In
“Documenting Tradition: Territoriality and Textuality in Black Hawk’s
Narrative,” Mark Rifkin argues that Life
of Black Hawk “functions as a self-consciously traditionalist critique of
the mappings and subjectivities of U.S. Indian policy” (681). He claims that
although translated and edited, Life offers
a contesting narrative that depicts Black Hawk’s “effort to redress white
misunderstanding of him and his people” (Rifkin 681). In addition, Rifkin
claims that even though many often focus on not being able to identify a “real”
Black Hawk voice that should not become the center of assessment for the text,
since the narrative has much more to offer than what may be perceived as an
authentic Native American voice, especially given its socio-historical context
speaking to white supremacy. I find Rifkin’s argument helpful and on point in
relation to how I interpreted Black Hawk’s narrative.
Twenty
pages into Life I began to think of it
as a counter narrative because of its depiction of a matured Black Hawk,
self-reflexing on his experiences, and trying to fill-in gaps to the historical
parts he saw as untold, thus, formulating an alternative narrative that places
the colonial narrative in question. Such moments of questioning or opposing
views in the narrative seem to generate the richest parts of Black Hawk’s
narrative. One of these moments can be seen when Black Hawk confronts the white
American “war chief” and tells him that,
‘We had never sold our country. We
never received annuities from our American father! And we are determined to hold on to our village!’ The
war chief, apparently angry, rose and said:—‘Who is Black Hawk? Who is Black Hawk?’
I responded: ‘I am a Sac!
My forefather was a Sac! And all the nations call me a SAC!!’
The
war chief said: ‘I came here neither to beg
nor hire you to leave your village.
My business is to remove you, peaceably, if I can, but forcibly if I must! I will now give you two days to remove in—and
if you do not cross the Mississippi within that time, I will adopt measures to force you away!’ (Hawk 65)
Here, it becomes obvious that Black Hawk and his people
cannot conceive of the idea of selling their land. As Rifkin also points out in
his analysis of a similar passage, the “demand for land would have been alien to
the Sauks, not having been part of prior negotiations with the French, Spanish,
or British” (683). Moreover, this excerpt points to Black Hawk’s strong “we”
identification in which Native peoples perceive themselves as part of their
nation, and not as individuals—also a part of Rifkin’s critique (693). Lastly,
this moment emphasizes the use of force, and a frustrated “war chief” who
cannot accept the idea of Native nations wishing to maintain their lands, but also
a “brave” Black Hawk who is not afraid to provide a counter-argument.
Sara,
ReplyDeleteI like how you look at Black Hawk's narrative as a counter-argument and use Rifkin's article to further your analysis! It does seem as though Black Hawk is attempting to fight back and "provide a counter-argument" as you say. In fact, I thought it was interesting that the page previous to the one you discuss (which does seem to be one of the "hot spots" of the text) could easily be compared to how Black Hawk told the white people living on his land that they had had to remove from it, but one man asked to remain until the fall so that he could provide food for his family (64). Black Hawk states, "He spoke reasonably, and I consented" (64). What is rather fascinating is that Black Hawk sends Mat-ta-tas' daughter to ask for "her people to be allowed to remain long enough to gather provisions now growing in their fields" (66), so basically, Black Hawk is asking for the same leniency that he gave the white man. However, her request is denied. Black Hawk cleverly contrasts within just a few short pages his willingness to listen to a "reasonable" request and the whites' unwillingness to listen.
Sara,
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation of Black Hawk's acts of resistance accords with your analysis here. One thing that the quotation you cited got me thinking about was our Burke seminar last year. It seems like when Black Hawk specifically claims his identity as a Sac, and a member of that nation, he engages in a form of self-representation reminiscent of one of Burke's master tropes: metonymy. I found Black Hawk's resistance to surface most prominently when thinking about his words and political position in terms of a metonymic representation: in speaking as a Sac, he speaks for a larger group of Native Americans than just the Sauk. This idea also makes me think of Frederic Jameson's deeply problematic essay "Third World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism," in which he argues that all third world literatures are essentially allegorical. I'm not saying that Black Hawk's narrative qualifies as third world literature, since that would be both inaccurate and anachronistic. But it seems like his narrative is an example of an allegorical, metonymic logic at work, which is why it presumably occupies such a prominent position in the rhetoric of resistance. Do you think there's an element of "speaking-for" in the text, especially in terms of Burke's metonymy? Or, should we think of Black Hawk's narrative as fundamentally insular and culturally-coded? Now that I think about it, the answer to that last question is probably always "yes." Would this change our understanding of counter-narratives at all, or just reinforce it?