The Captivity Narrative as a Reflection of Reality

The captivity narrative was a form of literature that was popular throughout New America, from the early seventeenth to late nineteenth centuries. These documents, journals, or rewritten oral accounts were generally written to recount the captives’ experiences under “savage” control. These stories bear strong elements of European ethnocentrism, and helped to serve as a justification for the overall conquest of Native America. This exaggerated perspective however, allows the reader to catch a glimpse into the reality and truth of how the Natives treated their captives and what can be said about their ultimate humanity.

In a compilation of narratives entitled Captured by the Indians: 15 Firsthand accounts, 1750-1870, Frederick Drimmer notes that “Occasionally there is a note of exaggeration or romanticizing in the narratives, but by and large they bear the stamp of truth” (Drimmer 11). This exaggeration can be explored through the association with a subconscious production of objectifies “others” (Ben-Vi xvii).

The Captivity Narrative

The first occurrences of captivity narratives began with the English captives of Barbary pirates in the early seventeenth century. These were early accounts of Europeans who had been brought into slavery through piracy near the North African coast. (Baepler 217). These narratives are comparable to the later Indian captivity narrative, in which the Whites identify themselves as helpless slaves under a barbarous savage captor. These were written in a different era however, when the western ideas of enlightenment had just begun to spark. Ideas of White superiority and Manifest Destiny spread as quickly as the settler population.

Ethnocentrism and Foreignness as a rationale for Conquest

The ideas of this time were what fueled the settlers’ justification for colonizing the New World. What fueled this hegemony though, was a more deeply rooted. Ben-Svi’s concept of  “false foreignness”  argues that, “through elaborate strategies of separation, captives are represented as mutually foreign,” rather than the captives being able to identify with their captors (Ben-Svi ix-x). This view of being mutually foreign, suggests that rather than noticing the similarities of humanity between their peoples, they took more notice to their differences. As stated by William B. Hesseltine, these differences were recognized by the settlers, to be sins committed by the Natives (Venebles xii).

Elements of this extreme ethnocentrism can be seen in the captivity narrative of Mary Rowlandson, a puritan woman captured by the Wampanoag in Massachusetts in the midst of King Phillips War (Venebles 225). Her narrative style is focused on seeing the Native Americans as heathenistic rather than humanistic. Upon being taken, Rowlandson deems her captors to be “Barbarous Creatures,” and that the “roaring, and singing and dancing, and yelling of those black creatures in the night… made the place a lively resemblance of hell” (Venebles 226).She attributes much of the treatment she received under captivity to the “favour of God,” rather than the actions of comparable human beings. For example, they allowed her to carry less than the entire group while she was wounded, however they would not let her rest from work on the Sabbath day (Venebles 228-229). The first shows an element of compassion, to give Rowlandson an easier load to carry while injured, but the latter shows them unwilling to break their egalitarian ideas to allow one person not to work. 

Painting depicting Rowlandson and her Captors

Compared to other captives of her time, Mary Rowlandson spent a relatively short time under captivity, eighty-three days (Venebles 233). Her narrative is primarily focused on defining her captors as the enemy, and longing for her eventual escape. There were several others who lived the duration of their lives under captivity, and their experiences give a more ample perspective into the everyday lives of captives.

                Many of those who were captured by Native Americans had another perspective, and were able to be washed of their White blood and accepted into their new family (Drimmer 12). In the case of Mary Jemison, when given the choice to leave her captivity she declined, and lived until age ninety on the Seneca Buffalo Creek Reservation (Venebles 237). The language of Jemison’s narrative differs greatly from that of Mary Rowlandson. Upon her arrival into captivity in the year 1755, her new captors gave her new clothing, and welcomed her as their sister. Regarding the Seneca Nation, Jemison states that “Their wants were few, and easily satisfied; and their cares were only for to-day…If peace ever dwelt with men, it was in former times, in the recesses from war, amongst what are now termed barbarians” (Venebles 235). Mary Jemison’s account is an important comparison to many captivity narratives, although it is the opposing extreme. Her story reflects a more romanticized story, and focuses on the kind deeds that were bestowed upon her. These kind deeds are seen as a completely different way of living than was common among the settlers at this time, and still shows the prescription of otherness, even if in a more positive light.

Reflections of Reality

                The famous case of John Tanner allows the reader to see the complete polar opposites of some other narratives in one man’s story. Tanner’s family had become abusive to him after the death of his mother, and he often longed to “live among the Indians” (Drimmer144). When he was ten years old, he was taken by the Shawnee. In his first family, he had been taken to replace a woman’s deceased son, however  his new father abused him and refused to accept him as his son, while his new mother “would throw her arms about me and he would beat us both together” (Drimmer 151). This is an important occurrence as it shows immediately the parallels between the two cultures, and reiterates the strong idea of mother as refuge. Also important to note is that after leaving this first family to live with an Ojibway family, Tanner was no longer abused. His new father was “always indulgent and kind to me, treating me like an equal. When speaking to me, he always called me son” (Drimmer 153). This shows that regardless of race, ethnicity, or family groups, violence is perpetuated by individuals and not by these groups as a whole.

Discussion

                It is important to note some of the reasons for taking Whites captive. The most prominent being to replace a deceased member of their family, which is what was stated to have happened in the cases of Mary Jemison and John Tanner. Replacement could be for a multitude of reasons; in an egalitarian society, a loss of a person could impact the resources for the whole group. Adopting a new “child” would also help the family psychologically to pass the grieving process more quickly. These captives generally became a legitimate part of the family they had joined, and when they left, their Native families would grieve just as they would for any other loss (Drimmer 14).

These were also times of war between Nations, and part of the capture could be seen as ransom for land. The settlers originally claimed land for themselves and eventually spread their populations over Indigenous hunting grounds and resource areas. Treaties were written and broken, and the Native Americans were treated as second class beings (Drimmer 15). Taking captives can be seen as retaliation or ransom for the land which was unlawfully taken from them.

Drimmer points out an important fact, that although many narratives focus on the positive treatment from Native Americans, all mention others who were killed either in the process of capturing, or whilst under captivity. They also tell of Native Americans who were killed by settlers. This is important because although some accounts speak of the other side as killing in horrible methods, such as scalping, these methods were used on both sides. The difference is, that while both were fighting for the land, it only rightfully belonged to one group. Something else that is mentioned by Drimmer and Venebles is that no women were ever sexually abused while in captivity. Compare this to incidents of the early European conquistadors and later African slavery in the United States, and it shows an incredible difference in humanity.

In conclusion, it is important to read captivity narratives from a phenomenological perspective. These stories show through their exaggerated romanticism and ethnocentrism the undoubted truths of Indigenous civilization. Although they tried to show the savagery of Natives, the result was the opposite. They show immense logical fallacies and projections of foreignness that occur in all nations. In the end, it is individuals making decisions and not entire Nations as a whole.

Baepler, Paul Michel. "The Barbary Captivity Narrative in American Culture." Early American Literature 39.2 (2004): 217-46.

Ben-zvi, Yael. "Ethnography and the Production of Foreignness in Indian Captivity Narratives."  The American Indian Quarterly 32.1 (2008). 

Drimmer, Frederick. Captured by the Indians: 15 Firsthand Accounts. New York: Dover, 1985(Reprint from1961). 

Venables, Robert W. American Indian History: Five Centuries of Conflict & Coexistence. Vol. 1.   Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light, 2003. 

Breaking Barriers: Integrating Native Scientific Perspectives into Resource Management Frameworks

Many cultures have worldviews which are similar in process to science but have been designated to be myth or magic for not being disseminated in a standardized manner. This paper examines the social and historical development of indigenous stewardship models. There has been a lack of integration between the native science perspective and the scientific community. The epistemological and institutional barriers which have attributed to this lack of integration will be examined, along with examples of how both worldviews can collaborate on new stewardship management models.

The scientific community places a high regard on the knowledge developed by specialists, which has been acquired through a systematic set of repeatable experimentation. Results are generally compartmentalized and shared conservatively (Ross et al. 2011,  97-98). Indigenous communities favor a community based, holistic approach, which has been founded on empirical observation over an extended length of time (Ross et al. 2011, 98). The differences in these practices are a manifestation reflecting how each group understands the natural world. Science sees nature as a separate entity, which must be conquered and controlled or it would do the same to humankind. This fuels the inherent need to overcome a wild and untamed wilderness. Rather than seeking control over nature, the native scientific perspective is a “science of the subtle,” honing in on the small intricacies of the natural world by forming a deep personal relationship with it (Cajete 2000, 17). The Native perspective does not distinguish between the natural world and humankind.  Humans are seen as an inseparable component of the natural world. Rather than adhering to defined laws and theoretical frameworks, the native scientific perspective attempts to understand the nature or essence of things, as nature is constantly in flux (Cajete 2000, 72). The methods reflect direct experience, interconnectedness and holism and are integrated into a whole lifestyle, which aids in creating a basic schema for action in the mind (Cajete 2000, 66). The basic philosophies of the native scientific perspective reflect the spirit and energy of all things, which is integrated into its methodologies, dissemination of knowledge and the development of new technologies (Cajete 2000, 64-65).

Many methods are similar to those used in contemporary notions of scientific methodology, however basis and intent differ. Observation of plants, animals, weather, healing events, ecologies of nature all occur in the native scientific methodology, however they occur over a long period of time (Cajete 2000, 67). There is no real deliberate attempt to alter natural events, as is often the goal of the scientific community however experiments for practical purposes do occur (Cajete 2000, 67). The native scientific perspective considers meaning and understanding of nature to be of a higher priority than the prediction and control sought by other sciences. While the scientific community maintains a strong sense of objectivity, the native perspective asserts that objectivity is found in subjectivity, and stresses direct personal experiences, and a relationship to nature that will reveal more subtlety and understanding. (Cajete 2000, 67-68).

There is a scheme of order and harmony in the world which is acknowledged by the native perspective; however there is also an inherent diversity and chaos which can disrupt any scheme. This possibility of unpredictable chance is an underlying concept for multiple indigenous cultures (Cajete 2000, 68). Causality can be derived from both the physical and non-physical as all entities are considered to have energy and will (Cajete 2000, 69). Teaching native models is subtly communicated through ceremony and ritual, with symbols, songs and stories deeply coded beyond simple archetypes, to develop a worldview. Ceremonial structures and art typically reflect the universe and natural world. (Cajete 2000, 68-69). The mind, body and spirit are considered to be a finely tuned scientific instrument to receive knowledge. This knowledge is received through means of altered stated of consciousness, dreams, and meditation (Cajete 2000, 69). Dreams and Visions are considered to be a natural means for accessing knowledge which are to be encouraged and facilitated (Cajete 2000, 71). This is possible because there is no distinction between science and spirituality. Every act, element, plant, animal, and natural process has a spirit with which humans continually communicate (Cajete 2000, 69). There is a life force and natural energy in everything, which must be understood and respected in light of itself (Cajete 2000, 71), and not from categorically imposed criteria.

The methods of technological development differ from that of contemporary science, as the adoption of technology is conservative and based on intrinsic needs only. There is no need to develop any technologies for the sake of knowledge itself (Cajete 2000, 69). Explanation in the native scientific perspective uses multiple metaphoric platforms such as storytelling, symbolgy and images rather than a peer-reviewed scientific journal approach (Cajete 2000, 69). Written records have been kept, through birch bark, hides, structures, and petroglyphs and pictographs (Cajete 2000, 70). Authority and credibility are established not from an institutional designation or degree program, but are gained through an individual’s experience and accomplishments (Cajete 2000,69). Elders are considered respected carriers of knowledge, wisdom, and experience. They receive the highest regard as teachers and guides for native science (Cajete 2000, 71). The native perspective views humankind as having an  integral responsibility to the natural world, and to further cultural knowledge of this responsibility. The ultimate focus is on sustainable stewardship and ecology (Cajete 2000, 70).

When settlers first entered the Americas, they assumed the pristine conditions had existed prior to Native American stewardship, ans failed to realize these conditions had been carefully tended for long term (Diekmann et al, 2007). Native Americans have practiced their responsibility as stewards of the natural world through variable plant harvesting techniques. The frequency and intensity of harvesting was meticulously considered, to provide the best conditions for humankind along with plant and animals .The idea of leaving potions of plants behind for future generations has been integral to the native scientific perspective (Anderson 2005, 127-130). Native American groups also had methods or irrigation, weeding, and transplanting (Anderson 2005, 142-144).

Native Americans used controlled burning techniques, which had benefits of decreasing accumulated plant matter, and recycling nutrients into the soil (Anderson 2005, 144). It was also helpful in the influence of insects and pathogens which may have been detrimental to the forests (Anderson 2005, 145). The enhanced conditioned help local plant and wildlife to thrive, and could also be used to detour wildlife to specific areas for hunting (Anderson 2005, 148-149).

A history of conquest and conflicting ideals has inhibited Native involvement in resource management programs from contact to the present. Settlers have impacted not only the culture (by removal, reservations, and down-right genocide), but the landscape which they had been so quick to call pristine. This is especially evident in the large scars left behind in California from massive hydraulic mining projects (Anderson 2005, 91).

There are deeply rooted epistemological barriers which have made it difficult for a native science perspective to be recognized as a legitimate science. They are a result of misunderstanding and bias, and a general lack of recognition that Indigenous Knowledge has a place in natural resource management (Ross et al. 2011, 98). There are also very narrow definitions in the scientific field, and words such as spirit, tradition, and custom often translate to a description of persons who are incapable of any form of scientific worldview (Ross et al. 2011, 99). The expression of knowledge as spiritual or social is a concept which science has difficulty accepting (Ross et al. 2011, 101). Native science knowledge is typically not proven using the same methodology used by scientists, and is therefore assumed to be invalid (Ross et al. 2011,  100). There are also issues in the translation of knowledge, as scientific frameworks require Indigenous groups to translate knowledge into a form which may alter its meaning and understanding. This carries to the codification of knowledge, as the need to write down information is not inherent to all cultures, and often requires boundaries to be drawn where there weren’t any(Ross et al. 2011, 101-103). This is especially noticeable when physical boundaries are to be delineated as with mapping. The idea that there is an ownership of knowledge does not exist in the native perspective. The scientific community thrives on individualism, creating a competition to patent knowledge, rather than a community process (Ross et al. 2011, 101-103).

These epistemological barriers, along with an abrasive history extend into institutional management, where bureaucratic systems have many requirements and the involvement of outsiders is difficult (Ross et al. 2011, 107). A primary issue is that native perspectives often do not fit into the management framework that has already been developed (Ross et al. 2011, 107). State power often impedes the native perspective, and this power is inherently assumed to be of the best interests to all. Tribes however, must legally prove state actions have been detrimental to the health and well-being of their people and so another barrier is in place.

                Joint management strategies present a legal sharing of power between a government agency and a community or organization (Ross et al. 2011, 198). This is not the ideal for integration, as it places the government agency in a higher position than Tribes. Co-management strategies allow for a formal agreement, but are typically not legally binding  (Ross et al. 2011, 207). Finally, many governments have developed concepts of Indigenous Protected Areas, land set aside for resource management and Indigenous use (Ross et al. 2011, 211). In the United States, the National Register for Historic Places had added the designation of Tribal Cultural Properties; however this still requires that physical boundaries be placed where they previously may not have occurred (Parker and King 1998).

In order to better integrate the native science perspective into contemporary science, an epistemological shift must occur. There are systems and institutions in place which must be revamped and employed to cater to all modes of scientific thought. A balance can exist between the rigorous record keeping and repetitive experimentation with the subtle intimate relationship to the natural world. There is room for all perspectives if they are let in.

Anderson, Kat. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of  California's Natural Resources. Berkeley: University of California, 2005.

Cajete, Gregory. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light, 2000.

Diekmann, Lucy, Lee Panich, and Chuck Striplen. "Native American Management and the Legacy of Working Landscapes in California: Western Landscapes Were Working Long before Europeans Arrived." Rangelands 29.3 (2007): 46-50.

Parker, Patricia and Thomas King. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. Department of the Interior National Register Bulletin, 1998.

Ross, Anne and Kathleen Pickering Sherman, Jeffrey G. Snodgrass, Henry D. Delacore, Richard     Sherman.  Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge     Binds and Institutional Conflicts. Walnut Creek (Calif.): Left Coast, 2011.

Past and Present Collide: Maintaining Natural Resources along the Klamath River

I am focusing on the perspective of the tribes who are local to the area. My original research questions were: what are the causes of environmental damage to the river area? How does this damage affect the tribes who rely on the river’s natural resources? What can be done to attempt to reverse the negative effects?  I began with background research into the history of issues, getting the majority of my information from internet resources. The Tribal perspectives I gained from various writings, stories and presentations from Native Peoples.

The Klamath River runs from the Upper Klamath Lake in southwest Oregon, through northern California (Friends of the River). There are four Tribes living in the vicinity of the River: the Klamath, Yurok, Karuk, and Hupa. These groups rely on the natural resources of the river for their subsistence and cultural practices, therefore the degradation of the environment has a direct impact on their ability to maintain their way of life in the present (Klamath Riverkeeper).

The main cause of damage to the Klamath environment can be attributed to PacifiCorp’s hydropower project. This project consists of six dams total; however the removal efforts have been focused around four in particular: the Copco 1 and 2, J.C. Boyle, and Iron Gate developments. The first dam (Copco 1) was completed in 1918, and is a 126 foot high powerhouse dam, with no ladder allowing upstream fish travel, in fact, all but the JC Boyle Dam are lacking upstream passage for fish runs. The final and tallest dam to be installed (Iron Gate) was completed in 1962 and stands 173 feet high. The generating capacity for the four problem dams combined is 145 megawatts (American Rivers). This amounts to 1% of PacifiCorp’s energy demands (Friends of the River).

One of the most prominent effects stemming from the dams is the occurrence of a toxic blue-green species of algae, Microcystis aeruginosa. This algae is native to the Klamath River, however it is not known to flourish in flowing water. The stagnant waters created by the imposing dams create an ideal breeding ground. Microcystis aeruginosa produces a compound that has been known to cause liver failure, and the levels in the Klamath have been measured up to four thousand times what the World Health Organization would consider a moderate risk to human health (Klamath Riverkeeper).

The effects of the algae are not only seen in water quality, but on fish populations as well. There has been a significant decrease in the numbers of Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Bull Trout, and Steelhead just to name a few. Above the Iron Gate Dam, all anadromous salmon and steelhead are extinct (Friends of the River).This affects the culture and subsistence to Native tribes, who in the past exercised great legal control over the way they caught fish, in order to preserve their population numbers and ensure subsistence for all who lived in the river vicinity. Lucy Thompson, a Yurok author documented her story, relaying the use of small, traditional fish dams. She says the downriver people would only take as much salmon as they needed, then remove the dams so that the tribes upriver could catch some as well. The dam laws were highly enforced, so that all people and animal kind could benefit, and they always left enough salmon to spawn the next year (Margolin 52-53). Indigenous cultures share a worldview that is very different from the western perspective. Instead of seeing resources as something that is quickly running out, they understand the earth’s capacity to renew itself. These ideas were once understood by Europeans (for example, the word resource is derived from a French word meaning “to rise again”), but have since been forgotten (Anderson 9).

                There are many other issues other than the PacifiCorp hydropower project that affect the local Tribes. Industrial pollution and agricultural practices introduce chemicals to public lands. Many tribes rely on clean water and non-toxic plants for cultural subsistence, and these natural resources have become tainted (Klamath Riverkeeper). Pesticide spraying is especially threatening to cultures who utilize the plants, as many basket weavers harvest and prepare resources using their mouth (Anderson 319). Placer (hydraulic mining) which began in the gold rush era but is still occurring sporadically disrupts sediment in the river, and washes it downstream. Another big issue has been the suppression of tribal burning. This is the practice of controlled burning in specific, carefully monitored areas, which clears brush and helps to prevent more uncontrollable wildfire (Klamath Riverkeeper). Because this practice has been ended, the forests surrounding Klamath are more subject to wildfire, which bears the risk of a decrease in forest. Less forest means a decline in the availability of traditional foods.

It is not only subsistence for the Tribes that is negatively affected; there are many repercussions to their culture as well. Many Tribes have close ties with their environment, and use many natural resources for traditional clothing, baskets, and housing. Theodora Kroeber’s book The Inland Whale depicts a story as told by Robert Spott, a member of the Yurok Tribe. This story tells of a woman and her would-be daughter-in-law who make use of the natural resources around them. They used salmon and acorns as food, and used grasses to make baskets to hold their excess. They also used bark from trees to make skirts and aprons (Kroeber 21). When access to these resources is threatened, it diminishes the ability to maintain cultural practices, which causes stress on the mind and physique of Native Peoples. They are thrown into a culture of confusion, one that is off balance.

This world out of balance became manifested at the beginning of the fall semester, in an incident where a gray whale found its way upriver and became trapped. This was seen by many natives as an omen, one that had been described in the same Inland Whale story that was recounted by Robert Spott:

To a world in balance, the flat earth’s rise and fall, as it floats on Underneath Ocean, is almost imperceptible, and nothing is disturbed by it. Doctors know that to keep this balance, the people must dance the World Renewal Dances, bringing their feet down strong and hard on the earth. If they are careless about this, it tips up and if it tips more than a very little, there are strange and terrible misplacements. One of the worst of these occurred before Nenem’s grandparents’ time…This was the time when the earth tipped so far that Downriver Ocean came over the bar and flowed up the river, filling and overflowing the canyon, carrying its waters and its fish and other sea life far inland, past even the Center of the World-farther than it had ever penetrated before. With prayers and dancing, balance was eventually restored and the ocean flowed back down the canyon and outside the bar, carrying the fish and other sea life with it, except for a young female whale [Ninawa] who had been washed all the way into Fish Lake and was left stranded there (Kroeber 25).

Although no specific cause of death could be determined, the omen surrounding the death of the gray whale in the Klamath brought the environment to front and center attention.

What can be done to help the Klamath? There are several activist organizations dedicated to reversing the damage, for example the Klamath Riverkeeper, who focus on restoring water quality and fisheries along the river. There has also been a huge movement to undam the Klamath, which thanks to the efforts of such activists and Tribal opposition has been scheduled to occur by the year 2020 (American Rivers). This process however, has a big price tag; 90 million dollars (Friends of the River).

There are also efforts to educate the youth and public about the native perspective of the environment. Ron Reed has been working with department of interior to put together Klamath Basin Youth Employment Education Initiative- traditional knowledge courses taught in western style, based on holistic ecosystem perspective (which is basically If one part of system fails, it affects others); will help spread knowledge on how to sustain these natural resources of the Klamath.

American Rivers: http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/restoring-rivers/dams/projects/restoring-klamath-river.html

Anderson, Kat. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California's Natural Resources. Berkeley: University of California, 2005.

Friends of the River: http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/site/PageServer?pagename=KlamathBackground

Klamath Riverkeeper: http://klamathriver.org/

Kroeber, Theodora. The Inland Whale. Indiana U.P.; M. Paterson, 1959.

Margolin, Malcolm. The Way We Lived: California Indian Stories, Songs & Reminiscences. Berkeley, Ca. Heyday, 1993. Print.

Native Times: http://nativetimes.com/news/environment/5879-wayward-whale-delighted-observers-before-her-death

To the American Indian:Lucy Thompson and Authenticity of Native Writing

I believe Lucy Thompsons book was highly influenced by her, but that her husband wrote it, and took advantage of some stories and knowledge he may have been told in confidence. There are parts in the book which really show Native storytelling influence, but many tip offs that she did not write it herself.

The first clue that this was not her work is the disagreement between the books title and the books dedication. With a title like “To the American Indian,” I would have expected a related dedication. Instead it reads “To Milton J. Thompson: My beloved husband with whom all of my married life has been so pleasantly spent…” There is also great emphasis on White ideals, for example her status and wealth, and that she has sacred knowledge that only Talth were entitled to. What I find interesting is that she then speaks of lower birth slaves, who think they know the stories and will run out and tell the White man anything (Thompson 26). I find this idea contradictory, because even if the book is addressed “To the American Indian” it would be available for all to see, Whites included.

 I do not believe this book was written for Native people, especially with the constant parallels and references to Christian religion. For example, the chapter entitled “Our Christ”, and “The Sampson of the Klamath Indians.” This is not to say these stories do not exist as parallels to the Christian religion, as many religions share similar archetypes, but the need to compare the two show that this book was written for the White majority. There is one passage in particular that shows a contradiction. On one page, she said she was taught there was a “God in Heaven” the on the very next page says he is “everywhere” (Thompson 74-75). These contradictions show that there are two voices in this book. What I believe to have happened is Lucy’s husband asked her to tell him stories, and then realized the correlations between their religions, or she may have eluded to the similarities herself. If she were writing this book, and writing it to Native Americans, I do not think she would have made the comparison at all. She would have focused on the stories as her peoples stories.

I believe Lucy may have said some of these things in confidence, and made the mistake of trusting her husband not to divulge some things he divulged. She may have wanted to write a book and he offered to help but exploited her. She may have had no idea the book was even written and her husband was merely taking advantage of romanticized nativism. Or she may have written it herself and just gone against her Native ideas.

Thompson, Lucy. To the American Indian: Reminiscences of a Yurok Woman. Berkeley: Heydey, 1991.         

Ishi in Two Worlds: Anthropological Perspectives on Native Life

The perspective brought by the Kroebers and Waterman is primarily an anthropologist perspective, where in taking Ishi in, their main objective was to salvage his culture so that the world could learn about his extinct people. This is a major fallacy in the thinking of anthropologists, who assume that since other cultures seem interesting to them, they will be interesting to everyone regardless of whether the culture wants to be studies or not.

Theodora Kroeber writes her book in the dichotomy perspective, and frequently refers to Ishi leaving one life and entering another. She claims that Ishi’s arrival into the “ordeal of civilization” began when he wandered, “sick of life” to the slaughter house. She says he now had a new “personal myth, powerful enough to replace the old one of the Yahi people as plunderers, murderers and savages” (Kroeber 117). First of all, I am unsure whether in this passage she is calling Ishi these things, or noting that it was the ideology of the times. In my opinion, the constant opposition of ideas tells a romantic story, and Theodora took advantage of it.  I do believe Ishi felt a good deal of this dichotomy, that he was transitioning to a new type of life, however I think his two lives are more intertwined than Kroeber’s romantic dichotomy of savagery to civilization. Ishi adopted some of western culture, but did not abandon his Yahi culture. For example, he never spoke his name, nor the name of any of his relatives, Ishi was given to him by Waterman.

In regards to Waterman and Alfred Kroeber, they were interested in Ishi both as a person, and as a specimen. Kroeber took on the role of Ishi’s protector, deciding where and when he could go places, and attempting to find some “Indian” friends to aid in Ishi’s transition (Kroeber 150). The main goal was to salvage this last remaining man of the Yahi culture. Although it sounds demeaning to be on display at a museum for spectators, I believe Ishi may have actually enjoyed it on occasion. For example, he would hold demonstrations where he would make an arrowhead in front of a crowd, and then present the finished piece to a crowd member. Ishi probably relished the notion that something that was necessary for his survival in the past was now a show, it was making him famous. I am not claiming that he had a great life as a living display, especially having a room next to the dead, but there are times he probably got a kick out of White people being so fascinated with his everyday life.

Ishi’s new life may not have been his ideal choice of lifestyle (I assume he would want to go back and have his family and live on his land), but nonetheless there were advantages of not wandering alone anymore. He now had contact with other people, even if they were White anthropologists and food, even though his own food choices would have been different. I believe Ishi adapted and made the best of what life threw at him.

Kroeber, Theodora. Ishi in Two Worlds; a Biography of the Last Wild Indian in North America.     Berkeley: University of California, 1961.

An Unstable Foundation: The Conquest Rationale in Federal Indian Law

It may be assumed that the colonizer will resort to any subterfuge to maintain the order of his domination of the colonized.

-Frantz Fanon

Discovery of America, 12th of May, 1492. From a Stamp engraved on Copper. Project Gutenberg text 10940.

Introduction

The concept of conquest is difficult to define, as in law it refers to lands acquired in a manner other than descent or inheritance (Black’s Law Dictionary). It is commonly understood to be acquired out of force. Robert A. Williams wrote on Columbus’s’ legacy that a system based in Colonization ultimately leads to a legal system based in discrimination (Getches, et al. 1993, 29). The United States has continually been an example of this genre of system through the denial of the Indigenous right to inherent sovereignty and self-determination, ancestral territories, and identity and personhood.

The use of conquest as a rationalization for multiple holdings in United States federal Indian law began has its historical basis in the doctrine of discovery. This doctrine has been intricately woven through Federal Law case by case to the modern era, so much so that the entire system is now held under an internationally unsound basis.

The three rationalizing principles federal Indian all have their basis in the conquest of the Americas. These are the Congressional plenary power doctrine, which gives congress exclusive power over matters involving Native Americans, the Trust doctrine, the Federal government is to act as a guardian over wards, Diminished Tribal Sovereignty doctrine, holding that tribes keep aspects of sovereignty not expressly stated in a treaty (Getches, et al. 1993, 30).

Historic Rationalization for Conquest

The intention of the papal bulls of Pope Innocent IV during Crusades in late 13 century, was to define the relationship between lawful Christians and the infidels (Churchill 2003, 2). It stated that the pope could order infidels to allow the Gospel be preached to them, because all rational creatures were made to worship God (Getches, et al. 1993, 45). This notion developed into the 1436 doctrine of discovery, which said the conditions for a Christian country discovering another would be that ownership of land was given only if it was uninhabited (territorium res nullius). It also said the title is recognized as belonging to indigenous inhabitants but that the exclusive right to trade would be reserved by the discovering country, in exchange for sharing the Christian gospel. The doctrine also said land could only be taken from indigenous peoples with their consent. This consent would be ideally through purchase and not force, and that if the first three requirements were not met and the land was taken by force it would be an invalid and unjust claim. Land gained through “just wars” was valid. If one or more conditions were met, however, the crown could use whatever force necessary to subdue the natives (Churchill 2003, 3).

This force manifested with the 1510 Requerimiento, which Columbus had his men deliver. This was a doctrine read aloud to Indigenous peoples, presenting to them the decision to either give up their ways peacefully or have them taken brutally by force (Stannard 1992, 258). It stated that the natives accept the Christian God and allow their preachers to preach on their lands. If they were to decline or take too long in their decision, it would be done by brutal force at the fault of the Tribes (Getches, et al. 1993, 49). This was not a fair informed consent either. Natives were chained prior to being read the doctrine, or it was whispered or shouted as they were fleeing. The Requerimiento was not spoken in any Native language and no interpreters available (Stannard 1992, 66).

The Marshall Trilogy and Indigenous sovereignty

In the case of Johnson v. McIntosh, Justice John Marshall held that the doctrine of discovery gives the United States title to the land. The Indigenous peoples were would maintain the right to occupy, use and possess land, although the United States would control the title and how the resources are used (Getches, et al. 1993, 65-66).

In Cherokee Nation v Georgia, the Cherokee attempted to sue the state of Georgia for creating legislation of removal and assimilation. The Supreme Court did not hear the case on its ruling it had no original jurisdiction, as the Cherokee was a dependent ward nation, under the guardian Federal government (Getches, et al. 1993, 105-110). In 1832, Worcester v. Georgia held that states had no authority over Indian groups, as they are distinct communities (Getches, et al. 1993, 113-121). The 1888 outcome of Ex Parte Crow Dog, which found in favor of Crow Dog and was beneficial for tribal sovereignty, led to the reassertion of the plenary power of congress. Unsatisfied with the Crow Dog holding, the Case of United States v. Kagama was used to enact the Major Crimes Act, to allow Federal jurisdiction of major crimes in Indian Country (Getches, et al. 1993, 158-160).

Treaty Violations

The 1903 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock case brought against the United States by Kiowa chief Lone Wolf, who argued that the Medicine Lodge Treaty had been violated by congress. The Court declared that the "plenary power" of the United States Congress gave it authority to abrogate treaty obligations between the United States and Native American tribes (Getches, et al. 1993, 183-184) The decision contradicts the holdings of the Cherokee cases, which declare a more sovereign opinion of Indigenous Peoples in the United States. United States v. Winans (1905) was an important case as it set regulations regarding the way treaties interpretation. These canons of construction stated that a treaty must be analyzed as the Indians who had agreed to the treaty would have understood it, at the time it was drafted, and that the treaties must be interpreted in the Tribes favor. Through United States v. Winans, the Reserved Rights Doctrine was also established, which states that treaties are not rights granted to the Indians, but are already possessed (Getches, et al. 1993, 137-139).

Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1955) is a United States Supreme Court case involving the Tee-Hit-Ton, a subgroup of the Tlingit people. The Tee-Hit-Ton sought compensation from Congress for lumber taken from lands they occupied. The court ruled against the Tee-Hit-Ton, citing Johnson v. McIntosh, that under the concept of conquest, any title to the land was extinguished when the land had been discovered and conquered (Getches, et al. 259-265). United States v. Dion in 1986 ignored the canons of construction, and allowed congress to abrogate treaty provisions in favor of Federal environmental Acts. As a result, American Indians were prohibited from hunting eagles. Justice Thurgood Marshall citied Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock stating that Congress retained the power to modify Indian treaties so long as it does so in clear and explicit terms (Getches, et al. 1993, 319)

Modern movements

In 2007, the United Nations created an intergovernmental declaration agreement on how indigenous people should be treated. This United Nations Declaration in the Right of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) contains 46 articles describing how governments can protect the human rights of indigenous peoples.

The articles involve matters of self-determination, cultural identity and informed consent, life, liberty, culture and security, free from assimilation, removal an relocation (UNICEF 2013, 12-14). There are also articles related to culture, religion, language, education, media, employment, and land and resources. The United States originally voted against UNDRIP, along with Australia, Canada, New Zealand. All of these countries have recently decided to support the declaration (UNICEF 2013, 10).

In their 76th General Convention, the Episcopal Church repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery as fundamentally opposed to their Gospel and is negative toward the inherent rights that individuals and peoples have received from God. Their decision has been repeated by other groups, for example the Anglican Church of Canada in 2010, and the World Council of Churches in 2012 (Miller 2012).

Discussion

Robert Miller definition of conquest refers to the method Europeans used to acquire some lands through military victories, as well as the property and sovereignty rights Europeans claimed to acquire automatically with their “first discovery” (Miller 2012).

Robert Miller has suggested that the following actions may aid in the National reversal and elimination of the Doctrine of Discovery. The first suggestion is that the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues adopting an international research study of the effects of the Doctrine of Discovery on Indigenous peoples, to be completed by 2014. Next, to inform the global population of the UNDRIP, and to advocate it’s acceptance as national law. Miller urges all states to repeal laws and policies which have their basis in the Doctrine of Discovery. The education system must also adopt a curriculum which reflects the complete history of colonization. He also suggests more churches follow the Episcopal Church in repudiating the doctrine (Miller 2012).
Conclusion

The doctrine of discovery is losing its ground as justification. Conquest is no longer a valid justification for law. The first step of recognizing this failure has been reached; now is the time for education and advocacy, to change the deep ignorance of this country. Only then can the current fragile system be rebuilt to allow equal rights for all.


Sources:

Black’s Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/

Chaffee, John. Repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery. Resolution D035. Committee: 09 – National and International Concerns. 2009. (http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/episcopalrepud.htm)

Churchill, Ward. Perversions of Justice: Indigenous Peoples and American Law. San Francisco, City Lights Books, 2003.

Miller, Robert. The Doctrine of Discovery: The International Law of Colonialism. Conference Room Paper 11th Session of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. 7-18 May 2012.

Stannard, David E. American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World. New York: Oxford UP, 1993.

UNICEF. "United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples for Indigenous Adolescents." UNICEF Human Rights Unit, New York, 2013. (http://www.unicef.org/policyanalysis/rights/files/HRBAP_UN_Rights_Indig_Peoples.pdf)

Venables, Robert W. American Indian History: Five Centuries of Conflict & Coexistence. Vol. 1. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light, 2004.