Those who have read Sherman Alexie (and if you haven't, shame!) will probably chuckle at that title. After all, Christians have not played well with Native Peoples, you could say.
But my post is really not about that. I am reading
Shepard Krech's "The Ecological Indian." Interesting and mildly controversial book. At its core is something that made me think about the America as Christian nation argument.
Krech takes on the entire idea of the Ecological Indian, or the idea that Native Peoples are more "in-tune" with nature. Many Americans believe that prior to white contact, Indians somehow interacted with Nature but did not disturb it. As Richard White (and modestly let me say that I said this too) noted, to somehow assume that Indians made no impact on nature is to come dangerously close to a racist assumption. If Indians make no impact on nature, they are portrayed as being closer to animals than human.
And, in fact, Krech and others have noted that Native Americans often acted in ways that were destructive to their natural environment--through deforestation, over hunting, etc.
Why is this important? Since the 1960s, Americans have used Native Americans as a symbol of environmentalism, most famously with Iron Eyes Cody's "Crying Indian" campaign where a noble Indian cries as he observes a polluted stream. The problem is that this campaign and idea have never really been about Indians as people. It has always functioned as an oppositional force--pointing out the problems with White Polluters rather than elevating Native peoples.
Here is the connection and warning to those wanting to create a Christian nation out of our complicated past. Appealing to that idea of the Praying Founding Fathers is in effect doing the same thing as the Crying Indian. This campaign is clearly not about the past--else they would never elevate Ben Franklin in any way, nor would they ignore the proliferation of witchcraft and superstitions that also permeated Colonial America. It is about the perception that we are Godless and immoral.
And it isn't that somehow Christians are the only ones saying that. Most people buy the nostalgic past where people were more moral, less gay, and somehow more honorable in the past. Historians know better (and so should most Americans), but the idea persists. But it is in that context that this "Christian Nation" mania should be viewed (as well as Roy Moore's 10 Commandment worship). It isn't about the past, but is merely a tool to demonize the present.
This projection is complicated. On one hand, it is (much like the white use of the crying Indian) self-loathing. Christian Conservatives must feel as if they failed the nation by allowing it to turn into Gomorrah so quickly. On the other hand, it is self-affirming for them to look at Hollywood or Washington and shake their heads at how lost those poor people are. "If only they were as Godly as me," some might think, "our nation would be back in God's favor."
Such approaches are risky. For one, they contribute to the general cynicism of our youth by telling them that their generation is so bad and that the past was so idyllic. Neither is true, so stop saying that. Second, it risks what Cold in Laramie identified as marginalizing and trivializing the experiences of non-Whites in American history. Those believing that America was so much superior in the 19th century when everyone prayed (they didn't) are essentially telling Native Americans, African Americans, women, immigrant children, Asians, Hispanics and the poor that the world was a better place when all of these groups "knew their place" or were hunted down or enslaved or exploited.
These projections of modern angst have their costs, and people need to think about that. If you use Native Peoples to promote an environmental ethic, you ultimately undermine whole cultures as real people. If you insist on a Providential history, you tell those who were abused and misused in the past that God wanted that to happen.
3 comments:
streak, excellent post and another reminder of how history is so vulnerable to abusively contrived misinterpretation.
Carlos
I loved this post. It was an angle I hadn't thought of.
If you insist on a Providential history, you tell those who were abused and misused in the past that God wanted that to happen.
Great connection, Streak. I wonder what they would say to that...
Post a Comment