LITR 5731 Seminar in American Multicultural Literature UHCL spring 2006 sample student final exam

LITR 5731: Seminar in American Minority Literature

Sample Student Final Exam Submission, spring 2006

A Review of Minority Representations (Native American) of the USA’s “Dominant” Culture – Objective 7

In Black Elk Speaks, you can sense the initial moods of confusion, frustration and distrust among the Lakota Indian tribespeople. This mood – through bloodshed and broken promises – turns bitter with contempt and unbridled hatred as they watch the white people steal their homeland and slay their people.

Black Elk refers to the white people he sees coming into his land as “Wasichu,” which means something holy and incomprehensible. The Lakotas and Black Elk watch, oftentimes in utter disbelief, as the white people invade their land: “Those Wasichus had come to kill our mothers & fathers and us, and it was our country,” and then, “Wherever we went, the soldiers came to kill us, and it was all our own country” (pg. 102).

In sharp contrast to the equitable and communal nature of tribe, the self-centered culture and rabid pursuit of the “American Dream” by whites was one Black Elk simply could not comprehend. Not surprisingly, he could not grasp why the Waischus would want to try to obtain some permanent “ownership” pieces of nature (“yellow metal that made them crazy”) and land that was there before they were born, and would be there long after their death. The Lakotas understood that the natural world was there to be used by them as temporary keepers of the animals, land and plants. They considered their “dream” to be based in a (balanced) natural world, with its wildlife and forces as sacred divinities. He spoke many times about the cyclical nature of the “hoop” and how, if everything were respected and used in a balanced manner, nature would replenish and renew itself in it’s own cyclical and balanced fashion. So it is no wonder that these divergent fundamental values remain, even to this day, in diametric opposition.

You can read modern-day tribal resistance to American’s personal and national ideologies and ethics in Peter Blue Cloud’s “Crazy Horse Monument” and Chrystos’ “ I have not Signed a Treaty with the United States” poems. In the beginning of Blue Cloud’s “Crazy Horse Monument,” he writes: “Hailstones falling like sharp blue sky chips, " which is his description of the beautiful and pristine mountain being blown apart with manmade dynamite in order to “honor” a man who deeply revered and respected nature. (In and of itself, this poses a stalemated juxtaposition of views.) Again, in the line, "And what would he think of the cold steel chisel…," you sense how the destruction of the mountain (i.e. nature) would only serve to re-open the already gaping wound that Crazy Horse had for the environmental ruin of his native land.

But Chrystos’ poetry moves Native Americans from passive victims into (implied) civil disobedience. In his poem, he writes how neither he, nor his father, nor his grandfathers ever agreed to adhere to follow the “crazy” white American dream. Chrystos says that the U.S. spews out theories and illusions, and even tells white people that they’re “terminated,” and to leave America and “go home.” Like Black Elk, he says whites are exposed as absolute charlatans, and that “your stories are no good,” and “your spell is dead,” and to “go far away, we won't remember you ever came here.”
Like Chrytsos, Black Elk reveals that white people cannot be trusted as they break their vows and agreements. For instance, after the whites killed Crazy Horse, the soldiers said they would remain unharmed if they returned peacefully to the camp, but Black Elk said: “It was a story the Wasichus told, and their tongues were forked when they told it” (pg. 96). Again, on pages 102 and 109, the Lakotas have learned to not place any faith in what white people say or offer: “…the Wasichus had made a treaty with Red Cloud, that said it [the land] would be ours as long as grass would grow and water flow. That was only eight winters ago, and they were chasing us now because we remembered and they forgot,” and, “They could not kill him [Crazy Horse] in battle. So they had to lie to him & kill him that way.”

In fact, in my own personal research, I found that the Native Americans primarily today use the term Wasi'chu to negatively describe someone who "takes the fat" or is a greedy person. In the end, the term has come to represent everything Native Americans Indians despise: a wonton covetousness nature that will destroy lives and exploit any and all natural resources for personal profit.

As parents, we learn that whether we elicit our children’s voluntary participation in an activity – or have to force their involvement – can create the difference between a cheery and good-humored activity, and a painful, arduous event. So it is with the forced participation of the African and Native American minorities under the dominant U.S. culture. When people are physically threatened and forced to do things they don’t want to, they will gather all of their resources (physical stamina, money, natural resources, community power, etc.) and fight against the forces that view as oppressive, unfair or discriminatory.

We see this form of opposition every day – whenever a nation or people are held under a forced occupation, terrorist threats or dictatorial regimes. Perhaps the old adage that “desperate people do desperate things” could apply in this instance, in that whenever individuals or an ethnic group see no possibility for a “fair shot,” they will feel as though they have little (more) to lose and fight until there is some (favorable or unfavorable) resolution/outcome. Granted, there are instances when the group feels overwhelmed and undervalued to the extent that they lose hope and cohesion and give up. But, from a historical viewpoint, even during these outwardly “passive” times, some oppressed groups moved underground, all the while actively refortifying and reorganizing their efforts for a renewed effort. But during these times, resentment can build up and create horrible consequences, as the group feels a growing sense of powerlessness against the dominant group.

We read this resentment and pent-up hatred in Black Elk Speaks when he describes, with much delight, how he scalps his first white man. He writes how he thought it was “funny to see the naked Wasichu” fighting for his life against some Lakota women who were trying to strip and kill him. Later, with great mockery, he tells how he guesses the white men “got enough to drink, for they are drinking yet. We killed them in the water.” Clearly, for a Lakota man, who claims to be a “lover of nature,” to take such unmitigated delight in the death of another human – there had to be an amassed stockpile of bitter hatred and disgust. In my opinion, he would have to believe that the killing of such a person would be a positive “benefit” to the world. Black Elk also writes that he did not feel any remorse for killing any whites – he felt he was justified in killing them as they were the unproved aggressors in his homeland: “I was not sorry at all.”

In the end, it takes a large amount of deliberate and cohesive efforts to pit one ethnic group against another – and conversely, only a modicum of respect to alter the encounter into a positive one.