by Jon
The two factors I believe pose the greatest challenge to a broader public understanding of Native American women’s history are language and education.
The American conception of education has disenfranchised Native Americans. The two major reasons that prove this claim stem from the book. The first reason is historic Indigenous schools. The second reason is constructs of academia/university.
First, schools set up to educate Native American youth prioritized white colonial culture. Teachers, administrators, and the curriculum held certain expectations of what was considered “valuable” and what ought be taught. 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). This contradiction in value was confusing to native students. The author argues that many Indigenous people felt torn and abandoned by both cultures. These schools specifically disenfranchised indigenous women, thus, were a major challenge to a broader public understanding of Native American women’s history.
Second, current academic traditions and trends marginalize a greater understanding of Native American women’s history. Milesuah argues the concept of academic theory is divisive, “theory has become a commodity which helps determine whether we are hired or promoted in academic institutions” (Pg. 27). Milesuah goes on to argue, that successful native scholars are indoctrinated and lose their sense of indigenous identity. She explains, “instead of becoming culturally responsible, many scholars – often those in power positions – remain firmly ensconced in a colonial mindset, teaching their course from a monocultural, ethnocentric perspective, while at the same time becoming intolerant of anyone who might have a different vision” (Pg. 25). This problem uniquely mystifies a broader public understanding of Native American women. Successful male and female scholars are torn between the colonial culture that defines their success and their original indigenous culture that links them to their heritage.
Native American languages have and are under attack. The text argues that only 175 languages remain from the 300 (or more) that existed at the time of contact (Pg. 149). The two major reasons that prove this claim stem from the book. The first reason is historic treatment of the language. The second reason is the English languages ability to subsume other languages.
The first reason is historic Indigenous schools. The second reason is constructs of academia/university.
First, Indigenous schools – as mentioned earlier – prioritized the white culture over native culture. This prioritization resulted in a loss of native languages from indigenous youth. Many learned English and in learning English lost their native tongue. These schools propagated the idea that learning English was the only necessary language. Milesuah articulates, “through attendance at boarding schools, intermarriage, and exposure to the non-Indian world, many young Natives have lost interest in tribal cultures, and many do not see the need to learn their languages” (Pg. 149).
Second, the English language has the ability to take over and manipulate other words. This ability makes English a potent language. When English consumes the vernacular of secondary languages it reduces the need for these secondary languages. For example, our state name of Idaho. This is a native word that English consumed. Other words include: chipmunk, moose, hickory, chocolate, tomato, cocaine, kayak. This decrease in native languages is not unique to North/Central/South America. For example, the Basque language has also declined in speakers. A characteristic shared by both language groups is both nations – Basques and Native Americans – suffered from imperialist nation-states. Conclusively, it seems that self-determination is linked cultural preservation. Cultures that lack the capacity to determine their own future lose their language, culture, and h
I totally agree with your post that Native American schools were set up by whites to “educate” natives to be “white”. What I found interesting in the readings in that as with the Seminary school, most of the girls sent to the school had very little Native American blood. These almost white girls were able to get the better education that those girls that were full blooded Natives. This was truly a gross error in the parents and for those teachers who would try and make these poor students “white”. Only two women that graduated from this school went on to be for the rights of Indigenous peoples.
As you pointed out, in the readings is that Native American’s language was not being taught and was lost and this loss is still happening today. These languages are so import for the preservation of their culture. Language follows tradition and if these traditions are lost, then what types if Identities will the Natives have when all traditions are lost to them? Hopefully, the need to keep these traditions alive, meaningful and vital for their culture will endure and thrive.
.
I agree with this post. I am currently doing a research paper on Roman Egypt and how the Egyptians preserved their culture following Roman Empire annexing it. In my research historians suggested that, religion and language act as the two main components maintaining a culture. Since the Ptolemaic kings worked to preserve a strong loyalty to religion and language the Egyptians were able to resist full assimilation into the Roman way of life. The pressure to assimilate to an American style clearly pushed many native americans to lose touch with their languages. I also feel that the christian missions that pushed Christianity on the natives too drastically disconnected them from their cultural roots.
Just leaving a comment that the comment above is written by Victoria L. oopsies I forget there is another Tori!!!
@Layne. We both agree that Native American schools were set up by society to “educate” natives to the colonial “white” culture. But, you go on to say. “These almost white girls were able to get the better education that those girls that were full blooded natives.” And while the grammar of your sentence is troublesome, I fundamentally disagree with your previous statement. This is why. 1. My criticism and observation is that the whole institution of education disenfranchised Indigenous women. You go onto say, some of these women were able to receive a better education than other women. You go on to qualify your claim by arguing the “success” and “failure” of these schools by the number who graduated and supported Native rights. I don’t believe Indigenous women back then and now would agree with this distinction. Your narrative justifies Native American schools in the name of education. Whereas, I wouldn’t claim for anyone else they were educated but instead indoctrinated. I’m sure many indigenous families wanted/still want more say over the educational rights of their tribes. Nonetheless I disagree with your agreement to my post. 2. Indigenous women should self-determine what an education is. We as outliers should not judge some indigenous women as receiving a better education than others. The same type of argument is being made by many sects of U.S. society. Those in favor of privatizing education and instituting a voucher program want liberal guidelines on education. Proponents argue that privatization would allow for more individuals and groups to pursue their own agenda when it comes to education. I’m sure not all of the Indigenous women who attended these schools regret/condemn it. However, I’m sure they would all argue for more rights and say on educational curriculum and practice.
@ Tori. I find religion and language peculiar variables as well. I find your post about Rome and Egypt fascinating. In a geography class I took last semester, the definition of religion seemed odd to me at first. The textbook defined religion as a spiritual phenomenon that affects all facets of culture. The last part of this definition is the part I find most compelling. It is also the part that relates our two posts together. Many societies and nations have clung to religion to resist full assimilation. However, many religious beliefs appear under attacked in the Western world. For example, a common trend in Europe is the banning of minarets an Arab architectural tradition or, the banning of the traditional Middle Eastern headdress worn by women. These practices are religious in nature but extensions of culture. Both of our posts allude to this relationship. Moreover, I find this relationship engaging. Understanding the link between culture and other social impetuses economy, government, and education shed light on social ills and the proper way to rectify them.
Interesting conversation in the comments here. I agree that talking about the “success” or “failure” of these schools–or of any kind of school, really–is unsettling. Who gets to determine what criteria or benchmarks constitute success? Who evaluates these criteria? Assessment and evaluation need to be more holistic and on a spectrum, rather than polar (i.e., succeed or fail). I wonder, though, how indigenous women from different cultural backgrounds and in different environments (urban vs. rural, for example) would prioritize and balance cultural preservation vs. mainstreaming their children. Mihesuah suggests that indigenous women (and particularly academics, as you point out), have been too eager to sympathize with colonialism and assimilation.