Mihesuah’s “Indigenous American Women” is an interesting read. I have never given much thought to the struggles Native American women must face in the world of academia. This reading made me consider how difficult it is to have a notable professional career as a Native woman. Mihesuah accomplished the difficult task, but it seems her days are often filled with “correcting stereotypes and misinterpretations of tribal histories and cultures” that her co-workers learned from television and mass media (21). She earned a place in the “white collar” workforce, but challenges of working with people who do not understand her ethnicity and cultural background stifle her achievements. The single fact that Devon Mihesuah is a woman places at her disadvantage in the career world, however combining her gender inferiority with her ethnic identification as a Native American gives her a ‘dual minority’ status. When she shares the of story of applying for a full-time position at a university and having her “dossier scrutinized far more carefully than those of white colleagues who had applied in the years before,” I felt frustrated with the injustice of American society (24). Instead of making a decision based on her accomplishments in her field of study and her capability of successfully doing the job, her race was the focal point of the judgment. The content of her character should have mattered so much more than her Native American heritage. I find it fascinating that prior to colonial contact; Native Americans had equality among the genders including women in leadership roles and positions of power. It was “the influence of Europeans’ social beliefs” that “changed the way Natives interpreted the world, themselves, and gender roles” (42). Women were not second class citizens in the tribal communities, but were instead equal to the men. It is hard to believe that even today; the European social beliefs of gender roles still stand by placing women in the submissive role while men maintain the dominant position. No wonder it is difficult for women to receive equal rights in the workplace much less women of color or women of another minority. Native American women are disadvantaged in more ways than one and it took this article to illuminate the challenges they are confronting.
‘“Divorced’ from the Land” is an intriguing concept that makes a lot of sense in the context of Native American/colonist interactions. Settlers were forcing Natives to disown the land that they loved and cared for in favor of an English economy where land was a commodity. Women particularly suffered from this disconnection from the land as they were the primary “agriculturalists” of the tribe (337). Indigenous women planted and tended the crops, typically corn, beans, and squash, and harvested the food at the end of the season. The role of ‘farmer’ helped to define a woman as a valued and important member of the community. English settlers took this identity away from Native women and tried to replace it with activities which profited the English. Indian crafts such as baskets helped women “earn an income” while “reinforce[ing] their ‘Indianess’ in the popular perception” (342). In this way, the colonists benefitted two-fold because the Native women were no longer participating in actions tied to the land and were creating Native objects that could be sold for profit in the European market as ‘authentic Indian’ goods. Once Native women become detached from the land, they began to roam the settlers’ towns in search of work and board. Native communities used to operate on “scheduled mobility” based upon the seasons such as planting season, hunting season, and winter season, however the dispossession of land caused Natives, especially women, to aimlessly wander from place to place for survival (345). This reading helped me to understand the multitude of consequences that stemmed from the settlers taking Native American land away from its rightful Native owners.
I find that whether I am reading from a History book, or English book I often times discover that when it comes to the topic of women, that they have usually settled for minimal goals due to the lack of women’s rights. “Divorced from the Land” demonstrates how Native American women lose their some of their rights and was a good tool to see how gender roles have transformed. What seems to be the purpose stated in the beginning of this reading is providing a means for capturing bygone worlds that shaped Indian women’s experiences in New England. A good overall description of the life of an Indian woman is when Edwards Winslow states, “the women live a most slavish life; they carry all their burdens, set and dress their corn, gather it in, and seek out for much of their food, beat and make ready the corn to eat and have all household care lying upon them” (335). It is disappointing, even for a reader’s perspective to read about how they “divorced” Indian women from their role as agriculturists and replaced them with men. It is frustrating because Native Americans did not have the rights that they deserved to begin with that taking even more from the female part of this heritage does not seem in any way fair. The aim of the English was “aimed to divorce Indians from their possession of the land in order to establish themselves and English culture in their place” (337). With this in mind, there is a gendered division of labor and these radical changes displayed differences in aspects such as work habits, material life, and physical appearance of women. This reading really emphasizes the Native American women’s struggle with the radically-changing world which I believe adds to the list of struggles that the Natives underwent.
“Indigenous American Women” shows an interesting outlook on the concern with tribal America. Most of her books and essays are “interdisciplinary and deal with real-life, modern-day issues” (25). I like how this reading emphasizes the importance of historians actually ‘knowing’ their history. The act of writing is the writer’s weapon so they need to make sure what they are presenting is accurate. For this case, scholars should speak directly with Native Women to avoid generalizing them as a whole and to know their history. An interesting statement on theory is “one way to find truth is through the proper use of theory” (26). A way that this reading shows another way of understanding the history of a certain culture is comparing it to others, such as the African American culture. I found a good point that Catherine Mackinnon stated and that is “the male point of view has forced itself upon the world and does force itself upon the world as a way of knowing” (31). I feel like our world, especially in earlier years has been male-dominated and for the case of Natives, it is even more difficult for women because of how their culture has been depicted. Native women scholars pave the way for scholars to follow. The “Creativity as Empowerment” section was a nice read and mentioned how the Natives made many creations that the noon-Natives love to see. For example, the Navajos weaved and made blankets. Activities such as dances and powwows serve as empowerment and overall an expression of many things for the Natives. “Some Native females with little or no knowledge of their tribal past feel the effects of racial and gender oppression and believe that white feminist theory might offer them advice and encouragement” (160). Expanding one’s knowledge can help one understand more about his or her culture and this goes for the Natives as well, so they can overcome offensive acts of others.
While reading ‘Divorced’ From the Land by Jean O’Brien it really disappointed me what the whites were doing to the Natives. Even though the English wanted to make the Natives just like the whites, they still wanted to be able to tell the difference between them and themselves. O’Brien writes: “They presented Indians such as Hannah Shiner as the complement to ‘Englishness’, thereby reminding themselves of the persistent difference between Indian survivors and themselves” (337). The fact that the English wanted to transform the Natives is disgusting, but wanting to change them but not enough to not be able to tell English and Natives apart. This disgusts me so much, English during this time were such conniving jerks. They used the Natives to get their land so that the white culture would triumph over any other culture in the world. It’s pitiful to think that my ancestors used the Natives as a rug to walk all over because the natives didn’t know what else to do. Obrien writes: “The English colonial regime imposed a different landscape, one encouraging Indians to transform their relationship to the land. Gener figured prominently in this transformation. The English aimed to ‘divorce’ Indians from their possession of the land in order to establish themselves and English culture in its place” (337). The fact that the English literally aimed to demolish someone else’s culture is horrific. Natives were encouraged by the English to adopt English work habits. Eventually they had to, or they wouldn’t survive in this twisted world. The English had a real problem with the way the Natives ran their relationships. The women often did a lot of the work while the English viewed the Native men as ‘lazy’, because of this, the English people believed that they needed to take work away from the Native women and put some on the men, “Indians were encouraged to adopt English work habits, individual ownership of land, English takes in material culture, and values structured by a market economy” (339). The English even believed that the Natives had to change their relationship into a “proper relationship”. What makes the English way proper? English even expected the Natives to wander; they did not care what happened to the Natives as long as the white culture was flourishing. The Natives ultimately had to marry whites to survive.
In Indigenous American Women: Decolonization, Empowerment, Activism, Devon Abbot Mihesuah explains that the Natives had to adapt or they would not survive in this new world. “The reality is that in order for tribes to survive, tribal members must both know and understand the ways of Euro-Americans” (23). The fact that the Natives have to adapt to someone else’s culture to survive in the land they have always lived on is so sad to me. Later in this article the Whites view the Natives as the lowest form of life on the earth. This is heart wrenching, why do the whites consider natives the lowest form of life? Is it because they have a different culture than the English? These articles made me so sad to read, how cruel the Whites were to these innocent people.
Devon Mihesuah’s “Indigenous Women” serves as yet another solidifying source in regards to the concept of women being viewed with inferiority. Being a woman is one thing, and being someone of a Native decent is quite another. Put the two together and you’re in for an inevitable challenge. However, Mihesuah also brings up the point of how not everyone practices their indigenous heritage. In fact, many may not even acknowledge it. At one point she speaks of going to an interview and talking with a 98-year-old woman. Based on the woman’s age, she most likely assumed that, out of tradition, she was actively involved in activities that were associated with her Cherokee heritage. When asked if she spoke the language and attended stomp dances she retorted with a sharp, “Hell no, I’m no heathen” (xvi). Just goes to show that you can’t make assumptions about ones practices, or even ones heritage. This being said, we as a society shouldn’t make assumption about one’s gender or appearance either- whether it be in the job industry specifically or simply in every-day life.
In terms of the relationship between the Native Americans and the English, “Divorced from the Land” really puts in perspective just how different the two are. In a way, the land itself is what got the divorce- the English taking a portion, and the Natives attempting to remain living how they were. Indigenous people were strong both physically and mentally, where as English culture typically frowned upon such a thing. Males were the ones that were supposed to act that way- not women. A part of me also feels that the English were fearful in a sense. Stereotypically, women back then shouldn’t have possessed much power, and the Native Americans often challenged that stereotype. This reading really bothered me, mostly due to the fact that our ancestors were so narrow minded, which ultimately led to the mistreatment of those that were ‘different’ than them. So what if the men don’t typically do the laborious agricultural work? It’s not how they run their lives, and just because it’s different doesn’t classify their men as “lazy” or wrong. From all that we’ve read thus far, I think it’s fair to say that a mere lack of acceptance was the primary cause of nearly all our past relationship struggles with the Native Americans.
Women, no matter what background, have always struggled for their rights and power in the world. For Indigenous women, this was not a problem until the English showed up. Jean M. O’Brien’s “Divorced from the Land” does a good job of explaining the struggles that Indian women faced, especially at the start of the new world. O’Brien explains that the English perceived the Indian women as “slaves” because they did a lot of the agricultural and laborious work: “In fact, most labor the English would have considered as male work was performed by Indian women” (335). I find this very interesting because the women were obviously stronger and had more important jobs in the Indigenous society. The English believed that men and women had certain roles that they had to pertain to and so they didn’t know what to do when the roles were reversed. The English did not understand this reversal of roles and so they tried everything they could to conform the Indians to their societal standards. Part of this conformity required them to change their relationship with the land. O’Brien writes: “The English aimed to ‘divorce’ Indians from their possession of the land in order to establish themselves and English culture in their place” (337). The English wanted to transform the Indians whole view on the land, gender roles, and society so that they could take over. This makes me think that they English were so scared of the Native Americans, because the women did “manly” jobs, that they felt the only chance they had to stay in America would be to destroy their culture.
Mihesuah’s article, “Indigenous American Women”, focuses more on the academic struggles that Native American women went through. Mihesuah also talks about how the women’s roles among tribes have been “decimated” but that some tribes help to keep traditional roles alive. Mihesuah explains that most of the problems with stereotypes and misrepresentation have to do with the literature written about Indigenous peoples: “The public’s ideas about Natives are in large part formulated by books and essay written by non-Indians” (xii Introduction). Most of the opinions that non-Indians make about Indians is all based on propaganda and stereotypes. This is causing a big problem because Indigenous groups differ on their views of these issues. Some tribes want to stick to tradition while others want to change in order to survive. Mihesuah writes that this is causing a lot of issues in the community and that “some intratribal factionalism might be termed ‘culturalism’, a form of oppression that dovetails with racism” (xv-xvi). So the issue with women branches out into larger issues that end up affecting all of the society.
It is a shame that because the English wanted to badly to contain and conquer the Natives that they were willing to ruin their whole cultural dynamics. Today, Natives are still dealing with the repercussions of these actions. Many reservations and tribal communities that still exist have many problems with poverty, addiction, suicide, murder, and other crimes. This is due to the depression and trauma of historic events. Stereotypes are still being formulated about Native Americans and because of these stereotypes many communities are suffering. The Native American Woman was a strong one whom the tribe depended on for food and other important aspects of their lives. Many Indian Women are still very strong but because of the English they have been forced to become subject to “traditional” women’s roles in society.
Much of Native American Feminist Theory observes the postcolonial indigenous population through an intertribal lens as they face the affects of the Christian and patriarchal settlement of their native land. In the article “Indigenous American Women: Decolonization, Empowerment, Activism” Devon Mihesuah delineates that the forces that have been working to erase the Native American Population have held a significant impact on the relationships between Native Americans themselves. This internal factionalism is a result of the rift in American Indian tradition and Euro-American drive for modernity; Some Indians cling to tradition while others see change as necessary to survival. Mihesuah concedes that writing can be a source of empowerment to Native American women it also can be considered as a necessary form of Euro-American conformity in which Native women can find agency, “Writing is a way to empower us, to state that we are not victims and that we are attempting to find answers and solve problems,” (23) Mihesuah admonishes the higher understanding that comes from the composition of writing, she later states that truth and honesty by means of “complete storytelling’ should be the ultimate goal. Mihesuah looks on the objective and subjective relationship that Native history has with it’s sources of documentation, stressing that the only way to gain a full understanding is to fully comprehend the Native American first-person perspective- a perspective that is generally not being taught in schools. Throughout the process of decolonization one must consider that Indigenous women scholars and students fine empowerment through American Indian studies. Mihesuah explains that this area of study includes “economic development, ecosystem science and management, policy analysis, lobbying, program management, enterprise management, and environmental resource practice, with certificates in planning stages for museum studies, Native journalism and recovering indigenous knowledge.”(33) Mihesuah depreciates Native American Literature as a viable source of Native understanding because it adds to the purely aesthetic stereotype surrounding Indigenous tradition. Mihesuah further goes on to juxtapose the modern sources of empowerment for Native Women with an explanation of the colonial past as a source for disempowerment to indigenous people.
In the article “Divorced’ from the Land,” Jean M. O’Brien focuses primarily on the eighteenth century while juxtaposing material from both the seventeenth and nineteenth century in congruence. As early as the 1600’s documentation from European settlers began to establish the English analysis and stereotype of work-ridden Native women toiling for “Lazy” men, “observers viewed women as ‘slaves’ because unlike English women, they preformed virtually all of the agricultural labor in their societies.”(335) O’Brien proves that the English ideology was the foundation for the extrapolation in gendered division of labor. Indigenous women in the eighteenth century were expected to remain within the home and held no weight in the agricultural improvement of their land, in turn Native women who were widowed were taken advantage of and forced to sell their land due to their lack of ability in it’s fortification. O’Brien explains that women suffered from the severing of the connection they once had with the land as the soils “cultivators and nurturers” took a harsh toll on the identities of Native women; where the English had only seen the labor, there had actually been a deep ideological connotation with the agricultural responsibility that was very much spiritual, cultural and rooted in the identity of Native women.
‘“Divorced” from the Land’ discusses the changes of Indian women and families, illuminating “how gender roles had been transformed, how Indian peoples made a living in the wake of their dispossession, and how they retained aspects of earlier material culture n combination with the adoption of new ways of being in the world that ensured their survival” (334). I intend to focus mostly on gender roles, because it relates very closely to Devon Mihesuah’s “Indigenous American Women”. While I wouldn’t classify myself as a feminist, I do feel strongly that everyone, including women, should be equal based off the fact that we are all human beings. It is very obvious in European documents that they “viewed Indian women as ‘slaves’ because, unlike English women, they performed virtually all the agricultural labor in their societies” (335). Part of me can comprehend that fact that if someone is only exposed to life one way then they would pass this kind of judgment, but a larger part of me cannot help but be infuriated by European ignorance. This view of Indian women as being “slavish” was not accurate at all, and by feeling superior to this group of people, Europeans took matters into their own hands to change the Native lives. This meant that Native women would transform “their work habits, material life, aesthetic emphases, and even physical their appearance” (341). Europeans also encouraged Indian men to enter service, both military and whaling industry (346). I cannot wrap my head around the fact that Europeans felt this was helping or positively affecting the lives of Natives. It seems the only result of these changes was the “diminishment of Indianness” (334) and made a lasting negative effect on the lives of Native men and women.
Continuing on the affects European changes made to Native lives, it’s difficult to accept the fact that, regardless of how far American’s have come as a nation, European social beliefs towards gender roles still exist. Women are still expected to maintain the submissive role in comparison to men holding the dominant position within society. It’s disgusting for me to comprehend this fact; along with the truth that race is STILL an issue in our country. Devon Mihesuah’s story really struck a cord with me and made me infuriated with society. People are still basing decisions on race, gender and religious beliefs instead of simply seeing the person for who they are. When Mihesuah talks about her ‘dual minority’ status as both a woman and a Native, I felt sick to my stomach. There shouldn’t be controversy between race and whether or not a Native is “more Indian” in comparison to another. I couldn’t believe that “some women become evangelical and racist toward Natives of other tribes, members of their own tribe, and other people of color,” (xvii) which is an example of repeated oppression. It made me think of the child who was bullied that becomes a bully when they grow older and bigger. When does it end? On page 42, chief Wilma Mankiller admits, “we’ve adopted sexism” and that because of this they are “going forward and backward at the same time”. Mihesuah continues to explain how before the Europeans instilled their belief system, “men and women performed tasks specific to gender,” but “none was inferior to the others”. Therefore, European’s “changed the way Natives interpreted the world, themselves, and gender roles” (42). I could continue for much longer venting about the injustices of women, especially Native women, at the hands of “European belief”, but in order not to ramble, I will conclude that Mihesuah’s “Indigenous American Women” was enlightening to say the least.
Jean O’Brien’s “Divorced from the Land” discusses the changed gender roles of Native women since colonization and colonization’s effect on Native Americans’ land. Colonists portrayed “the Native American woman as ‘squaw drudge’ who toiled endlessly for her ‘lazie husband’” (335). Native American women did actions that were not perceived as normal from the colonial view point. It seemed strange to them that women were taking care of the crops and thus they labeled the husbands lazy and the women as having “‘a most slavish life’” (335). A Native American woman was given a lot of responsibility versus the colonial woman who lived in a very sexist setting and who was expected to do needlepoint daily and was considered a failure if she was not able to produce male children. However, the Native American viewpoint on women started to change after interacting with colonists. O’Brien states that by late seventeenth century, “most Indian individuals and families were incorporated into English communities” and “the prosperity of Indian societies, based on diversified agricultural economies and intensive use of seasonally available plant and game resources, was undermined as the English gained possession of nearly all the Indian land” (336). O’Brien says the English’s control over the Native land “resulted in the recasting of Native gender roles” (336). The Natives were forced to conform to colonial style if they hoped to survive their changing world. No longer did they outnumber the colonists, but instead they became “a minority population within their own homelands” (336). Gender was greatly influenced by these factors. The English needed this “divorce” if they wished to have their own ways of life succeed over the Natives’. Shocked by the power women had in tribes, the colonists searched for a way to move the Native woman into the traditional colonial woman style. They “place[d] Indian women and men in a ‘proper’ relationship to the land” (337). The colonists devised a plan that would force this: they would allow Native Americans to keep small plots of land, but the Natives would have to agree to the cultural change around them. While some resisted, the Chakcom Native American family is an example of a family that did not. Native American dress style also began to change; Hannah Lawrence adopted linen and cloth and English style gowns to replace the animal skins and her traditional tribe clothing. These small English, twisted victories “illuminate how gender roles [had] been transformed” (334). Native women gave up their farming and turned to crafts like basket making instead which brought some sort of income to their families.
In “Indigenous American Women” by Devon Mihesuah, Native American women gender roles are discussed again. She says that “Native women did have various degrees of power, equality, and prestige within their traditional tribal structures” (xiv) but that colonialism changed this and that Indigenous women still feel the effects. Tribes became aware of social standing, something that had never been focused on before. Native American women face many difficulties, especially in the academic world. I have a Native American friend who received a very generous scholarship to Suffolk University and many people undermine her for that. People she shared that news with would assume it was because she was Native American and that she got more consideration because of that. Few recognized that she received the scholarship because of her grades and how hard she tried in school. When she arrived to college and shared her views on subjects, her professors “remain[ed] firmly ensconced in a colonial mindset, teaching their courses from a monocultural, ethnocentric, perspective” (25). Whether or not these professors were simply not interested in other viewpoints, thought her gender made her inferior, or because they simply looked at her skin and knew she was not purely Caucasian can be debated and are all real possibilities. Perhaps it was am mixture. Other Native women find it difficult to receive an education because of the trials they face in their efforts to receive a degree.
The articles “Indigenous American Women: Decolonization, Empowerment, Activism” by Devon Abbott Mihesuah and “Divorced From the Land” by Jean M. O’Brien both touch on many struggles of Native American women.
In “Divorced From the Land” we learn that women were considered a big part of the Native culture. They were then stripped of their responsibilities and the men were now given some of those responsibilities. As we know, the land is a big part of Native American culture. The land is a part of the Native people and what the white man wanted was to divorce them of it, which takes them away from it and makes them leave behind a part of them.
For the section on “In the Trenches of Academia,” there are so many good points. To start it off there is the quote about identity. For women writers, they are forced to choose between different identities from being a woman writer or a writer of color. Why not just a writer? Why the title? These are some of the difficulties women in general face, now add in being a Native American just makes things more difficult. They have to face this balance of being happy for what their ancestors have done and also face the aggravation of what has been taught in the classroom for years about Indians. That can’t be easy. In order to write the wrongs of the past you have to basically come up with a completely new curriculum, not an easy task. It’s important for them to remain “fearless” regardless of lack of support and to continue on to stand up for what is right.
The section on “Dancing and Powwows as Empowerment” in the Mihesuah article was very interesting to me. It says, “For many
Natives dancing is not just an expression of identity, it is also a form of worship, healing, and celebration” (154). They also use it as a means to “socialize and celebrate community” (154). I’m personally a huge fan of dancing. I really like this idea because it reminds me of the importance that dancing plays in my life. As a celebration, we see a lot of dancing take place at weddings. Everyone is dancing to celebrate the bride and groom becoming one through marriage. Coming from a Portuguese family, dancing is also used as a way to express the culture and heritage. There is traditional clothes and dances, some of which I know and still do today mostly at weddings of Portuguese couples. The idea of using dance as a means to socialize also reminds me of country line dancing. I go country line dancing and it’s a great way to get to know people and it’s a lot of fun. You see a lot of the same faces that attend on Thursday nights and everyone is there to have fun whether you know people or not.