What I Wanted To Say...

I am taking a history class of the Pacific Northwest - and I am taking it with a bunch of punk ass kids. Now I should clarify this by saying when I say "punk ass kids" I am meaning students between the ages of 18 and 21. We might have a few old farts in there, but really it's mostly kids.

Now kids for the most part are cool -- they bring fresh perspective to the table when thinking about history. They generally ask those questions you and I only think about. However, sometimes they make me crazy because they just don't get it. And instead of saying "I don't get it" They try to act as if they do, go off on tangents, and pontificate when really they should be sticking to what kids that age know best -- drinking and having sex. Right?

At least that's what I was doing at 18.

Anyhow, I digress.

We are reading this very cool book about the Lone Ranger and Tonto who are having a Fistfight in heaven. And when I say it's very cool I mean it's very.cool. Sherman Alexie is the author and he writes about growing up on a Spokane Indian reservation. Because he changes shit around, and used various characters it's a work of fiction of course, but he really is talking about how he grew up.

Did I say this was a work of fiction? (remember that okay?)

So here we are preparing to turn our first draft of our first major essay into our professor, and the instructions are pretty clear -- we have to agree or disagree that Alexie’s stories present Indians and whites as very distinctive, coherent, unified, and mutually hostile..... But the historical record indicates that through at least most of the 1800s this was not true, that both First Nations or Indians on the one hand and whites or Europeans on the other were both internally divided and likely to cooperate across racial boundaries.

Now the graded discussions were about Alexie's book and our chapter readings. The discussion asked if we thought Alexie's book was historically correct, or if we thought it changed history, and what were our thoughts about colonization. Basically did furtraders fuck up the Indians.

As I am reading the discussions my jaw is dropping open because some of these discussions are taking Sherman's work as gospel.

Remember I said "His book was a work of fiction?"

Anyhow I am forming my argument and I wrote one essay and it was just too stuffy for me and what I really wanted to say was this:

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

I think it's incredibly important to recognize that Sherman Alexie's book "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven" is a work of fiction based on real life experiences that Mr. Sherman had growing up on an Indian Reservation in Spokane, Washington. While I found myself nodding and agreeing with a lot of what Mr. Sherman shares in his writings it's still a work of fiction and has to be treated as such, not a historical account of truly what transpires in present day on Spokane's Indian Reservation. - "jwoap", April 18, 2010

Do I agree or disagree that "Alexie's stories present the indigenous people and the white man as very distinctive, coherent, unified, and mutually hostile? We know what we have read in our history books that through most of the 1800's this not to be true -- although I disagree one thousand percent. We see through jaded one sided history books that the First Nations, the indigenous people and the white man or the Europeans were both internally divided and wanting to work with one another and cooperate across racial boundaries. *cough cough bullshit*

To be honest I do not think this is a black and white, an either or question. I think it is a question with several layers that should be examined by first looking at Sherman's point of view.

Sherman's book would be considered"postcolonial literature" which to my understanding are writings that react to examination of colonization between Europe and the indigenous people that were colonized. Sherman throughout his book uses historical figures to show examples of how the US government tried to control Indians by taking and occupying their land and then putting them to live on reservations that were operated and controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has its own set of issues separate from the displacement of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest.

One of my classmates so sagely states in her graded discussion: “Alexie’s stories is that events that occurred 500 years ago still define the challenges and opportunities Native American’s experience in their daily lives. The introduction of alcohol and a monotheistic religion, along with the loss of the ability to provide for themselves, are issues they are still trying to overcome. The idea that they are surrounded by a civilization that overwhelmed and hemmed them in is still a physical, emotional, and mental barrier to all that they do.” (SF, 2010)
Sherman stories that he eloquently writes are emotional pieces based on some of his experiences living on the reservation. And in doing so he shares with the reader a lot of what ****** states in her responses.

Sadly, I think much of what Sherman shares in his book about the interactions with the police is probably true regardless of the skin color of the police. I feel like Sherman blames a lot of his people's issues on the white man. Did what happened 500 years ago have anything to do with the indigenous people of today?

Sure.

However, if we are going to honestly look at the Native American community today we have to face some basic facts -- regarding alcohol and drug abuse the indigenous people have only themselves to blame. Let's face it - drinking and drugging were pretty much all there is was to do on a reservation back then, and the native community when it comes to alcohol is really fucked up.

I feel that Sherman portrays the main characters in his book as victims. (That is an entirely different essay all together). The fact of the matter is alcohol, drug abuse is rampant within the Indian community, and Sherman cannot continue to blame the American Justice System for choices those on the reservation make. That is like stating that African Americans who choose lives of crime should directly blame white people. I mean come on -- I'm "Native American" and I know better.

It's no secret how 99 percent of all "Native Americans" feel about having their land ripped off from them, displaced, and treated poorly by the "white man" when colonization occurred. It was a travesty to say the least. It was wrong and it should not have ever happened. Hells bells if I were alive back then I'd get out my tomahawk and scalp a settler or two.

However, KP in his graded discussion stated he agreed with Fisher's assessment in regards to contact and colonization. He goes on to state that Barman cited some minor incidents between fur traders and the indigenous people, but on a whole they coexisted well with one another. “Friendly relations were thus encouraged with the local inhabitants who might well be encountered again the next year or on the next voyage,” (Barman 25). The bottom line the traders needed the native people for help about survival of a new land and the fur traders gave the native people weapons, tools, and booze. For the most part traders set up trading posts so they could all go about their business and not interrupt the day to day life of the native people. In doing so, the traders saw that it was helpful to all parties that they work with and befriend the native people instead of changing their way of life.

On the other side of the coin white man did bring disease, and missionaries to the native community. Schwantes states, "The consequences of contact severely crippled indigenous peoples of the Northwest and made them susceptible to further harm that took place during colonization. Although many historians concede that fur trade contact was initially mutually beneficial the fundamental changes it brought to native people’s way of life were catastrophic." (Schwantes, 27). And finally, one of our other students in her graded discussion quotes Shwantes in saying "Although violence was limited, disease devastated native populations, not only in terms of lives lost, but in the loss of cultural identity and history as spiritual leaders passed on before imparting their knowledge to younger generations (Schwantes, 40).

Historically it was not always a friendly relationship between the settlers and the native community. Historians show that by the early 1800's the mutual respect both parties had for one another digressed when the missionaries showed up because the missionaries pushed their agenda and attempted to tell the native community how they should live with their concepts of civility.

Basically the Indians didn't want the missionaries telling them their belief systems which were different from European Christians were fucked up. And who could blame them. I mean think about it, you are minding your own business, raising your kids, hoping your husband comes home nightly with some grub and in the meantime complete strangers show up and invite themselves into your teepee and wrinkle their nose at you because you don't have a bible and don't sing Kumbaya around your campfire.

Also can we add that fur traders brought with them disease. Who the hell needs that? Then they took their land and forced a whole new set of ideals on them.

This is why I think both Sherman's writings and the historical recounting of what happened both have merit. Yes, Sherman is correct that the white man took the land of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest, and that Indians have had a tough time over the years trying to find their rightful place. However, there comes a time when the blame has to stop and we have to accept responsibility for our thoughts, actions, and life. And while I agree with part of what the history books tells us, they too have it wrong. There's so much about native history they've left out and I can understand why. Some of it's too ugly to write about.

And that is a subject for another time and another paper.