After completing my proposal, the methodology needs to be put into practice. I have researched all of the sources i will be using however it was all completed in my book and i will separate the source analysis into blog posts.
The first source i looked at were the articles from the books release in america to see how well it was received an the overall opinion of its context.
I was able to get a one week digital pass to The New York Review and therefore gain access to The Forked Tongue Syndrome. 1.
My first impression of the article before I purchased was simply a book review, however, the after reading a gained a deeper understanding of the purposes of history and the issues raised when reconstructing 'red' history. therefore this article does not give the detailed insight to how the americans received Dee Browns work that i hoped it would, however proved useful.
- content:
The begins with a statement which briefly summarises the intensions of all the book authors and acknowledges the previous prejudice perspectives in writing the history of america, hence highlighting the urgency for a 'red' perspective.
It then continues with a series of issues that the historian attempting to reverse this prejudice faces.
These are:
a. that as the indian americans didn't possess means of communicating history and it is all dominated by white 'victory' accounts. These accounts portray the reds as savage and is seen as a justification of their the white brutality inflicted upon them, however fail to mention that "the savage the whites conquered was a being of their own manufacture". Additional sources are also used to highlight this one sided history, Yellow Wolf of the Nez Perce Indians stated, "the whites told only one side. told it to please themselves. only his own best deeds, only the worst of the indians has the white man told". therefore the historian attempting to reverse this history will have difficulty determining what is fact or prejudice.
b. another issue is the person contracting history, a common problem is that even in todays society the 'red' man has not been able to take part in the business of writing, editing and publishing his own history. therefore in the books, the whites serve as collaborators. however all recognise that they are "intruding upon the very history that they are attempting to recover." Therefore, the collaborator has the responsibility of judging the sources available to them and since all the native speeches have been transcribed by whites who has no linguistic training, the majority of sources are contained with errors.
c. relating to this, the indian culture has their own way of presenting history, therefore he story which is least conwtsimined with white culture is to be communicated in their own mode of - poetry, symbolism etc. which makes it incomprehensible to the white trying to interpret.
d. finally the main issue relating to all historical primary sources - how accurate is it? how authentic? memory may have failed them or lies may have been said to undermine or exaggerate his role.
Then farb reviews the books below and identifies how the author constructed the history and analyses how well.
I Have Spoken: American History Through the Voices of the Indians
compiled by Virginia Irving Armstrong
Swallow Press, 206 pp., $2.95 (paper)
The Memoirs of Chief Red Fox
with an Introduction by Cash Asher
McGraw-Hill, 209 pp., $6.95
The First Hundred Years of Niño Cochise
as told to A. Kinney Griffith
Abelard-Schuman, 346 pp., $9.95
Geronimo: His Own Story by
edited by S.M. Barrett, newly edited with an Introduction and Notes Frederick W. Turner III
Dutton, 191 pp., $1.25 (paper)
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West
by Dee Brown
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 487 pp., $10.95
Information gained:
1. The issues - i have listed above helps with understand the challenges when contracting 'red' history in america.2. How it was received - As the article aimed to review a series of historians that claim to rewrite the american colonisation of the west, his interpretation of dee browns Bury My Heart in contrast to the others gives insight to how the book was received. Farb criticises the other authors for inflicting white prejudices or unsuccessfully translations, Brown however escapes these judgements but received another; as a sole author he had an obligation to remain "scholarly objective" however subjectively sympathises with native americans. Before starting my research i was under the impression that brown was the first historian that attempted to dispel the myth of the west, however it seems there has been a multitude before him all with the same goal, this highlights the significance of browns work: why is he the most widely credited for rewriting American history?
3. the value and purpose of history is also highlighted in this article, farb states "it is not what they tell us about indian that is the value but what they tell us about changing white attitudes" i found this of importance as my focus if on how he changed attitudes and this quote it highlights the change.
4. lastly as there was a growing interest in red history i was drawn to this quote, "turner bluntly asks whether liberal whites are sincerely interested in knowing about all of red history or only about the good indians." i found this to be a good point, when reading a white account of the west, a violent indian is seen to just be a false construction of white prejudice however true as it may be. Dee drown focuses solely on the brutality of the whites against the victimised reds, yet there is no criticism of a prejudice. is this because is it by a white man? Is this why it is so popular, because it shows the nobel savages the public wants to hear about?
No comments:
Post a Comment