This week’s lectorial readings revolve around the attitudes regarding and hardships faced by the Native American peoples that populated the West before and during the Progressive Era. The sources reflect the ideologies pertaining to the old scholars as well as incoporate more modern ideas, and build upon one another even though they are worded slightly differently. Each source takes time to form the opinion that Native American culture, whilst overwhelmed by western culture, did not completely disappear. Also taken into consideration is the evaluation of each source regarding evidence cited and thus reliability.
To begin, we see each sources purpose in a general overveiw of content. All four sources bring forth the idea that old scholars of the Progressive Era paint the Native Americans as a vanishing people who do not have a great deal of impact on American history as a whole. Wilson makes this an explicit focus in her text, observing that “American Indian history is a field dominated by white, male historians who rarely ask or care what the Indians they study have to say about their work” . Smith in retrospect is not as obtuse, but does mention that “ Native Americans often slipped out of national consciousness by the Gilded Age and Progressive Era- and from historian’s accounts in the years to follow . This, according to Lewis, simplified a complex and dynamic situation out of necessity , and Edmunds gives examples regarding the popular images of Native Americans at the time as ‘vanishing red men’ found in dime novels, also making reference to Jame Earle Fraser’s ‘The End of the Trail’ as a romantic indication of the ‘plight’ of Native Americans in the wake of progress . This is an example of how the four sources build upon each other with their own individual but overall unified opinions.
The second point implies that all sources believe modern studies of the evidence suggest that Native Americans, whilst not flourishing completely, have survived and retained aspects of their culture. Wilson makes a limited reference here however, merely stating that “the scholar must understand the mechanisms Native people have for determining within their own communities whether they feel a scholar is respectful enough of their culture to share their valuable insights” . Edmunds goes into more detail, describing how by 1968 scholars began taking interest in Native American studies due to the emergence of the Civil Rights Movement and Red Power – courses in university began teaching Native American history, and a new development of ethnohistory was “designed to place the tribal communities within the broader American perspective…Native Americans were motivated by their unique cultural patterns and how those patterns adapted to change ”.
Smith also gives examples of this change in her article, stating that “to incorporate Native American experiences into the national story of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, moreover, is to engage not only Indian themes, but the central themes of that period pertain to all Americans. As always, Indians were people of history, not apart from it .
This is however where the sources start to become less unified, branching out to cover the overall point with differing sources of information and thus slightly different standpoints on this situation. Lewis takes up the mantle of discerning between traditonal and progressive practices and how these neat categories are problematic because historians described these categories with overlap. He uses Walsh’s life to illustrate fundamental challenges scholars faced in defining individual Indians and factions since defining the difference of traditonal and progressive practice is difficult, as for what passes as tradition differs over time. Also, the activities undertaken by William Wash appear to show that individuals within tribes “frequently transcend the bounds of static functional categories” and that coalitions formed between Walsh and his allies or the unification of his White River, traditionalist enemies “were informal, fluid and issue-oriented as frequently as not” .
Furthermore, each source can now be evaluated regarding evidence and reliability.
Whilst Wilson’s article has passion in its pages, it is not as reliable however as the other three sources since there is an underlying lack of concrete historical evidence to back up her statements. She merely gives advice and general excuses made by historians . Her article focuses on bashing scholars who “do not have this sensitivity or desire” to research properly, and thus “should discontinue the pretense that what they are writing is Native American history” . However, Wilson tries her hardest not to completely exclude these scholars altogether, and rather tries to convince the reader as well as the scholars of the importance in studying Native American oral tradition and “slowly developing acquaintances with Indian people and giving from the community they are studying the opportunity to comment on their work while it is being written . Thus, this critque is not entirely without merit since it actively tries to galvanise the rethinking of traditional methods of Native American studies.
Lewis takes a more convincing tone in regards to the survival of Native American culture, whilst lending a critical eye to methods used to do so, mainly in discussion with the idea of dichotomy. Lewis regards traditional practices as having social ties in regards to adaptation, like peyote in order to prevent Native Americans from engaging in drinking and gambling. Lewis also discusses key examples to show gradual progression such as the cattle herding issue – they were managed collectively, indicating to the white Americans that traditonal practices of communal herding. However, the white Americans veiwed all traditional practices as abhorrent, even though the establishment of Wash’s cattle was both progressive in nature and an indication of each family head benefitting from profits. Wash in himself is portrayed as undertaking a dual role in the establishment and maintenance of Native Americans, both “holding tribal land against outsiders and providing a progressive example of the benefits of work and self-sufficiency for Ute schoolchildren” . As such, Lewis’ article is more comprehensive and omniescent than Wilsons, but it does not offer suggestions as to a rethinking of the ethnographical process, rather it reports on it impersonally and the changes it has caused. This makes it more reliable than Wilson’s since this is the true essence of a historical article.
Smith’s article, whilst short, packs in a lot of relevant information as to the Native American peoples survival throughout the Progressive Era. She backs up her statements with concise evidence and an underlying theme- that by denying victimisation, agency is an element of survivial and though the Native Americans lost their land, lifestyle and sovreignty, they found ways of persevering. For instance, Smith mentions that “people are not so easily reshaped” . Religious practices became more secretive, and though Native American children were required to go to school, their parents exercised as much control as possible, going so far as to push them into boarding schools so they could garnish enough education to politically hold their own against white supremacy. Also, they began to develop ways of writing down their histories, and the surviviors of the westward expansion passed their stories down to their offspring. Smith also acknowledges the racism which would have been rife at the time, but also considers how not everyone was threatened by greater diversity: “some welcome it, even sought it out” though some, even Native Americans, practised it. Also considered is the fact that the Dawes Act was not open to Native American tribal referendum, since the white Americans were trying to transform Native Americans into private land holders, but makes use of Firkus in order to convery that Native Americans still managed to exercise power over their lives by preserving some aspects of their culture as well as maintaining their own priorities . Overall, this source may not be as content-heavy as Lewis, but nevertheless it gives convincing arguments regarding the continuation of Native American experiences and survivial. It is also able to give itself backup in the form of small snippets of evidence, although this is more generalised than Lewis and thus contributes to the shortness of the piece.
Finally, Edmunds’ take rounds off the general consensus that all four sources maintain – Native Americans did not completely lose themselves in the conversion to new world ideologies and practices. Like Smith, Edmunds also uses the Dawes Act to explain how Native Americans were funneled into the mainstream . However, Edmunds takes a similar route to Lewis in regards to expansion of scholarship, thoughinstead of obtaining it from the 60s this shift started in 1970. Edmunds mentions how “historians have expanded their investigations into subjects and periods previously ignored” with specific mentions to pre-Columbian societies- Native Americans. Edmunds also shares sentiments with Lewis in regards to identity, mentioning that “Native American identity remains ambiguous” and “Being Indian has meant different things at different times”, though he shares Smith’s positive outlook by stating that “the changing nature of Native American identity offers amplew opportunity for future scholarship” . In relation then, Edmunds appears to have elements from both Lewis’ and Smith’s articles and agrees with them on certain points despite covering the moot point at a different angle. Edmunds can be considered more reliable than Wilson, though again, he does not attempt to correct the behaviour of historians quite so openly as Wilson does.
As a general overview, all four sources are modern opinions on the topic of Native American survival, further reinforcing the change in attitudes as to the historical importance of Native Americans in Progressive Era American studies. Thus, they are more removed from the original source material than those writing closer to the time, and have different ideologies to the people of the past. Nevertheless, all four sources take into consideration the old opinions, even though some sources achieve this better or with moe detailed evidence than others.
Overall, the sources discussed each stand alone as their own independent points of veiw, but have a general veiw that the Native American people were far from tortured victims. Instead, they promote the survival of parts of Native American culture, and prove that the scholars of old had a biased, white-washed historical view of the Progressive Era in American history. Whilst some sources are more reliable than others, nevertheless they join to form this coherent idea- the Native Americans did not simply disappear, rather they employed various tactics to survive in the new world. This is important for history because it shows how, through different approaches, some historians were able to reach a general consensus of opinion that can be shared in wider readings and contexts.