by Monica
There are many challenges facing a broader public understanding of Native American women. The most obvious is the effect of colonialism, both on the mindset of the Natives and the non-natives who are looking to learn about the culture; the second and less apparent challenge is the inability of the educational spectrum to accept oral histories as essential tools for understanding Native American women and their culture as a whole.
Mihesuah argues in the introduction of her book that native women are very concerned with keeping traditional female roles and ideologies alive despite the century’s long pressure to Westernize. It is due to this fear of the colonial Christian culture that persuades Native women to keep quiet around researchers and indirectly contributes to current misperceptions. “Native women have survived the “good intentions” of women reformers… that attempted to help Indian peoples by pushing assimilation, education and Christianization” by refusing to share with outsiders all the secrets and emotional bonds that separate them as both women and an indigenous culture. (xii) White outsiders, especially female, are viewed by Native women as privileged at the expense of the Native peoples and they see any attempt by non-natives to gain information as mere means to further exploit Native women for their own causes. Native’s feel Colonialism put a class system and a gender gap on them and they have spent years trying to undo the parasite of acculturation.
Additionally, the researchers themselves come equipped with intrinsic Colonial ideologies that further hide the truth about Native American women. Prior to contact most Native populations were governed and situated very equally between women and men; however post-contact many women felt lost as Christian roles and patriarchal mentalities threatened to reshape their identities and drastically contest their influence within the tribe. Therefore, when non-native scholars investigate the Native American woman they tend only to see her from the Christian doctrine of gender hierarchy they are accustomed to and most write from a patriarchal standpoint with a white feminist perspective that vastly underrates the realities of Native women. They tend also to lump Native women into one group when they are in actuality as diverse as white women in values, color, backgrounds, beliefs and motivations. Even Native female art is viewed by non-natives in ways they want to perceive it both emotionally and in terms of utility. Mihesuah went on to claim that this necessity to see native peoples in terms of colonial interpretations is personal and many times political in scope and the horror of the whole challenge is that today native women are beginning to pretend to be just as the non-natives are depicting them in terms of meaning and cultural identity.
Another cause for the mystery behind Native women is the educational system in the United States has placed a huge emphasis on classifying Native Americans according to the documents and books written by colonialists and those influenced by Western notions of manifest destiny wherein very few use the women themselves as sources of information. The literature primarily depicts Native females as ornamental beauties or mere concubines and most writings are devoid of the voices of Natives themselves and fail to connect the pre-colonial past with the present. What Mihesuah argues is that there needs to be more emphasis on personal accounts of Native history and the only way to understand the way it was is to listen and document oral interpretations of the Native female culture from women living in the present. Current writings analyze the Native women using “Eurocentric standards of interpretation and by omitting Natives’ versions of their cultures and histories” (5). The understanding that history must be objective and include only documented provable evidence prohibits outsiders from truly contemplating the accounts of Native American women. A reciprocal and practical dialogue is the only way to do an accurate historical piece on Native American women according to Mihesuah, and although very time consuming the researcher must also be a compassionate and sensitive interviewer and respect the tribe, family and fears of the female subjects. It is impossible to fully understand the Native woman without using oral histories as definitive sources on the subject of cultural study. The past does effect the present and for Native women the past can only be comprehended through listening to the lessons and stories of antiquity.
While there are many challenges to interpreting the history of Native American women, all are easily overcome if the researcher is willing to suspend their inherent Western monocultural, ethnocentric perspective and allow for personal accounts to not only contribute but form the basis of their historical perspective.
I totally agree with your argument that it is a “white man’s world” and that these women should totally live in it. Never mind that they can do anything better than a white man or a white woman because of the different experiences that they have encountered. Colonialism did much to destroy the culture that Native women participated in. The point that they were equals in leadership before the white man invaded their lands is totally valid. Women’s views have always been valued by men because usually they are right 95 percent of the time. When the white man appeared and brought this attitude that men are superior, then this diluted the power that women had within their tribes and probably looked down upon. This attitude has continued on even until our current century. Indigenous women will always have to fight to stay ahead in the “man’s world”. They have to fight two battles, one within their own race to be acknowledged, and then to be acknowledged by the white race as strong, educated, literate women.
The point that you made with the need of oral history to be presented by Native women is truly a strong point that Mihesuah makes in her argument and it is really one of the most valid points in the readings. Oral histories are so important to later cultures that they are truly overlooked as a way for history to be presented in its proper setting. Oral histories are what makes the past come alive when the person presenting the history was either there, or heard it as it was passed down. Natives telling their tribes oral histories would be such an asset to the historical community and it would be the way to trump how history was written from the Colonial aspect or the white man’s view. Oral; histories are important and should be looked at as at least a secondary source to back up the primary source to a fact of history that any historian is trying to present
hahah thanks Layne for the smile… they are fighting two fights… and I believe you could extend that ideology to Western women as well…. The superior gender concept is deep rooted in our culture and I understand wanting to fight it tooth and nail.
I really like your argument about colonialism. When reading the book and learning how it was very tough and a long process to talk to these women if the even did let you in I never connected colonialism with this. However it makes a lot of sense. Every interaction these women have had with “outsiders” has resulted in destruction and devastation of their culture and lives. So why would they let “outsiders” in to learn about them. Without being able to speak to these women our education system lacks the qualtiy needed to gain a better understanding. We as a public learn from books and movies and speeches given by uneducated non natives who were the ones displacing these women. We can not take value in everything we learn in textbooks as the complete truth. The real truth comes from the women themselves and untill they are used as first person resources, Native American Women’s history will continue to be taught and learned in the wrong way.
Agreed. I was really interested in the identity crisis Mihesuah talked about with the Native women fighting Western gender roles and stereotypes. It’s so easy to say, “why don’t the Native Americans just assimilate and abandon the reservation life of poverty” but when you look at it from the colonial perspective and try to understand the deep rooted history of these people it becomes clear that assimilation is the true battle and one they will fight to the death to win.
Your paper points out some importatnt points for historiography. The greatest challenge for historians to overcome when recreating accurate historical accounts is biases. Historically in western cultures, the victors of a conflict would write the historical accounts in favor of their own side. With the European Colonies destroying the Native American tribes for their land and resources, the Europeans had the dominanat voice in writing about the outcome. But this account has more layers biases added. Consider that traditional values of Native American history was oral history, with the death of an extreme majority of Native American Tribes, is the loss of their historical accounts. The next layer of bias, which is a main theme to your paper and to Mihesuah’s book, is the European views on women and cross culturation. Women being an active member of their tribes before European influence, made them valuable historical resources. When Native American women took the backseat after Christian influence, their knowledge was seen as invalisd because they are women and because oral history doesn’t fit into the Western concept of properly documented history. The centuries of conflict between a dominating White American male society and an oppressed Native American female society, it is no wonder the women are hesitant to sharing their culture with the white population.
Great synopsis Kyle-Sam-I-AM. I truly believe the Christian doctrine in relation to Native American resentment and social deprivation is left out of the conversation way too often in academia. I know it is hard for a Christian society to look upon their faith as a tool for destruction but occasionally people with great intentions end up causing massive amounts of pain.
Jon Agnew
I really enjoyed reading your post. You are a phenomenal writer – great flow and word choice – excellent job. I agree with most of what you have to say. Nonetheless, I feel you oversimplify/complicate the role of education in the broader public understanding of Native American women. And you make an excellent argument regarding indigenous women and Christianity which I would like to deliberate with.
First, I originally stated oversimplify/complicate for a reason. I think your specific focus on the educational void caused by “the documents and books written by colonialists and those influenced by Western notions of manifest destiny wherein very few use the women themselves as sources of information” is too narrow. And in being too narrow complicates and oversimplifies the “education systems” role in Native American history. You would probably agree with my criticism, but lack the space to explain it due to the assignment guidelines. Additionally, we would probably both agree on the role of the indigenous boarding school in disenfranchising native women. Milesuah explains, “The teachers also relentlessly reinforced the importance of learning and retaining values of white society. At the same time they repressed Cherokee values, thereby causing confusion among the more traditional students” (Pg. 67).The confusion in native students and repression of native culture via the education system had some role in the understanding of Native American women.
Second, I really like the way you frame the argument concerning non-native scholars and christian doctrine. Your initial premises are: “Prior to contact most Native populations were governed and situated very equally between women and men; however post-contact many women felt lost as Christian roles and patriarchal mentalities threatened to reshape their identities and drastically contest their influence within the tribe.” You come to the conclusion of : “Therefore, when non-native scholars investigate the Native American woman they tend only to see her from the Christian doctrine of gender hierarchy they are accustomed to and most write from a patriarchal standpoint with a white feminist perspective that vastly underrates the realities of Native women.” I find this a powerful argument. I think your right when you argue academics kind of blindly investigate via their own culture. One of my favorite philosophers – Slavoj Zizek – in his book Violence argues “The basic opposition here is that between the collective and the individual: culture is by definition collective and particular, parochial, exclusive of other cultures, while – next paradox – it is the individual who is universal, the site of universality, insofar as she extricates herself from and elevates herself above her particular culture” (Pg. 161). I notice relationships from your argument and Zizek’s argument. For example, you describe Christianity’s patriarchal standpoint and Zizek describes culture as parochial. Also note Zizek’s definition of the individual is female.
As a concluding thought I am drawn to Jon’s description (via Zizek) about culture being parochial and limited in its ability to extend past the group it encompasses; whereas the individual is the universal subject able to unite and divide systematically. I spent a great deal of time thinking about the external demands on the Native women and I fear I fell into the liberal arts trap of “those damn Colonialists” and I failed to look at the problem from the internal culture of these women today. Mihesuah tried to extend the concept of Native women taking on the responsibility of academic discovery about Native culture and she highlighted on the essence of the universality of a single voice elevating herself above her culture and perhaps as a consequence elevating the culture itself. Sometimes I am too drawn to the activist mindset that I fail to see the whole picture (especially in cases of cultures I am unaware). I tend to point fingers first and join the parade later but I really enjoyed the individualistic approach both Jon and Mihesuah brought up in regards to making a difference versus making blame.
Monica, I appreciate your revision of your thinking about external vs. internal challenges to the valuing of Native American women’s experiences. I think most of your original analysis is good, but I’m going to take issue with your characterization that non-Native historians and other academics can “easily overcome” the challenges you outline here if they are “willing to suspend their inherent Western monocultural, ethnocentric perspective and allow for personal accounts to not only contribute but form the basis of their historical perspective.” On the one hand, yes, that’s an important (if difficult) first step. On the other hand, it assumes that Native women will, or should, share their personal experiences–and that if they do share these experiences with outsiders, that outsiders have the right (and ability) to interpret and analyze these experiences. How would you suggest, then, that Native women and non-Native academics (and others who wish to write about indigenous peoples) forge an appropriate relationship for this kind of sharing and analysis? What might such a relationship look like, if an equitable one can exist at all?