phati'tude

Indigenous writers often fall victim to views of themselves and their writing put forth by dominant cultures. Stereotypes persist in spite of a proliferation of writers and educators from both reservation and urban Native communities who write and teach at a level commensurate with their non-Native(1) contemporaries. Too often, the Native writer is seen as less than his or her peers. There is no widely natural public view of the Native person as an educated, successful member of society.

One difference between Native and non-Native literature (as viewed by non-Natives) has much to do with subject matter. The perception is that Native writers and storytellers write only about “Indian things . . . feathers, pipes, animal spirits, mythological experiences.” There is a romanticism attached to what the reading public deems “Native American writing.” This includes writing about being a down-trodden mass of have-nots who are victims of everything, doomed to permanent ruin. That which is not rooted in these themes is then discarded as being unauthentic. Indians should “write Indian.”

Another large part of the authenticity problem lies with some “traditional” Natives who are not able to accept that non-reservation Natives can write with authentic Indian voice. Urban Indians, who have spent all or most of their lives in the midst of white society (by force or choice) are often accused of being “new agers” or wannabes. Their literary efforts are overlooked, discounted, or rejected as being unacceptable. One prevailing excuse for this rejection is that stereotypical subjects are not present due to lack of primary exposure to Native culture (reservation life). Blood quantum analysis comes into play when judging a writer’s ability to write authentically as a Native. What percentage of Native blood should one possess (as determined by whom?) in order to be a “Native” writer? The very people who grumble about being classified by the dominant society may classify others when it comes to authenticity of voice.

If an urban Native writes about the society in which he or she actually lives, is it less Native than that written about by a reservation resident? I believe there is authenticity in both lives and in both writing products. I think that what makes writing authentically “Indian” is the value system, the world view, of the writer. Does the writer see with a Native eye?

One major difference between Native and non-Native writing seems to be a difference between Native and non-Native concepts of time.

The non-Native writer approaches subjects and themes through a linear time line . . . having a distinct beginning, middle, and end. Characters and circum-stances appear, experience conflict, and resolve. Events seem unrelated to one another outside the context of the moments in which the story or poem or song exist. Legends or stories are not necessarily viewed as real. Fiction is just that: make believe. Myths are seen as fantasy teaching tools or beautifully entertaining fluff.

For the Native, time is circular, with beginning, middle, and end all interconnected. Life is a circle, with all of creation walking along the circle. All created beings are equal along the edge of that circle and all are related to one another. Reality exists in all levels of storytelling. Stories, even those of a supernatural bent, are considered based in reality and have both intrinsic and extrinsic benefit to the family, tribe, nation, society.

The defining of life in literature, severely limited in non-Native thinking (and writing) is expanded to a boundlessness in Native view. Writing about the ocean as a speaker in non-Native writing is called “personification” (i.e., attributing life-like qualities or actions to an inanimate object), while the Native author is simply describing the ocean’s natural actions as a living being.

A Native writer, one whose work is infused with Native thinking, need not be quantified or reservation-raised in order to write authentically as a Native writer. Critics, Native and non-Native alike, might do well to take another look beyond the surface stereotype of subject matter, to the deeper issues of time, life, and purpose when judging the authenticity of the voices singing our stories and songs. And, while there are charlatans trying to capitalize on indigenous culture through creation of pseudo-Native writings, there are also those disconnected Natives who sing with the voices of old grandmothers who bequeathed the stories and songs to perhaps the only family member who would listen and could be trusted to pass them on.