Ryan Smith

1 December 2012

The State of Native American Religion, Post II:

New Direction, New Perspective

Questions, III

As the second and final post of research about the state of Native American religious beliefs and practices, it would be safe to assume earlier paths of inquiry have led to intellectually satisfying conclusions. What I have found, though, is that the more I read, the more I feel compelled to continue reading, thinking and questioning. Questions are answered, but the trick is to not be entirely satisfied with them. In the last post, I explored two sources which described national trends in N.A. religious practice, namely the appropriation of traditional spiritual practices by shrewd, but insensitive, businesses and lost suburban souls. Another pair of articles discussed N.A. spirituality and practices by revealing the intimate, and indeed necessary, connection to land and place. Digging through the earth-as-religious-connection articles, I was tempted to consider these geographic ties as a resolution to my problem, but rereading has prompted to me to distrust such convenience. Between these articles, there was enough information to initiate me, as an amateur, into a community of awareness I was ignorant of before—and yet, these readings acted more like doors to new areas of inquiry than windows of pure knowledge. I said the trick is to avoid being satisfied, but perhaps I meant to avoid intellectual comfort, which always leads to smugness, never awe.

Realizing the impossible breadth of the direction of the former post, I’ve decided to back up a step, moving from the details of N.A. religious practices to understanding the state of Native America more generally. This step is not to expand the topic and questions even further, but to admit a certain conceptual defeat, and attempt a new, more modest, way in. Specifically, the articles at hand examine the would-be field of Native American studies—an approach with the potential to both preserve and spoil worldwide understanding of traditional American cultures, past and present—and the idea of tribal nationhood—a path which may be the future of N.A. sovereignty or may be something of a pipe-dream. The spiritual essence of such a diverse group of peoples may indeed be beyond abstract, detached research, but still, an awareness of the academic perspective and where political movements stand is a basic means to begin the search for understanding in earnest. 

“In Search of Theory and Method in American Indian Studies”—Duane Champagne

http://libproxy.uhcl.edu:2200/journals/american_indian_quarterly/v031/31.3champagne.html

Duane Champagne’s article both contemplates the current status of N.A. studies, and presents scholarly justification for further studies, complete with a global generalization aimed at the inclusion of indigenous peoples everywhere. The primary drive behind N.A. research is as political as it is cultural—to actually understand, and therefore successfully interact with Native Americans, we must learn what is behind their socio-political choices, such as resistance to the US government. In his own dense but loaded words: “American Indian cultural emphasis on retaining culture, identity, self-government, and stewardship of land and resulting contestations with the U.S. government and society forms a body of empirical social action that constitutes the subject matter of American Indian studies as an academic discipline” (Champagne 352). While the author admits that Native American studies have been steadily improving for students, he finds that the field itself lacking. In a succinct paragraph, he lists several problems: research is scattered and incoherent, study is dispersed between many different disciplines, and fields which incorporate N.A. studies often consider it a variant of their own topics. The possibility for an independent program is further complicated when taking university structure and funding into account. To save money, universities often simply offer willing teachers the opportunity to teach what they already know about Native Americans. It comes down to, Champagne says, the autonomy (or lack thereof) and business plans of colleges: “Universities and colleges serve broad American local and state interests, and significant investment in American Indian studies as a discipline is not generally a high priority or seen as a significant issue demanding attention” (357).

The author also explains theoretical reasons why American Indian programs have difficulty developing which reduce to a fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding of Native American culture. Often this is due to the limitations present in  the American English vocabulary—we speak, for example, of tribal nationhood (this research post is explicitly concerned with the idea), but the word “nation” may be misleading and inadequate when thinking about traditional tribal structures. Champagne goes on to identify (post)colonialism as the core concept behind most N.A. studies, yet, helpful and sympathetic as the perspective can be, it is traditionally Eurocentric and is almost necessarily bereft of the view of the colonized. Similarly, N.A. research, if it is to succeed and remain consistent, should have the long-term interest of the communities being studied at heart, not Western goals. Ultimately, Native American cultures are so vastly different—in terms of race, spirituality, class and other familiar labels—that studies from any field other than serious N.A. study are bound to, at best, partial understanding. The often intimidating sense of autonomy and non-participation—on every level, from culture to government and beyond—is an important focus for the field, and should color much of the research. A successful Indigenous studies field, which Champagne prefers to an American-only one, will not only properly conceptualize and theorize itself, but, in a practical move, be closely involved with the political will of existing peoples and the governments which engulf them.

“More Light Than Heat: The Current State of Native American Studies”—Jace Weaver

http://libproxy.uhcl.edu:2200/journals/american_indian_quarterly/v031/31.2weaver.html

            Jace Weaver, writing as both a “professor of Native American Studies” and a “native person,” begins by echoing Champagne’s appraisal of N.A. studies as fragmented between various disciplines, but quickly moves into recommendations and requirements for a possible program. In a series of refreshing, straightforward paragraphs, Weaver describes what a Native American field of study might, ideally, look like. First, he lays out potential course requirements—“cultures, literature, law and policy, history, and archaeology” are the core— with the goal of giving “students as broad an interdisciplinary grounding as possible in NAS” (Weaver 235-6). The comparative nature of the field, which is unavoidable given the sheer amount of tribal variety, is explained next, followed by a paragraph on the necessary perspective for N.A. studies; again, mirroring the former author’s concerns with the colonial perspective, Weaver insists that the perspective of Indians should not only included, but privileged, perhaps exclusively. Most histories of Native America have been, in essence, concerned primarily with Indians as seen and experienced by pioneers, settlers, and other whites; for the field to have purpose and legitimacy, perspectives must shift significantly. The fourth aspect of N.A. studies is the need for advocacy, which includes support of and involvement in Indian affairs. Wisely, Weaver anticipates resistance to such an active participation—how much more pleasant and safe to study the past and ignore the present, yes?—which he derides as dishonest, even exploitative. Such scholars are then described, amusingly but to the point, as “poachers” and “squatters” of Indian history and culture. Exploitative or not, these people have forgotten, or never admitted, the inevitable political nature of their work: “All scholarship serves some end, some ideological agenda, whether it is honest about it or not” (Weaver 236). As Champagne recommended, Weaver suggests that N.A. studies be “borderless” and encompass indigenous people all over the planet, who may share solidarity with one another on for various reasons.

            The field as it stands, the author says, is a “mess.” Besides shoddy scholarship and misguided intentions, there are the persistent problems of Indian-ness being claimed those merely attracted to some aspect of native-ness—as reflected in post one—and unrepentant victimhood, sometimes on the part of Native Americans themselves, but often on those who claim to study them. In the first case, matters are made worse by research which claims that nearly all Americans, because of intermarriage, are part Indian; whether this is genetically true or not, Weaver correctly identifies this trend as irrelevant to N.A. studies, and by essentially erasing Native identity, profoundly damaging. Much of the essay bemoans hindrances to the development of the field—“lack of academic association,” such as the Modern Language Association or the American Anthropological Association, for example—but time is taken for successes as well: wider recognition, new programs, healthy publications, and excellent books are all “signs of vitality in our field.” The article ends with a look towards a “traditional future”—one in which old ways are practiced but adapted to the challenges and opportunities globalization brings to native peoples.

“Actually Existing Indian Nations: Modernity, Diversity, and the Future of Native American Studies”—Scott Richard Lyons

http://libproxy.uhcl.edu:2200/journals/american_indian_quarterly/v035/35.3.lyons.html

            Drawing upon a number of relevant factors, Scott Richard Lyons’s article attempts a contemporary analysis of Native American studies, with special interest in the political aspects of the field. “Actually Existing Indian Nations” begins with a brief history of N.A. studies, noting its politicizing, which began in the 1960’s but gained considerable ground in the 1980’s. This movement has now become more or less global, and as other authors have identified, has begun to include indigenous people of all kinds. Uniting disparate global groups is the desire for freedom from forms of colonization and imperialism, which entails both economic justice and political self-governance. These movements do not, however, “seek an independent state so much as tribal autonomy” (Lyons 296). Lyons identifies two strands of political actions—“tribal transnationalisms”—of indigenous peoples: “one advancing local nationalisms using internationalist means, the other trying to make the world align more closely with indigenous values,” although he admits that both are closely interrelated and work more in concordance than at odds. (296).

            The article goes on to describe the Ojibwe reservation Lyons grew up on, Leech Lake, Minnesota, which he identifies as “an actually existing Indian nation.” This “nation” was assembled and recognized by US authorities in 1855, and was comprised of various tribes who shared a language but had little else in common. The author makes three distinct points regarding this nation-reservation; the first lies in the destructive but inescapable presence of colonialism. Reservations, Lyons explains are internal American colonies: “Natives who live on them possess dual citizenship (since 1924 Indians have been legally American citizens as well as citizens of their tribal nations) and thus have a peculiar dual identity as both American and colonial subjects depending on the space they inhabit at a given time” (301-2). Ironically, the “same person living elsewhere in the United States is an American of tribal descent—or, if you prefer, an ethnic minority—with American rights” (302). The author’s second observation is that the people of the Ojibwe reservation are incredibly diverse—their religious beliefs, for example, range from traditional (and there are many versions of traditional practice) to variants of Christianity to atheist/non-believing and so on. The entire idea of such a reservation is unnatural, historically speaking, synthetic, and arbitrary. Lyon’s final remark is of the capability of Indian people to handle modernity, to adapt to and navigate—as they have throughout history—issues of globalization, assimilation and so on. Too many scholars, Lyons explains, see N.A. studies as a dead field, or one exclusively dealing with the past; modern Native Americans, of course, exist, and the field should make these communities its priority. When the dominant culture sets up, through its academia, a false binary between civil and savage, or modern and non-modern, it is often disastrous for Indians.

            Lyons describes ways in which tribal people are modernizing, including fighting for national and/or indigenous rights, but always has an eye in both directions, one past and one present/future. The past is inescapable, and important, but modern Native Americans are literally the future of research and study. The article ends with the recognition of the dreamy comfort found in seeing Native peoples as mystic earth-people, steadfastly clinging to ancient rituals, “but the danger of this comfort is a romanticization that not only misreads an actually existing Indian nation but actually condescends to it and ultimately excludes it” (Lyons 310).

Reclaiming Indigenous Intellectual, Political, and Geographic Space: A Path for Navajo Nationhood—Lloyd L. Lee

http://libproxy.uhcl.edu:2200/journals/american_indian_quarterly/v032/32.1lee.html

            Lloyd L. Lee’s article starts strong, proclaiming the longevity of Navajo society, which “for millennia” has been “self-sufficient.” The last hundred plus years, however, have slowly eroded that autonomy and replace traditional means of tribal unity and governance with Western-style administration. The Indians under these bureaucracies, Lee says, are increasingly unsatisfied, and prominent N.A. writers have been speaking up, calling not only for sovereignty, but for independence (96-7). Although different indigenous peoples call for different ways of governing and obtaining independence—some encourage individual connections to Indian personhood, others put emphasis on national solidarity—autonomy is the shared objective.

            The reasons why the Navajo, and other tribal peoples, are not actively fighting for nationhood are listed and explained by Lee. For the Navajo, specific philosophic/spiritual principles “which provide the ways to maintain a healthy lifestyle and environment” are either ignored, or are simply not being incorporated into daily life and thought; similarly, knowledge of Navajo culture, including language and religious practice, is steadily disintegrating. This is partly due to the change and growth which comes with all successive generations, but can also be contributed to the US Government’s active attempts to enforce Western education on young Navajo.  Social ills, such as alcoholism, poverty and so on also prevent or discourage Indians from using their energies for self-governance. Despite these setbacks, nationhood is possible, and only requires a concentrated effort on the part of native peoples.

            Certain political routes to nationhood are recommended by Lee before he names education as a crucial factor in cultural and political awareness. “The current education system” he explains, “teaches Navajo people to acculturate to American society and develop a loyalty to the settler-colonial nation-state. It does not teach them how to balance historical Navajo thought with American education” (Lee 104). Neither does such a system give students an understanding of different forms of oppression, a skill integral to understanding Native American culture; instead of fostering political understanding and creativity, Western education is designed to produce appropriate workers, or in some cases foster abstract introspection, based on self rather than community (Lee 105). Navajo people—and ostensibly, indigenous people everywhere—must move towards true independence. Without such autonomy, traditional ways of thinking will not only disappear, but will be barred from growing and evolving as so much of Western thought has been allowed to.

Questions, IV

            It is difficult to fend off the heaviness of overwhelming ignorance which inevitably descends when asking big questions—maybe any serious questions. One question may yield several answers, with each answer revealing new unknowns. This isn’t to say, however, that the situation is hopeless, but rather to say that it is near-infinite. To those seeking answers and wisdom, this limitlessness ought to be a great joy—though many of us may be tired for such enthusiasm. Not only is there always more to be learned, but there are ever-increasing connections to be made as well.

            Moving outwards from a relatively direct examination of existing Native American religious beliefs to an attempt at grasping the current possibilities and actualities of N.A. studies has been, in some ways, disappointing. I want unambiguous answers to my questions about the future of N.A. spirituality—which, in my naivety, I dreamed might shake up the West and the rest of the world—but I am increasingly aware that the continental-sea of indigenous culture and religion is so complex as to be almost impenetrable. Meanings of rituals and stories are lost or twisted as the planet becomes increasingly interconnected; the seeds of explosive, transcendent fruitfulness are present, but every seed, we know, must die before it grows. My newfound respect for the geographical nature of native practices is significant, but I am bitterly aware, also, of the seeming inevitability of the destruction and theft of natural places. A comprehensive research field dedicated to indigenous advocacy is in the works, and may be our best bet at conserving and supporting such culture, but faces setbacks in every direction. Indian nationhood may be inherently able to preserve itself, but such autonomy is doubtful.

             Perhaps the questions themselves need rewording, or reimagining. It may be that requests offered from comfortable detachment, as cool abstractions, will be denied, or responded to with like inertia. Wondering demands wandering, and words, I think, should never rest in the mind or mouth, but must move to the feet and hands.

Works Cited

Champagne, Duane. “In Search of Theory and Method in American Indian Studies.” The American Indian Quarterly 31.3 (2007): 353-72. Web. 1 December 2012.

Lee, Lloyd L. “Reclaiming Indigenous Intellectual, Political, and Geographic Space: A Path for Navajo Nationhood.” The American Indian Quarterly 32.1 (2008): 96-110. Web. 1 December 2012.

Lyons, Scott Richard. “Actually Existing Indian Nations: Modernity, Diversity, and the Future of Native American Studies.” The American Indian Quarterly 35.3 (2011): 294-311. Web. 1 December 2012.

Jace, Weaver. “More Light Than Heat: The Current State of Native American Studies.” The American Indian Quarterly 31.2 (2007): 233-55. Web. 1 December 2012.