accuse the photographer of contributing to a harmful stereotype without at least examining both the method and the motive behind the work. Certainly Kasebier’s pieces bear a closer look.

The Bonnin Photographs

Many of the portraits, like her photographs of the musician Zitkala Sa (aka Gertrude Simmons Bonnin) would have been considered quite avant-garde in her day, both in the way the model is presented and the kind of statement it makes to the viewer.

The strong pictoralist styling creates a close, evocative mood, while the depiction of Bonnin in both Indian and white garb actively challenged prevailing stereotypes about assimilation. Kasebier presents her as a woman and an artist foremost, with her ethnicity taking second place. She seems uniquely qualified to have photographed Bonnin; maybe it took a fellow woman and artist to appreciate these qualities.

(College of Staten Island Library “Images of Zitkala Sa“)

The thing that struck me the most about Kasebier’s Indians is how frequently they are shown smiling – even laughing – relative to the total number of portraits. Just imagine if “smiling Indians” made up as large a proportion of Curtis’ portfolio (although there are quite a few they are obscure by comparison).

Joseph Black Fox (Library of Congress)

Charging Thunder, American Indian (Library of Congress)

This one below is my favorite (as a matter of fact it is part of the banner of my website). One wonders what was making William (left) smile and Luke (on the right) have to hold in a laugh? Was Kasebier in on the joke? (Library of Congress)

(Click to enlarge)

If we are to judge what is reflected in these portraits, Kasebier’s Lakota subjects must have felt quite at ease. With the photography taking place in a quiet studio setting, rather than the indignity of the performance stage, and the subjects actively participating in the portrait process, it’s no wonder she was able to capture such a palpable human essence.

Fortunately, Kasebier’s Indian pictures also include a balanced variety of gender and age combination, so while portraits of adult men still predominate in the collection, women and children of various age groups also receive ample attention.

Samuel American Horse and his wife – A sensitive and rather domestic portrait. Note the wedding ring on her hand. (Library of Congress)

Mary Lone Bear (Smithsonian)

One of the most poignant and emotionally haunting portraits, Charles American Horse in his Wild West Show costume. (Library of Congress)

The point Kasebier seems to make with this photo is, “What a way to grow up” – a young person whose nation was invaded and resettled, and as if to add insult to injury, made into a public exhibition. It serves as an example of how the collection does a good job of portraying individual humanity, but not at the price of ignoring stark reality.

Summary

Based on the recommendation of these facts, Kasebier’s work stands quite favorably as both a historic record and an artistic product.

A few key observations of what defines Kasebier’s portraits:

• Approach

  Kasebier’s approach was completely different from Curtis’s – in fact almost opposite – in that her portraits are deeply personal and introspective. But while they are intimate in nature, they avoid melodrama. It would have been all too easy to lapse into a sorrowful, elegiac “vanishing breed” tone. They do not politicize the Indians or cast them as ethnographic objects.

• Authenticity

  Kasebier’s portraits are refreshingly honest and un-contrived. She never used artificial poses, apparel or props to achieve a more “photogenic” result at the expense of authenticity. In fact she often portrayed her models without their signature regalia, so as not to detract focus from the individual. Frequently the subjects chose their own costumes and posed in the way that seemed most natural to them. This difference gives Kasebier’s pictures a more dynamic and spontaneous, less “picture book” quality.

• Motive

  Kasebier’s Indian project was a purely personal and artistic one; while she stood to make a considerable profit off of the pieces, she never offered any of them for sale, and only produced prints for a select few individuals.

• Human connection

  Finally and (in my opinion) most importantly, Kasebier didn’t just take pictures of these people – she built a rapport with them, and in some cases, became a close friend. In this light, one wonders whether she felt more than a passing kinship with them; both experienced the constraints of a society that denied them their identity. Both experienced the personal rewards that resulted from this mutual understanding and respect – and that’s ultimately the biggest take-away from the end result of this unique collaboration.

Links

Smithsonian Institute: Gertrude Kasebier Collection Images

Library of Congress: Prints & Photographs Division – Results for Gertrude Kasebier

Wikipedia: Gertrude Kasebier

Smithsonian Research: “Portraits offer intimate look at Wild West performers” (If you don’t mind the missing html symbols then this is a pretty good article)

Edward Curtis and the Myth of the Vanishing Race

Related Posts

Edward Curtis and The Curtis Collection

Edward Curtis and Smiling Indians

Recently I had the opportunity of watching a lot of the old-fashioned tv westerns, ranging from black and white cowboy movies to classic long-running series. They reminded me how much has changed in the past half century or so in regards to portrayals of American Indians in film; that said, many of these old flicks leave a lot to be desired in their depictions.

Case study: Pimas and Yaquis

One thing that caught my attention was the particular usage of Pima and Yaqui Indians in plots featuring hostilities against white settlers. Had I encountered this just once or twice, I would have passed it off as a fluke – but repeatedly in various scripts, these southwestern peoples were singled out for their particularly aggressive and brutal behavior (replete with totally concocted accounts of their infamous atrocities against whites).

This took me by surprise, since both peoples were peaceful agriculturalists, and I was not aware of any history that would precipitate such a mythology.

“Although the Akimel O’odham [Pima] did have conflicts with other groups they are thought to have been primarily a peaceable people, because they never attacked Euroamerican settlers and they were most well known for their aid to immigrants.”(Wikipedia)

And again:

“The Pima have always been peaceable, though when attacked, as in former times they frequently were by the Apache and others, they have shown themselves by no means deficient in courage… Prisoners were rarely cruelly treated; on the contrary they shared the food and clothing of their captors, usually acquired the Pima language, and have been known to marry into the tribe.” (Access Genealogy)

The Yaqui likewise had little or no history of warfare up until the time of the Spanish conquest. Eventually, brutalities by Spanish authorities and later the Mexican government forced them into the mountains of the American southwest, where resistance movement similar to the Cheyenne “dog soldiers” sprang up. The only significant engagement with US forces was a skirmish in 1918 during the Mexican border war.

So what led to the choice of the Pimas and Yaquis being cast in this light? My guess is arbitrary ignorance; the writers cared just enough about historical authenticity to select a tribe from the correct geographical region (they could never get away with staging a Seminole uprising in Arizona, right?) but not enough to get the story straight. After all, they weren’t writing a history book – it’s just entertainment. And who’s going to differ, if anyone should even bother to look it up? After using the Apache so often, it was time for a change.

So this device was used once in a plot, and it caught on, the fallacy firmly implanted; small matter if the Pima became permanently maligned in the process.

Right: A collage of Pima people (Wikipedia). In the center, Ira Hayes, of Iwo Jima fame.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Unfortunately, it is exactly this kind of selective ignorance that characterizes so much of what American culture perceives about Native Americans. And when the line between history and popular myth becomes blurred, one has to wonder, who stands to lose more – the Indians who are stuck with a phony label, or average Americans of the non-Native variety who carry around a trumped-up version of their nation’s past? (continue reading…)

Ten Myths of the Little Bighorn » HistoryNet
by Gregory Michno

“The Battle of the Little Bighorn, fought on the banks of the river of that name in Montana Territory in June 1876, is the most often discussed fight of the Indian wars. It has been said that we will never know what happened there because there were no survivors. That is nonsense. There were thousands of survivors. The Indians clearly told us what happened. We need only to listen to what they said.”

Indian Country Today: Uneasy in US, Iroquois believe survival’s at stake
By Samantha Gross, Associated Press Writer

This is an extensive and thorough news story by a writer for the Associated Press, detailing the history behind the recent passport scuffle for the Iroquois Nationals lacrosse team, and the sovereignty issues facing the Haudenosaunee. Highly recommended reading.

The Native American Face of Independence Day

The Fourth of July celebrates the day in 1776 when colonial American representatives ratified the Declaration of Independence, making official their intentions to break away from England and organize a sovereign government. We all know what that meant for the Native Americans of this continent, whose numbers had already been dramatically reduced since the time European explorers first set foot on American soil. At the time of the Revolution, the thirteen American colonies didn’t extend far beyond the Atlantic seaboard, and many European settlements still coexisted with large Native populations. But it was gradually becoming clear that the colonists were set on all-out continental expansion, and forming their own nation was part of that process. America achieved its sovereignty largely at the expense of Native Americans (and the imported African slaves who formed much of its economy). So it’s understandable that many Indians today have some not-so-positive feelings about the holiday.

Despite the dark history that has overshadowed much of its record, it bears keeping in mind that much of what has made the founding of this country outstanding is the product of a shared heritage between the Native Americans and the European immigrants. It was never inevitable that white presence in the Americas meant the extermination and removal of an entire race of peoples. The wrong turns taken by the American civilization are the collective result of greed, prejudice, and consistently misguided leadership – but at no time were they inevitable. The fact remains that many of the people who emigrated here did come for genuinely upright reasons; because they were living in oppressive, impoverished European countries and it was the only decent thing they knew to do for their families. Native Americans themselves recognized this by consistently extending friendship and hospitality to the settlers. It was the diligence and ingenuity invested by so many immigrant Americans, and the generosity of resources and knowledge contributed by Native Americans, that not only made this country possible but made it thrive.

A glance at these early interactions, and how they helped to produce the high ideals this country is supposed to represent, prompts us to think about the way things could have been, had history taken a different course. And they still stand out like a beacon showing the way things should be.

Déjà Vu?

It turns out that the great ideals that make America “unique” are evidently not so unique. They were flourishing here long before the founding fathers laid out a plan for independence that embraced Enlightenment principles. Personal liberty, equality, and representative government are long traditions throughout Indian country. The democratic and egalitarian customs of many Indian peoples in what is now the eastern United States inspired the early colonists with a new sense of initiative and self-determination.

Perhaps foremost among these is the Iroquois Confederacy, whose nations make up the oldest democracy in the world. Founding fathers such as Benjamin Franklin recognized the stability and efficiency of the Iroquois form of government, and consulted with Iroquois leaders nearly three decades before the first Continental Congress. It is now widely affirmed among scholars and historians that the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois served as a model for the Constitution.

From Indian societies, Americans learned even broader meanings of liberty. For the first time they saw women treated as equals with men, capable of making important decisions and holding positions of authority. The deep respect for life in the indigenous world view naturally meant a high respect for women (a concept that had been long absent from European cultures). It’s perhaps no coincidence that the Seneca Falls Convention, which proved a pivotal event in the history of women’s suffrage, took place in the heart of Iroquois country, where clan mothers traditionally appointed chiefs and made significant decisions regarding their nation’s welfare.

Native Americans from across this continent have consistently been a source of inspiration for democratic ideals – from the system of direct democracy as practiced by the Iroquois, to the egalitarian and inclusive nature of its societies, to the unbridled independence of the Plains cultures that captured the European imagination.

A Larger Exchange

These are only examples of a powerful spirit of freedom that began influencing the Western world long before the American colonies declared independence. When Europeans reached the Americas, they were exposed for the first time to perspectives, lifestyles, and forms of social organization that were radically different from the European cultures that had festered so long under the same political and religious systems. For centuries they took it for granted that kings ruled by divine right, and the church controlled every person’s destiny. Europeans had been locked in a prison of isolation, oppression, and indoctrination. It could only be freed once it was exposed to the realities in which other cultures existed. This cultural rebirth began shortly after the Crusades, when a gateway to the East opened a new cultural exchange with the Islamic world; the invention of the printing press, the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution and the Renaissance all followed quickly on its heels. But it came to fruition only after the discovery of America brought accounts of life ways that kindled the minds of European thinkers already eager for new outlooks on their changing world.

While these men of thought were chafing under the most flagrant absolutism, ideas about natural rights and individual value spread like wildfire through the countries of Europe, fueled by new ideas and perspectives coming out the American continent. Depictions of Native American societies varied widely and were not always accurate. But the intrinsic portrayal of a civilization that lived in close connection to the natural world, with the apparent absence of distinct social classes and absolute rule, where each individual played a direct and valuable role in society, held an endless fascination for Europeans. This is reflected in the writings of Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau who made frequent reference to Native American society in their writings, and drew upon their knowledge of it in their foundational works on social theory. Later on, these ideas came full circle when men like Thomas Jefferson drew upon these very same writings for the principles that formed our early government.

It appears that the awakening of independence and free and rational thought that challenged the established order, and ultimately led to the downfall of European absolutism, was perhaps the New World’s greatest contribution in the Columbian Exchange.

Western civilization often ascribes its great achievements to the fact that it is the heir of Greek democracy and Roman law, and America in particular likes to think of itself as a “bringer of civilization” to the rest of the world. But we often forget that Greek democracy began and ended with property-owning male citizens, and so-called Roman justice was brutally imposed on the world at the edge of a sword. At various periods, America has reflected the advantages and drawbacks of both these civilizations. If America is different from other countries, or unique in its pursuit of truly democratic ideals, perhaps it is only because of the Native American influence that helped to shape it in the crucial period of nation-forming.

Ironically, we’ve been all too eager to appropriate all the credit for this. European Americans often assume a tone of moral superiority, forgetting that we’ve had the benefit of learning first-hand from cultures who are in many ways are far more advanced. From the very beginning we’ve relied heavily on indigenous knowledge, and even today, despite all our technological advances, we are finding that there is a wealth of wisdom from Native American viewpoints that is both valuable and relevant.

A Final Assessment

Sadly, nations usually don’t live up to their own ideals, and America is no exception. If anything, it’s more to blame because it’s had so much going for it, and all of history to learn from. For a nation so proud of its founding principles, we suffer from a chronic moral complacency. From the start we have been a melting pot of the worst kind of contradictions. The founding fathers we praise are often examples of the things we most abhor. The Bill of Rights paradoxically coexisted with the Doctrine of Discovery and Manifest Destiny. Every shining moment in our history is counterbalanced by the black stains of racism, slavery, and genocide. In each phase of the building of this country, we have matched our successes with the most abysmal failures – and no one knows this better than the Native Americans.

Yet in the face of all of this, they have continued to enrich our arts, contribute immensely to every field of knowledge, and even serve in our military; not because they have been assimilated, but because so many of the things that are worth working for supersede the boundaries of nationality. Freedom and justice are bigger than any nation and any individual, and are not the property of those who dispense with it as they wish. History has shown that the rights and freedoms we praise are only as strong as the people who are willing to stand up for them – whatever their national identity. As Native Americans have been teaching us ever since we first arrived in this country – life, liberty, and the [responsible] pursuit of happiness are everyone’s rights – but they rarely come easy and are never free. It’s maybe our strongest reminder yet to keep striving for the ideals that the best people who have lived in this country – both Indian and white – have shown us.

Happy Independence Day.

In memory of Clarence Wolf Guts, last surviving Lakota code talker of World War II (1924-2010)

---

Recommended Resources:

The Founding Sachems: Indian Traditions of Democracy by Charles C. Mann, Op-Ed contributor for the New York Times

Native American Political Systems and the Evolution of Democracy An annotated bibliography of academic and other references to Native American influence on America’s founding

Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World by Jack Weatherford
(Ballantine Books, 1989)