Identity and Fluidity: Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Story of a Part-Time Indian

In what follows, L.M. shares her thoughts on Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Story of a Part-Time Indian.


* * * * * 

The novel The Absolutely True Story of a Part Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie, is a witty account of Arnold Spirit’s breaching of the cultural barriers between the Spokane Indian reservation and the mainstream American society. As Junior decides to attend high school at Reardan, an all-white school outside of the reservation, he steps out of the indigenous cultural sphere and goes beyond the limits of reservation life. Being exposed to the white society, Arnold is forced to negotiate his way between two different cultures. This constant shift between cultures unsettles Arnold’s sense of self-identity, which oscillates between tribal values or loyalty to the reservation and his desire to fit into the mainstream white society. However, through his struggles associated with the dichotomy between these cultures, Arnold’s split selves reconcile and ultimately reach an agreement as he realizes and accepts the
fluidity of his identity.  At the beginning of the novel, Sherman Alexie builds up a narrative in which
Arnold strongly identifies with the Spokane Indian tribal group. As Arnold describes the
problems faced by the Spokane Indians, he states that “we reservation Indians don’t get to realize our dreams. We don’t get those changes. Or choices. We’re just poor. That’s all we are” (13). By using the subject “we,” Arnold equates and groups himself with the rest of the Spokane Indians on the reservation. As he reveals to the audience his sense of inclusion, it is obvious to see that Arnold is referring to himself as one of the “reservation Indians,” which suggests that he certainly identifies with this group of people.

Arnold’s strong identification with the Spokane Indian group manifests into a sense of segregation from the whites. By using the subject “we reservation Indians,” Arnold has categorized himself as a “reservation Indian” (13). This categorization serves as a mechanism of separation, for it groups together certain individuals within a larger society; in this case, the Spokane Indians are assembled into a single, stand-alone entity within the larger American society. In other words, this system of classification forms an artificial sphere that separates the Spokane Indians from the mainstream white society by bestowing on them a sense of sovereignty and exclusivity. As Arnold self-identifies as a part of this independent group of people, he has stepped into the artificial sphere and pulled away from the society that surrounds it – the white community outside of the reservation. Indeed, this line of division is illustrated through Arnold’s worry that “[his] fellow tribal members are going to torture [him]”
for going to Reardan, for breaking away from a place where his identity belongs to and entering a separate world.  Arnold’s sense of belonging in the Spokane Indian community becomes more
apparent as he attempts to defend the Spokane culture against the constant prejudices of his white classmates. When a “gang of giants strutted over to” Arnold at lunchtime, the leader, Roger the Giant, takes one step too far by telling a joke in which he compares Indians to the offspring of “niggers” and “buffalo[s]” (65). Having been exposed to ridicule and humiliation, Arnold acts out of indignation and “punched Roger in the face” (65). The significance of Arnold’s action lies in the fact that
Arnold “wasn’t just defending [himself]. [He] was defending Indians” as well (65). Because Roger’s joke about Indians in general evokes in Arnold the feeling of being “kicked […] in the face,” Arnold has taken the joke personally, which implies that he considers himself as a part of the “Indians” (65).

Arnold’s decision to attend school at Reardan – a community that embodies everything “opposite of the rez”, and thereby everything “opposite of [Arnold]” – marks the beginning of his struggle to maintain his Indian identity (56). On his very first day of class, Arnold’s introduction of himself as Junior was only met with the laughter of his classmates. Surprised by the “laughing” class, Arnold “had no idea that Junior was a weird name,” for “it’s a common name on [his] rez” (60). The difference between the perspectives on the name “Junior” symbolizes the demarcation between the Spokane Indian and Anglo cultures. Because “every other Indian calls [him] Junior,” the name “Junior” becomes an embodiment of Arnold’s Indian identity, an identity he is pulled away from when the teacher calls him by his “name name […] ‘Arnold Spirit’” (60). Arnold admits to the audience that his name is both “Junior and Arnold,” which evokes in him the feeling of having “two different people inside of one body” (61). Here, Arnold reveals for the first time his conflicting identities. From this point on, there is a strongly depicted dichotomy between his struggle to preserve his Indian-self and his struggle to fit into the dominant Anglo culture at Reardan. This dichotomy is clearly visualized in the drawing on page 57, where he constructs a comparison between Indians and whites by splitting a drawing of a boy
into two halves.  It is certainly possible to look at this drawing as an amalgam of Arnold and any
one of the “white guys” at Reardan (56). Or perhaps, one could view it as a picture of the narrator himself, split into Arnold and Junior, his white self and Indian self  respectively. The significance of the illustration lies in the fact that each half is exactly the opposite of the other, which represents the distinctive contrast between the two cultural identities. This binary polarization between the two in turn suggests their incompatibility, and the internal conflict that Arnold is attempting to resolve.
Later on in the novel, however, this cultural demarcation of Arnold’s Indian and white identities is blurred. When the Reardan basketball team claims victory in a game against the Welpinit Redskins, Arnold “whooped” as he celebrates their victory. As he excitedly claims that they, the Reardans, “had defeated the enemy,” Arnold shares the victorious joy with the white players on the team. He has completely subsumed his identity into the Anglo culture of Reardan, for he now recognizes himself as a
part of the white team. Though Arnold has developed a sense of belonging towards the whites in Reardan, he has not neglected the part of him that is defined by the Spokane Indian culture. He now realizes that not only is he a “Spokane Indian,” he also “belonged to the tribe of American immigrants. And to the tribe of basketball players” (217). Instead of denying his Indian culture, Arnold opens up to new experiences that foster an additional set of identities. Rather than shifting his identity from the reservation to the white community at Reardan, Arnold now personifies both cultures as he accepts the fluidity of his identities.

As Sherman Alexie plays with the dichotomy between cultures, he unsettles the artificial line that divides the indigenous groups from the rest of the American society by combining the two cultures into a single representation, which guides the audience to a deeper thinking of a cultural hybridization. During this process of hybridization, diverse identities become alloyed into one single entity, which undermines the mechanisms of separation created by a system of categories. The blurring of this line of cultural segregation in turn breaks down the traditional notion of having only one cultural identity, which calls for the need to redefine the boundaries between cultures. The underlying motive of the author then becomes clear: what he endeavors to illustrate through this cultural fusion is a possibility for the attainment of cosmopolitanism – an ideology that people from different social or cultural spheres all
belong to one community that is based on shared values and moralities.

L.M.

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian: Imagery and Identity

In what follows, S. P. shares her thoughts on Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.

* * * * *

Arnold Spirit Jr.’s Art, Identity, and anything that came to mind while reading Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. Out of all the books I’ve read for this class, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian is by far my favorite. In this novel written by Sherman Alexie and illustrated by Ellen Forney, Arnold Spirit Jr. documents his daily life as a young Spokane Indian who left the reservation in order to escape hopelessness and pursue a better education. He no doubt faces many trials. At first, he is picked on by the White kids at school and at home, his peers see him as a traitor for leaving the rez. But nonetheless, with the help of certain encouraging people, he overcomes these hardships. As we read Arnold’s diary, we get a glimpse of his inner thoughts and emotions not only through his writing, but also through his drawings.

Born with a speech impediment, I believe Arnold began drawing to better communicate with his world. He even says, “I draw because words are too unpredictable. I draw because words are too limited” (Alexie 5). In a sense I agree with Arnold’s point of view. I find that his illustrations detailing the people in his life thoroughly summarize each individual to the point that I argue words cannot achieve alone. Arnold’s drawing of his sister depicts an elder sibling, arms on hips in a rather defiant pose (27) Arnold’s illustration captures his sister’s strength and rebelliousness. I also love Arnold’s short phrases which he uses to detail some of his drawings. From what Mary is wearing, we see that she is not the most upstanding citizen but is rather the avid shoplifter. But yet, Arnold compares her to the famous celebrity Jennifer Lopez “(if J. Lo was smarter)” suggesting that he is well versed in the most recent pop culture and also highly respects his sister (27).

Not only does Arnold draw complex diagrams to introduce the people in his life, but he also doodles drawings that range towards the metaphorical. In the beginning, Arnold reveals to the readers why he draws as his “only real chance to escape the reservation” (6). In a sense, Arnold has this dream to become a cartoonist, and it is because this dream that he has hope to achieve success in life. When Mr. P tells Arnold to leave the reservation, Arnold draws a picture of himself standing at the crossroads of the rez and hope. He looks towards hope, but the sign pointing towards hope has “???” written on it. Behind him lies his dilapidated home with a moose (43). With no words, pictures tell an entire story and convey so much feeling. The position of Arnold in the picture signifies a new, uncharted chapter in his life. Arnold knows that by distancing himself from the rez there is hope, but what actually defines hope, he has yet to figure out. His illustration brings to light the greater picture of what many Indians face on the reservation, how there is an endless cycle of hopelessness and defeat.

I noticed that there are many variations to the drawings in how they are framed. Some pictures would be drawn onto a scrap piece of paper, or torn from a notebook. Some would be drawn directly onto the page. Nonetheless, the way these pictures are framed is special. I read this novel as a diary, and I thought that the pictures that he taped onto the page were sketches

he drew during the day, at school or doing homework. For example, the sketch of Arnold’s

schoolteacher, Mr. P, could have been drawn in school and then pasted onto his journal later (29). The sketches drawn without any framing suggests he was writing in his diary and drew the picture while he was composing his thoughts. Either that or the pictures without frames were too large and took the entire page. What do you think about the framing and its significance?

I think what I really like about Arnold is his light-hearted yet powerful humor. Given his

circumstances and background, he could have turned out to be an entirely different person. Arnold’s ability to create humor through satire out of such hardships allows him to persevere. His cartoonish drawings are by far the medium he uses to alleviate his darkest moments of being bullied and living in poverty with alcoholic family members. I also find the teenage vernacular Arnold uses resonates with my generation such as overused political words such as “Weapon of Mass Destruction” to IM chat acronyms like “WTF” and the overall use of raw language (143, 107). I felt that by using such vocabulary, Arnold was more transparent and confessional that way. I say that this combination of art and language go hand in hand at forming Arnold’s identity.

On the topic of identity, Arnold’s transition from Wellpinit to Reardan isolates him from

everyone. It seems as if he is living double lives. For example, at the reservation he would be called Junior, but at Reardan he is known as Arnold. Not to mention Arnold does not fit in either setting; he is set apart by the color of skin in one, and is rejected by his own community in the other. I argue that it is through his art that he reaches out to these two worlds in an attempt to re/connect with them. At Reardan, Arnold shares his passion and feelings about drawing cartoons to top academic ace Gordy and in return, Gordy shares his passion for getting a “metaphorical boner” every time he reads a really good book (97). On the other side of the world, shunned by almost everyone on the reservation including his best friend Rowdy, Junior draws a picture for him depicting both of them in superhero costumes and bumping fists (102). With this simple gesture, we see Rowdy slowly come to accept what Junior has become.

In class we discussed the idea of passing – how one person can pass from one realm to another. For example, Tallulah in Blake Hausman’s Riding the Trail of Tears mentions how she can

pass as being White or Cherokee. In the case of Junior, his physical complexion inhibits him from passing in a physical sense, but nonetheless he is able to travel back and forth between Wellpinit, the poor Indian town, to Reardan, the rich White town. In doing so, people perceive him in different ways. At Reardan, the White population sees him as the Indian kid, while back at home, his Spokane Indian peers see him as White person. I think that through this apparent role reversal, Arnold is further isolated from both communities and therefore must cope by drawing.

Throughout the novel, we see themes such as identity, isolation, passing which all seem to be manifested in Arnold Spirit Jr.’s art. Through drawing, Arnold readily identifies himself with it and through art he can have hope. Because of Arnold’s circumstance of moving in and out of the reservation he is isolated because he belongs to neither world. In order to combat this loneliness, Arnold draws not only to escape reality, but to also create and mend relations.

Overall, I thought that Arnold’s art was a great addition to the story and helped to address many issues he faced. What are your thoughts about the art? Did you feel like it enriched the story?

Symposium Week

Project Length: 5-7 minutes

For the final week of our course, each of you will present a brief summary of your research to the class. You may choose to summarize the central argument of your paper by reading your thesis and one or two of your close readings of passages. Or, you might decide to read sections of your paper that you most enjoyed writing. The format and content of this presentation are left entirely up to you. But, keep in mind that the point is to generate questions in and between members of your audience. If you have any questions in the meantime, please let me know.

Good luck

Matt Dembicki's Trickster: Tricksters and Gods

In what follows C.W. shares her thoughts on Matt Dembicki's Trickster:

* * * * *

While reading Matt Dembicki's Trickster, I could not help but draw some comparisons between the tricksters of Native American folklore and the heroes of ancient Greek mythology. The most notable stories would be “How the Alligator Got His Brown, Scaly Skin” (123-136) and “When Coyote Decided to Get Married” (149-160), which revolved around collectivist ideas such as sharing your possessions or that one's incompetence leads to the downfall of the entire group. Both stories involve morals that are precedent in Greek myths, namely the concepts of hospitality and deceit. When reading “Alligator,” the first thing that came to my mind was xenos, which can mean anything from “foreigner” to “guest” to “friend,” depending on the context and how it is used. Ancient Greek society stressed upon the ideas of hospitality, and if one was inhospitable to a guest, they could count on Zeus, considered the God of xenos, to punish them. In the story of “How the Alligator Got His Brown, Scaly Skin,” Alligator gets burned by burning wood when he does not let other animals drink from his pond. Since the pond is technically his home (that is where alligators live after all), he's not being a very good host. Similarly, when Odysseus and his crew mates arrive at the cave of Polyphemus, a cyclops, Polyphemus reacts by eating a few of Odysseus's men—not exactly a hospitable act. Odysseus gets revenge by blinding Polyphemus with a hot spear of wood. Both stories show instances of characters not being hospitable to their xenoi, or guests. They can also be seen as a warning to not be selfish with your own possessions. Since many Native American tribes are collectivist societies, this makes sense. (Collectivist societies stress the importance of putting the

collective group above oneself.) Clearly, as a group-oriented people, Native Americans must learn to share their resources. Thus, stories about unfriendly hosts such as Alligator and Polyphemus could be seen as showcases of what happens when you try to stray away from collectivism (or in Greece's case, hospitality). (Although since ancient Greece was actually an individualistic society, the fact that their culture was so “guest”-based is surprising.)

“When Coyote Decided to Get Married” also depicts an interesting moral. When a family presents their daughter to Coyote, he is furious that they brought an “unpure” woman to him. Even though the family had no idea their daughter lied about being a virgin, Coyote punishes her family and all of the other families that were waiting on him by turning them into stone pillars. The daughter's deceit leads to everyone being punished. The Greeks have a similar moral, where one person's lie leads to the punishment of the whole group. In one Greek myth, a man named Tantalus attempts to deceive the Gods by serving them his son, Pelops. The Gods quickly realize this deceit and Tantalus is punished for his terrible deed. However, it does not end there. There are three big taboos one should never commit in ancient Greek society (or any society, for that matter). One of which, happens to be infanticide. Anyone who commits a taboo will be cursed. Thus, Tantalus and all of Tantalus's descendents end up dying terrible or dishonorable deaths (usually by murder). Tantalus's children had nothing to do with the death of Pelops, but they were cursed anyway. Similarly, in “How the Alligator Got His Brown, Scaly Skin” the other families had no part in that one woman's deceit, yet everyone was turned into stone. This could thus be seen as a moral supporting a collectivist society, teaching that one's deceit leads to the downfall of the entire group.

Although anyone can point to a story and compare it to another, the similarities between Native Americans and Greeks do not just end with folklore and mythology. Although ancient Greece was considered an individualistic society, with its emphasis on heroic deeds and the importance of a single individual, its beliefs were also highly collectivist. Both Native Americans and ancient Greeks believed in the importance of the group, namely with the ideas of xenos and collective punishment.

Matt Dembicki's Trickster: The Interconnectivity of Life

In what follows S.X. shares her thoughts on Matt Dembicki's Trickster: Native American Tales a Graphic Collection.

* * * * *

“Human kind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.All things are bound together. All things connect.” Chief Seattle's words ring true as Native American culture embraces the interconnectedness in nature between animals and humans alike. This close relationship with nature is shown through their stories, especially the trickster tales, as many types of interactions between different species in the web of life occur. The bond within the cycle of life is so strong in trickster tales, that not only do different animals interact with each other, but there is actually a fusion between animals and humans present in the form of shapes shifters and half humans. The interwoven connection transgresses beyond physical boarders to the point that animals are able to adopt humanistic characteristics. In a graphic interpretation and illustration of trickster tales, Trickster by Matt Dembicki shows the interconnectedness in nature of different beings through anthropomorphism and transcending the boarders that separate different species

Anthropomorphism is a common occurrence in trickster tales, and many of these animals and humans have certain characteristic that parallels a archetype. An archetype is a terminology coined by Carl Jung that states that there is a instinctive need or desire to have things happen in a certain way (Boeree). The idea of archetypes is important in trickster tales and it is usually reflects a human trait. For example, in the story “How the alligator got his brown, scaly, skin” by Joyce Bear and Megan Baehr, the alligator, “was very selfish and stingy with his water. He always claimed every bit of the river as his. From up the hill, Alligator could see up and down the river and scare the other animals away” (126-127, Dembicki). Alligator's selfishness and greed is an archetype, here he feels the instinctive need to dominate the water. This dominant behavior is something that alligator has inherently, and therefore is a subconscious desire that he has. In this story alligator's selfishness mirrors human archetypes in which he wants to dominate and posses something that does not belong to him. Land and water are things that are supposed to be shared resources, but alligator is making a claim to a piece of land where many other organisms live and need to utilize this land. This is a parallel to worst of human nature and our need to own something and take it for ourselves for our own selfish purposes. This story serves almost as a warning to the white settlers that colonized the Americas when the Native Americans were here. The idea of being selfish and taking more than you need represents the mindset of the white settlers at that time who claimed the land to be their own rather than see it as a shared resource like the Native Americans had. Eventually the selfishness of alligator led to his downfall because he failed to be interconnected to the other animals and thus nature around him by wanting to dominate rather than coexist with nature. Similarly this can be seen as a human trait where selfish and needless desire to dominate nature can lead to disastrous results to anyone who tries. The anthropomorphic characteristics of the alligator are used to display the similarities and interrelatedness between human and nature, showing that humans and nature are not necessarily that different. This story between animals is used to teach a moral that can be applied to humanity as well, reinforcing the idea that there exists an interconnection between humans, animals, and nature as a whole.

The idea of transcending boarders or rather the ambiguity of boarders and separation between humans and animals provides another very provocative topic in the trickster tales. While anthropomorphism is a similarity in traits, tricksters are also physically similar to humans either presented through the power to shape shift or their appearance has traces of animalistic features to them. Inter species communication and relationships are regarded as normal in trickster tales, even though normally nature does not coexist this way. This synchronization of nature and man shows a united world where animals and humans do not differ very much between each other. For example, in the story “Trickster and the Great Chief” by David Smith, the unnamed trickster is a blend of human and animal characteristics. His hands and legs are furred and clawed like that of an animal and his malicious intentions to steal look very predatory like that of a feral animal. His primitive and ferocious outer appearance reflects his inner self as a human with malice in his heart trying to thief and prey on the helpless. The lack of separation between human and animal reiterate the close relationship between man and nature where man is a part of nature and the world around him.

Interspecies relationships are also very prominent in showing the unity of humans and nature. For example in the story “When Coyote Decided to get Married” by Eirik Thorsbard, the coyote asks the chief to, “send runners on my behalf and bring me a bride” (152, Dembicki). Even though the coyote is an animal, he asks for a human bride and the chief readily agrees to this request. Not only that but, “Many women and their families came from around the lands to go to coyote, each bringing gifts to present to him, hoping that it would ensure that coyote could give their families consideration for the marriage” (158, Dembicki). The willingness of the people to marry their daughters off and accept a coyote as part of their family shows the lack of separation between species, or rather an interconnectedness between species. The fact that coyote and his bride will be nothing alike physically does not seem to deter these women and families from coming to visit him. The casual relationship between humans and nature where humans are able to directly communicate with nature supports the idea that all life is interconnected and that the boundaries between human and animal should be few, if any.

The theme of unity with nature is a central idea that much Native American culture is based off of, and the trickster tales help preserve and reiterate this interconnectivity. By incorporating animals and humans into one central story, the Native Americans are able to be part of the cycle of life as nature intended it.

S.X.

Ishi: The Last of the Yahi: Stories as Greater than Life

In what follows L.C. reviews Ishi: The Last of the Yahi.

**Please note: My quotes of the play may not be entirely verbatim.

The great majority of the play, Ishi: The Last of the Yahi, is based upon Dr. Kroeber's obsession with wanting to make a display out of Ishi's stories. Ishi's stories takes on three prevalent themes throughout the play - stories as a cycle of life, the translation of stories, and the sacredness of the stories. Dr. Waterman begins to be able to predict Ishi's stories after awhile, because he realizes that "each of his stories balances out", much like cycles do - all points in the most Native American life is equally important, no point is more significant than the next. The translation of Ishi's stories were done both by Thaddeus - a half-Native American who was quickly disposed of once Ishi was found - and Dr. Waterman, but the entirety of the play seemed to play on the idea of translation - it was often ambiguous at times whether Ishi was speaking for himself or through another character. Lastly, the sacredness of stories seemed to be greater than life, as Ishi admitted that "once I knew my sister was dead, I came out of the forest to be killed, but instead, this", referring to the prying of Dr. Kroeber or Ishi's stories. Ishi once had a past of being told never to tell anything to anyone because "it is dangerous" to do so, but yet he is given virtually no choice by the power-hungry Dr. Kroeber.

The heaviest part of the play was during the killing of Ishi and his sister's incestuous child. I found myself thinking, "What in the world could possibly be so horrible as to trigger a killing of one's own child?" Yet, as it turns out, the disobedience of tribal tradition - the forbiddance of marrying one's own family member - overruled any rationality of love for one's own child. But the action of Ishi muffling a crying child wasn't the only action in the play - it didn't stand alone, but rather, recurred two other times. When Dr. Kroeber takes Ishi home to his house as way to "surprise" his guests at a house party, or rather, treating Ishi as this prized possession of his, another cycle appears - the recalling of Ishi's traumatic experience with white men's dogs helping to hunt down and destroy Ishi's own father. Ishi's experiences are his stories that Dr. Kroeber wishes to pry out of Ishi, regardless of whether or not it meant draining Ishi's life right out of him. The particular story of Ishi suffocating his and his sister's incestuous child was a literal draining of a physical life, but also had a powerful impact on Ishi's spiritual life - that one story "by the river" triggered a flood of other stories that inundated Dr. Kroeber with more information than he ever needed to or expected to know. Perhaps Dr. Kroeber never knew much about how Ishi treated Henrietta, but that, too was part of the cycle. Seeing Henrietta cry triggered a degree of compassion of in Ishi, who didn't know much else to do than to muffle her to keep others from thinking he was attempting any sexual or violent advances. His silencing of Henrietta parallels to his silencing of both his child's crying and later on, his sister's child's crying. After Ishi's physical silencing of him and his sister's child, his sister's leaves him in anger, filled with hatred. Later, she returns with a mixed child and asks Ishi to do the impossible - killing yet another child so she can continue her relations with a white man, who later on plots with others to kill her. Ishi is both distraught by his sister's betrayal and his sister's death, caught, trapped, without knowing what to do. He knew that white men did no

good - the cycle of gunfire and violence triggered continuously throughout the play by the witness of Native American skulls, the barking of dogs, and by recalling his sister's death - killing his father and destroying his family. Finally, after his sister's death, he feels no duty to live anymore, and comes to die, hoping to be freed from the stories of his past, only to be drained of it by the very source that destroyed his physical family. Ishi himself also triggers cycles throughout the play, by almost forcing other people to tell their own 'deep' life stories in order to press his stories out of him, complicating the plot further.

At the party Dr. Kroeber throws, Henrietta reveals her obsession with Dr. Waterman while Henrietta's friend (name I can't remember) reveals her affairs with the same man - all in front of both Dr. Kroeber and Dr. Waterman. The play essentially follows the stories of two family's - Ishi's and Dr. Kroeber's. The translation of Ishi's stories is assumed to be done through Dr. Waterman who clearly sees that the white's treatment of Native Americans was a genocide of its own, and warns Dr. Kroeber to be careful of prying anymore out of Ishi. Of course, Dr. Kroeber can't help himself and pries further, but each time Ishi tells his story, Ishi speaks for himself, rather than through another individual. Yet Dr. Kroeber, during common-day interaction with Ishi, reveals that he "can't understand what [Ishi]'s saying" while he seems

to be overwhelmed by the depth to Ishi's life told in common-day language. Thaddeus's presence in the beginning also suggests that the stories may not be accurate at all, depending on the mood or bias of the translator - in Thaddeus's case, he was bitter and resentful because he had just been replaced by this mysterious Ishi. Early on in the play, Thaddeus pried something loose from Ishi as a way to seek revenge upon Dr. Kroeber. In general, the fact that makes the play so ambiguous is whether or not Ishi was truly speaking for himself - we don't know, as audience members, whether or not Ishi's stories are to be taken as a whole-hearted fact. Because of history and the stereotype of Native Americans as brutal savages, Ishi's stories may actually depict the violence accurately. The audience, too, will have a tendency to sympathize with Ishi because of the brutalities forced against him - but may also experience a skepticism to completely sympathizing with Ishi, because of his lust for his sister and his contribution to the death of two babies. The translation of the story may also be ambiguous because of Ishi himself - after all, he may still suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, causing him to tell his stories as more violent and intense than they may actually be. Ishi may also be bitter at Dr. Kroeber and the team for forcing him to tell the stories in the first place, which may drive him to sugar-coat the stories, diminishing the intensity and pain, or may drive him to increase the intensity to purposefully inundate his listeners. And the other possibility of translation may just be the issue with translation itself - often times, translations will never truly be able to capture the essence of the real story, because languages don't always transfer cleaning to another. In general, this paragraph is meant to question the overall validity of the play through the lenses of translation of the stories - the other point that I wish to make

here is to ask whether or not the stories were ever meant to be translated in the first place. Can the American language ever do justice to the American Native American languages? Can the stories ever be rightfully translated and given the place they deserve in history? I personally thought that the play purposefully made it difficult to completely sympathize with one side or the other by making the translations ambiguous, but is that tactic ok? Or do the Native Americans like Ishi deserve a reckoning? And to complicate the matters further, if the stories of Native Americans like Ishi are to remain untold as to preserve a sanctity of tradition, how else is the general public supposed to know what things are like from the Native American perspective? Is there another tactic?

And finally, these questions resolve to the sacredness of stories itself in the Native American tradition. My first blog entry was commenting on the power of stories to create an individual and a community. [From my previous blog entry: The introduction of Reckonings (the book) reads, "Even if read in isolation, the stories create community", because that is often times how Native Americans were able to keep their traditions, heritage, and most importantly, their identities alive.] Ishi was in complete isolation when he emerged from the forest to be killed - but what he had was his stories that he perhaps wished to keep until his death. His stories were all that he had to hold onto, whether good or bad. Yet, rather than taking his physical life, Ishi was drained by Dr. Kroeber's hunger. By exposing all that Ishi had, Ishi himself had subjected himself to the judgment and power of whites, the very race that had taken away his physical family and community. And this robbing of stories only returns me back to the questions I posed in the previous paragraph: Is there another way?

Riding the Trail of Tears: Compassion and Altruism

In what follows A.S. examines Blake Hausman's novel Riding the Trail of Tears.

* * * * *

Under normal circumstances, we are generally compassionate and giving. We act in the best interests of others--we are caring and we empathize with members of our community. In a sense, we act irrationally and against human nature. However, when we are taken out of our comfort zone and placed in a situation that is dangerous and unpredictable, we act on impulse and our innate, sometimes selfish, human instincts. Political philosopher Thomas Hobbes once said, “The life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. The condition of man is a condition of war of everyone against everyone” (Leviathan). According to Hobbes, man in the state of nature seeks nothing but his own selfish pleasure. It is human nature to place oneself above others. Being taken out of our comfort zone tests our personality and questions everything we know about ourselves--or thought we knew. In Riding the Trail of Tears, I believe Blake Hausman made it a point to show that people have their true animalistic nature come out on The Trail of Tears and, that at times, this can be inherently selfish (or “rational”).

Danny wishes selfishly to fulfill his animalistic desires regardless of the consequences. For example, Danny is found with his, “body rolling limply over puddles of blood and clay, poked and prodded by soldiersʼ bayonets” (Hausman 226). Apparently, Danny had grabbed a woman with the intention of raping her. As a young male with raging hormones, he could not resist the sight of dozens of semi-naked Cherokee women. Danny’s motivation for the rape was purely animalistic in nature. Danny knew there would be consequences for his actions; however, the intention of rape was still there. Danny did not care for the emotional pain it would cause Mandy, his girlfriend, if she found out about his reckless actions. In the moment, he did not care about their relationship. He placed himself above Mandy because his animalistic urge for sex was too large to ignore. This animalistic urge for sex proves to be a stronger force than his conscience. Dannyʼs inherently selfish animalistic urge for sex ultimately resulted in his death.

There is another case of selfishness in the rape scene involving Danny. As this scene is told through Tallulah, we do not read about the actual rape. When first learning of the rape Tallulah hears, “Gunshots ring...she hears Spencer calling her name. Yelling her name. Screaming.” You may think the rape is Danny’s fault alone. However, before Danny’s rape of the Cherokee woman, Tallulah had noticed “the bulge in Danny’ pants.” Tallulah could have prevented the rape if she had warned Danny about the consequences. However, Tallulah chose to ignore Danny’s erection because she was preoccupied with talking to Wallace about Irma Rosenberg. Tallulah selfishly prioritizes finding the missing Irma Rosenberg to preserve her survival statistics. This leads into the discussion on Tullalah and her state of mind as a result of the Trail of Tears.

Tallulah admits she has lost her sense of empathy upon riding the trail of tears. For example, in response to the lack of empathy she feels towards Mandyʼs beating, she says, “Why do I feel so little for these dead and dying tourists? Of course itʼs all a simulation, but something is missing, and itʼs terrifying. She begins to wonder if itʼs more than just her need for a vacation. She wonders if she is becoming less human” (Hausman 266). After one is exposed to gut-wrenching events such as murder, torture, and rape, one is left feeling desensitized. It is a sense of empathy that separates humans from animals and this is what Tallulah feels is “missing”. Unfortunately, riding the trail of tears dehumanizes Tullulah, leaving Tellulah stripped of that which makes her human. When Spencer attempts to help Mandy, Tallulah responds with alarming ease, “Just keep moving.” Although this is the correct response as a tour guide in her situation, one cannot help but think how Tallulah would respond to a similar real-life situation. Would she be able to tell the others to “keep moving” with the same ease and bluntness? Tallulah admits she feels nothing, and it is clearly affecting her state of mind.

Tallulah’s motivation to preserve her survival statistics remains ambiguous. Her motivation may be out of compassion. For example, she may want to give her customers the best experience possible. This means that sacrifices are necessary to preserve the interests of the group as a whole--correlating with the Native American culture of “communal interest”. Her motivation may also be attributed to selfishness. She may want to be the best tour guide for professional gain. At the very least, this would give her job stability and decent pay. In addition, since this is a virtual simulation, is it fair to claim she has lost her sense of empathy?

In my opinion, the ease with which Bob Rosenberg falls asleep is the most convincing case demonstrating the inherent selfishness of man outside his comfort zone. For example, Bob Rosenbergʼs wife is missing and he is, “passed out and stuffed, convinced that his limber old body is full and tired, so physically content that he can nap in a chair facing a strange fireplace even though his wife is missing” (Hausman 138). Clearly, Bob Rosenberg has no concern for his wife. He seems to have forgotten her. His thoughts dwell on his physical discomfort from the journey. His motivation to forget about his wife is to gain physical comfort, a disturbing thought in nature. In our society (outside the “state of nature”), love is sacred and we have high regard for it. We respect the institution of marriage and the inherent worth of love as a form of unselfish expression. Unfortunately, this was not the case as Bob Rosenbergʼs animalistic desires were placed over his wife’s interests.

A hard case for my argument is that of Nell Johnson’s. For example, Nell Johnson believed her children were hungry and despite warnings such as, “Lady--either stop right now, or Iʼll shoot yer dumb ass dead,” (Hausman 186) she sprinted in order to retrieve fruit for her children. If Blake wants to show that human nature is inherently selfish, then why did Nell Johnson (selflessly) put the needs of her children above her own safety? Firstly, we are unsure as to whether Nell Johnson’s motivation was to retrieve food for her children or escape from captivity. However, I am going to assume she was planning to retrieve food for her children. Nell Johnsonʼs selflessness does not actually contradict the theme of man’s inherent selfishness. The natural instincts of a mother to care for her children can also be contextualized as “selfish” if we think about rationality more generally as picking those actions which gives us the highest utility. The sight of her children suffering for food causes her pain--to minimize this pain and maximize her utility (thus, acting “selfishly), she puts their physical needs over her own. This gives her greater pleasure and, therefore, might be classified as not entirely “selfless.”

I think there is a level of irony in the intended purpose of the TREPP. Going as a tour group was supposed to show the Native American culture of communal interest; however, these characters acted in their own self-interest on multiple occasions. In Native American society, straying from this idea of communal interest is shunned. In a sense, it is fitting that these characters were punished on The Trail of Tears for their actions in the TREPP.

A.S.