The reviewed chapter from “The Inconvenient Indian” by Thomas King is titled “Too Heavy to Lift.” The name of the chapter is taken from a quote once said by the author’s son’s girlfriend, Nadine Zabder, who once described sheep as an unruly lot – saying that they will often not follow a sheepherder willingly, while also being too heavy to lift with the strength of one’s own arms (King, 2017). This quote describes the main “problem” with Native Americans, from the perspective of white colonizers (King, 2017). The chapter describes three types of Indians – Dead Indians, Live Indians, and Legal Indians.
The first element constitutes the collective views on Natives based on stereotypes. Feathers, national clothes, the idealized version of the “noble savage,” and other elements that often have very little to do with reality (King, 2017). Live Indians, on the other hand, are described as people from different walks of life, many of whom have either meshed into the contemporary American culture or were absorbed by it (King, 2017). One of the big points of aggravation for King (2017) is that white people often describe living Indians as “not real Indians,” due to them being different from the idealized Dead Indians. Finally, Legal Indians are defined as individuals who hold the status of an Indian. King describes those people as reviled by states, which see them as a threat to a vision of a united nation.
The readings are tied to many specific areas that were covered in class. Namely, the tragic history of Native Americans becoming strangers in their own land. This was achieved by centuries of colonist expansion, which involved making treaties with Indians and violating them immediately, to claim more land (Saunt, 2020). There has not been a single treaty that the nation that now calls itself the USA did not systematically break (Saunt, 2020). The reasons why Natives are allowed their reservations are a means to an end – the quality of life in those areas is significantly worse than in the rest of the country. The choice before the legal Indians becomes the following: Either stays and suffer, or leave and dive into the smelting pot of the American society, potentially losing one’s own national and cultural identity (King, 2017). This strategy has worked, so far – the numbers of Indians in reservations have been steadily decreasing over the years.
The objective of the state, it appears, whether explicitly or implicitly, is to turn all legal Indians into Live Indians, and eventually into Dead Indians. The media, as we see it for the past 30 years, has been hard at work for cultivating the positivity of such an image. They have been present in Westerns, often as “faithful allies” of the main hero (more often than not, a white man), or, later, as a token minority alongside a black and an Asian actor (Benshoff & Griffin, 2021). This is done to demonstrate that the film or whatever other piece of media is inclusive. Doing so does very little to educate the masses or promote genuine Native American heritage, culture, and identity.
It must be very difficult for a Live Indian to fit into the existing society. Their culture has been made a shallow mockery of, while the attempts to blend into the dominant white European-based culture will be met with scorn by the descendants of the same people who have taken away their lands (Saunt, 2020). Not because they despite Indians, but rather because they were raised on the predetermined cultural notions about Indians, and any differentiation from it is viewed as “stepping away from the roots”. This trend has been seen with blacks, Hispanics, and Asians as well. In the name of cultural diversity, the most significant cultural group (whites) have been pushing people into celebrating “their” heritage. With Indians it is the feather dress and the Mohawk, with blacks it is the “black culture,” which is often defined and derived from gang ghetto existence (Saunt, 2020). Asians are supposed to be the best at everything, and care about “family honor.” The list goes on, as it is possible to see.
To conclude, in chapter 3 King brings up very important points about how the “inconvenient Indians” are treated now, with three axes of existence being dead, live, and legal natives. Despite the talks about how the US ought to be a more inclusive country, repair old wrongs, apologize for past crimes, and acknowledge its historical guilt, the process of eroding Indian culture keeps going. Even those forces who view themselves as “progressive” might be to blame for the trend. Not knowing what actual Natives are like, they try to force stereotypes or even associate themselves with cultures that they do not belong to (Benshoff & Griffin, 2021). One must acknowledge that culture is not a static construct. As people change, so too does it. Modern Live Indians are very different from their ancestors, and many vestiges of the original culture have been lost forever. They should be allowed to form their own culture as is, and practice it, without the implicit expectation from the state to become “real Americans,” or the diversity crowd to adhere to their idealized “Dead Indians.”
References
Benshoff, H. M., & Griffin, S. (2021). America on film: Representing race, class, gender, and sexuality at the movies. John Wiley & Sons.
King, T. (2017). The inconvenient Indian illustrated: A curious account of native people in North America. Doubleday Canada.
Saunt, C. (2020). Unworthy republic: The dispossession of Native Americans and the road to Indian Territory. WW Norton & Company.