zestquest's review
A very good book so far, just a little dense for me right now. I’m looking forward to revisiting it!
christytidwell's review
3.0
Sidner Larson's approach to Native American literature is closer to that of Arnold Krupat, James Ruppert, or Louis Owens than to the more militant and separatist approaches of Craig Womack and Jace Weaver. In fact, he begins his book by commenting on this, saying, "I am intrigued by a transformative project that seeks to influence culture by means other than militant or nationalist approaches, such as the older American Indian conceptions of the Great Mystery as well as Keats's idea of negative capability, the power to remain open to mysteries, uncertainties, and doubts" (3). But he does not dismiss these militant/nationalist approaches, instead saying, “I have American Indian academic colleagues and nonacademic friends who are cultural nationalists, which means they are oftentimes militant and confrontational. Certainly there is much cause for such activism in the American Indian world, and I am grateful there are those willing to do the necessary work of demanding redress of the theft and cultural genocide committed against American Indians. In fact, their good work allows me to emphasize the things different cultural peoples can have in common, such as family-style support systems in higher education, rather than emphasizing difference” (5).
This is an intriguing point at which to begin yet another analysis of Native American literature. It shows how committed Larson is to finding a profitable middle ground between white Americans who are ignorant of the Native cultures that surround them and, frequently, ignorant of the history between their cultures and Native Americans who are ready to write off those white Americans altogether. In this process, he sees himself as one of those “caught in the middle [who then encounter the double bind of being made responsible for effective interaction with marginalized students while at the same time encountering serious resistance to change from representative of the status quo” (13).
One thing I particularly like about this book is Larson's incorporation of a discussion of teaching beside the theoretical and political analyses. This serves to illustrate the importance of the field of education in creating political change and also to give more concrete instances of how this literary analysis is made relevant to readers/students.
Larson's insistence on connecting literature and its analysis with the real world is a significant element of his book. Most Native American critics I have read insist upon this connection, but it remains a very good thing to remember: literature is not divorced from the real world and neither should the discussion of that literature be. Larson discusses autobiography as one way of making literature concrete and says, “Believing one’s life is one’s own is important to survivors of destruction, as is believing that one’s experiences have meaning. Within a situation where to live is to suffer, where to survive is to find meaning in life, Indian people often are not as interested in abstractions of experience as they are in making some sort of usable sense of their lives” (71). Discussions of literature are one way of "making some sort of usable sense" of life.
However, in the midst of his discussion of pragmatism and American Indian thought, Larson makes a claim that I find extremely disconcerting. He writes,
“Since becoming familiar with certain aspects of plains Indian cultures, especially with changes associated with influences brought by Europeans, such as the horse, I have come to a strong suspicion it was not defeat by Europeans that brought the cultures down but transgressions against their own moral strictures. Furthermore, I believe the Indians were culturally and militarily superior during much of their early interaction with Europeans, and that they were not felled solely by Europeans or by their technology but rather by cosmic disasters visited on them from on high in fulfillment of their creation stories’ warnings against greed and abuse of power” (139-40).
I am honestly not sure what to do with this. It feels wrong, like a way of blaming the victims of genocide for their own destruction. He, of course, does claim that American Indians weren’t--strictly speaking--victims because they were stronger than Europeans to begin with. But by the time they abandoned their moral strictures, as he says, hadn’t they lost that advantage? This definitely needs more explanation, especially as it seems to contradict the beginning of chapter 2, which relies heavily on the narrative of the destruction of Indians by European violence, both physical and linguistic.
Larson continues in this line of thought, linking his analysis to a Pueblo worldview, which “teaches that every individual has immense responsibility for the world that he or she inhabits. Within this worldview there are no politicians, bad parents, or failed relationships to be blamed; each individual has complete responsibility for the survival of all things of this world, animate as well as inanimate, and it is only with acceptance of this responsibility that the individual reaches maturity” (141).
This statement underscores the point made in the previous quote: what happens is the responsibility of those to whom it happens, he seems to say. Taking responsibility is a great thing, but at what point can one blame others in this worldview? If we follow Larson's argument here, connecting these two quotes, is he willing to argue, then, that white people are absolved of blame for what happened to Native Americans? Is this genocide the Indians’ fault for not taking responsibility for their world?
I really don't think this is what he is arguing, but he is treading dangerous ground by linking history, morality, and responsibility in this way. He continues still further, however, saying, "These ideas deriving from southwestern Pueblo worldviews are the conceptual equals of any epistemology in existence. For example, the American Indian approach to dealing with evil by avoiding the use of further evil is clearly on a level with notions of defusing the scapegoating that fosters genocide” (141). At this point, the idea of responsibility he posits seems more promising; using this concept of responsibility to look forward instead of backward is much less troubling.
Aside from this one passage, Larson's book is a useful approach to teaching Native American literature as well as a solid attempt to bring together very disparate points of view regarding Native American literature, always with an eye to improving the situation of actual, living Native Americans by using literature to point to "tangible, workable solutions to our world problems instead of some sort of postmodern hopelessness" (69).
This is an intriguing point at which to begin yet another analysis of Native American literature. It shows how committed Larson is to finding a profitable middle ground between white Americans who are ignorant of the Native cultures that surround them and, frequently, ignorant of the history between their cultures and Native Americans who are ready to write off those white Americans altogether. In this process, he sees himself as one of those “caught in the middle [who then encounter the double bind of being made responsible for effective interaction with marginalized students while at the same time encountering serious resistance to change from representative of the status quo” (13).
One thing I particularly like about this book is Larson's incorporation of a discussion of teaching beside the theoretical and political analyses. This serves to illustrate the importance of the field of education in creating political change and also to give more concrete instances of how this literary analysis is made relevant to readers/students.
Larson's insistence on connecting literature and its analysis with the real world is a significant element of his book. Most Native American critics I have read insist upon this connection, but it remains a very good thing to remember: literature is not divorced from the real world and neither should the discussion of that literature be. Larson discusses autobiography as one way of making literature concrete and says, “Believing one’s life is one’s own is important to survivors of destruction, as is believing that one’s experiences have meaning. Within a situation where to live is to suffer, where to survive is to find meaning in life, Indian people often are not as interested in abstractions of experience as they are in making some sort of usable sense of their lives” (71). Discussions of literature are one way of "making some sort of usable sense" of life.
However, in the midst of his discussion of pragmatism and American Indian thought, Larson makes a claim that I find extremely disconcerting. He writes,
“Since becoming familiar with certain aspects of plains Indian cultures, especially with changes associated with influences brought by Europeans, such as the horse, I have come to a strong suspicion it was not defeat by Europeans that brought the cultures down but transgressions against their own moral strictures. Furthermore, I believe the Indians were culturally and militarily superior during much of their early interaction with Europeans, and that they were not felled solely by Europeans or by their technology but rather by cosmic disasters visited on them from on high in fulfillment of their creation stories’ warnings against greed and abuse of power” (139-40).
I am honestly not sure what to do with this. It feels wrong, like a way of blaming the victims of genocide for their own destruction. He, of course, does claim that American Indians weren’t--strictly speaking--victims because they were stronger than Europeans to begin with. But by the time they abandoned their moral strictures, as he says, hadn’t they lost that advantage? This definitely needs more explanation, especially as it seems to contradict the beginning of chapter 2, which relies heavily on the narrative of the destruction of Indians by European violence, both physical and linguistic.
Larson continues in this line of thought, linking his analysis to a Pueblo worldview, which “teaches that every individual has immense responsibility for the world that he or she inhabits. Within this worldview there are no politicians, bad parents, or failed relationships to be blamed; each individual has complete responsibility for the survival of all things of this world, animate as well as inanimate, and it is only with acceptance of this responsibility that the individual reaches maturity” (141).
This statement underscores the point made in the previous quote: what happens is the responsibility of those to whom it happens, he seems to say. Taking responsibility is a great thing, but at what point can one blame others in this worldview? If we follow Larson's argument here, connecting these two quotes, is he willing to argue, then, that white people are absolved of blame for what happened to Native Americans? Is this genocide the Indians’ fault for not taking responsibility for their world?
I really don't think this is what he is arguing, but he is treading dangerous ground by linking history, morality, and responsibility in this way. He continues still further, however, saying, "These ideas deriving from southwestern Pueblo worldviews are the conceptual equals of any epistemology in existence. For example, the American Indian approach to dealing with evil by avoiding the use of further evil is clearly on a level with notions of defusing the scapegoating that fosters genocide” (141). At this point, the idea of responsibility he posits seems more promising; using this concept of responsibility to look forward instead of backward is much less troubling.
Aside from this one passage, Larson's book is a useful approach to teaching Native American literature as well as a solid attempt to bring together very disparate points of view regarding Native American literature, always with an eye to improving the situation of actual, living Native Americans by using literature to point to "tangible, workable solutions to our world problems instead of some sort of postmodern hopelessness" (69).
More...