Thursday, November 3, 2011

Manifest Destiny’s My Co-Pilot or Who Gets to Write Indian Plays

By Vickie Ramirez, member of the 2009 Emerging Writers Group

I’m about to lose a lot of friends with this one but here we go!

Most Indian* people believe that only Native writers should write about Indians. This applies to plays, films, literature and television. I’m about to get in serious trouble when I say, with qualification….I’m not one of them.

There are many reasons why Indian people reject the idea of outsiders telling our stories. We were aggressively colonized, Nations were eradicated, populations decimated and many lost tribal lands, languages, traditions and identity. Lest you think that I’m whining about the past, I would like to remind you that the residential schools, famed for their policy of “Kill the Indian and Save the Man,” were active until 1969. Children were taken from their homes, hair was cut and they were beaten if they showed signs of “Indianness” (e.g. speaking their language, or practicing ceremonies, etc.). Many of these kids are still very alive and part of modern Native society. My own people, the Haudenosaunee, still have clashes with both the Canadian and U.S. governments over land claims. When I say clashes, I’m talking about physical confrontations with armed government troops. The most recent of these clashes happened in 2009*. Last year, our lovely Mayor Bloomberg suggested that Governor Patterson “get a cowboy hat and a shotgun” to explain the law of the land to the Seneca Nation. Colonialism is a very tangible and immediate reality for all of us.

When a member of an invader culture picks up a pen to write about Indians, it gets very dangerous very quickly. The pen IS mightier than the sword and we know this because storytelling has a long-standing and revered place in our societies. It’s hard not to feel under attack when others pick up a pen in our name. Especially as many folks cherry pick the parts they like (ceremonies and way-cool buckskin accessories) and forget about the parts they don’t like (poverty, racism, highest suicide rate of any ethnic group in the Americas, etc.) Insulting pieces (Sitting Bull in Annie Get Your Gun) have evolved into paternalistic (Christopher Seldon’s adaption of Black Elk Speaks), prop-like (Johanna in August, Osage County) or historically inaccurate and offensive (Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson). We’re like a seasoning – if you want a little tragic flair, a little “magical” flair, toss in a little bit of NDN.

So why do I believe its okay for non-Indians to write Native plays? Well, each of the above-mentioned plays inspired plays to answer them. The pantheon of Native plays is richer for the dialogue. This is the essential nature of theater, is it not? It’s how I started writing.

I would go to “Native plays” and not recognize anyone. I started writing because I wanted my people to have a chance to speak. I have some nameless writer with very little awareness about Native culture to thank for this.

I’ve written white characters. I’ve written black characters. I probably got it wrong, but they’re out there. I have yet to write a Latino, Arab or Asian character but if their voices creep up in my head, I’m gonna write ‘em too. I don’t expect any other playwright to do otherwise. Maybe it is my traditions but I believe artists are given their stories the way they are for a reason. Whether “Good Mind” or “Bad Mind” inspires you, your play is there to shed light on the human condition. We can’t be afraid to offend, nor can we be afraid to be offended.

However, I’m not saying call yourself “Running Deer” and you too, can write a Native play! I’m saying if you write a Native play – be ready. We will respond.

Sherman Alexie said it best:

“Well, artists can follow whatever path they want to, but they should also realize that they’re gonna be held to close scrutiny by the people they’re [making] work about. They have to expect it, but it also should be seen as what it is. When non-Natives write about Natives, that’s colonial literature. It can be great literature…it can be wonderful, amazing, but it’s still colonial literature…I think the United States forgets it colonized the Native Americans, and you know, I should say, by and large, it’s white liberals that forget that. I think white conservatives are happy they colonized Native Americans, but white liberals forget that and don’t think of themselves as being colonial.”

Let’s see if the dialogue can flow both ways.

*Let me apologize, I have to lose the “P.C.” label – I have no emotional connection to the phrase “Native American” so I find it difficult to use when I’m writing
* See Seaway Bridge dispute and Caledonia/Six Nations land claim dispute


Vickie Ramirez is a Tuscarora playwright,a member of the Emerging Writer’s Group 2009 and a member of Amerinda Theater and Chukalokoli Native Theater ensemble. Her play SMOKE, will be produced in April 2012 by Mixed Phoenix Theater Group in New York City.

This post is part of a weekly series from the Emerging Writers Group community of playwrights. The EWG is two-year playwriting fellowship at The Public Theater seeking to target playwrights at the earliest stages of their careers. In so doing, The Public hopes to create an artistic home for a diverse and exceptionally talented group of up-and-coming playwrights.

6 comments:

  1. I believe you have a right to your opinion and I have the right to disagree, but this doesn't mean we have to hate each other. It just means we don't agree. I think one element missing here is the lack of clarity in the perceptions of Native Americans. You've pointed out some glaring examples and I want to add, "Indians" by A. Kopit to that list as well, along with Peter Pan, or stereotypes and misuses of Native American Indians and their struggle for someone's own means. What is missing is not only just that some Non-Native American will call themselves 'Running Deer' and become an authority on Native American Indians, but they will be paid for it. There are many themes and topics that a non-Native American will touch, but Native American playwrights will not, in regards to spirituality and sometimes within the culture themselves. We know the fine line between expression and exploitation. American Theaters do not know the difference between a Native American writer from the communities, and someone who is a fake, or who is Native American only in name, or by how much they just paid to get their name (Running Deer, Electric Wolf on a One Uneven Track, or Princess Blue Moon Eating Blue Cheese) and secret but very sacred Tribal ID card. Yes, there is a lot of room for this dialogue, but remember in American Theater one element is the 'business' aspect of it. Sometimes a Non-Native American playwright will get the commission or money to write a play on Native American culture, or history, or event, and the authentic source is denied because he or she doesn't have a 'name.' I am not asking for isolation or cultural or ethnic separation, I am asking for Clarity. What really is being fed into the audiences, or community? I have written about non-Native American and have been criticized for it. I would be naive to assume "Main Stream" America, and other Invaders of Native America will stop writing about American Indians. They've been doing it for over 500 years. So you see Ms. Ramirez, you have the right to your opinion and you have already achieved a goal. You got an old road man like me talking about theater in your dialogue. Like I say, I will stand for your right to say what you believe, I also have the right to not agree...and I have the courage, and hope this gives you honor, that I proclaim this to you publicly and not behind your back...aye! Peace, William S. Yellow Robe, Jr.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Mr. Yellowrobe! You make excellent points about clarity and about the business aspect of theater. The truth is that many folks buy into "perceptions" of Nativeness that have little to do with reality but might be more palatable commercially. However, I believe we can change that. It might be naive, but I believe that Indian people can change this by being more vocal and more present when something like this happens. Write letters, protest, have meetings with playwrights and artistic directors - take the opening and make it our own. Who knows - we may open up perceptions and maybe the next round, it IS a Indian writer who gets hired.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ms. Ramirez,
    It seems like your argument hinges on two suppositions. The first I question, the second I take issue with. Like Mr. Yellow Robe, I certainly mean this in the spirit of dialogue, and I appreciate and respect your bravery in publishing words you recognize to be controversial in the Native community.
    Your first supposition is that the plays you list, in which outsiders co-opt our images, have “inspired plays to answer them.” This is my question. I don’t know what those plays are; I’m sure to my detriment.
    Your second supposition is that those plays have made “the pantheon of Native plays…richer for the dialogue.” This is where I take issue. I certainly have not been in Native theater for as long as Mr. Yellow Robe or many others who are perhaps reading this, so please correct me if my facts are wrong, but I have a sense that part of the need for a Native theater came from us needing to reclaim our images. I know how bad I feel after watching movies like "The Searchers," and I can only imagine how my grandparents’ generation felt being inundated with those images. By your logic, it seems that we are to say that films like "The Searchers" or "Apache" are worthwhile works of art in spite of the psychological damage that they caused and cause. These movies, as well as the plays you mention, are products of colonial views of colonized peoples. Are we to say that colonialism and its incumbent genocide are good things, since without them the Native Renaissance could not have happened? I think not.
    We Native peoples are fighting aggressively in the fields of politics and law to repatriate our homelands and cultural objects that have been stolen from us. Our images and stories have also been stolen and continue to be stolen. There seems to me to be no difference between fighting for our homelands and fighting for our sovereignty with our images. But for that to happen we need to be living peoples and a living pan-Indian community. And that means lively dialogues like the one you’ve started, so I thank you for your words. I hope that mine are taken in the spirit of dialogue in which they’re written.
    Yôotva,
    Waylon Lenk

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Mr. Lenk,
    Thank you so much for joining the discussion! I really appreciate your perspective. Regarding your comments, I'm not saying that Colonialism is good - I'm saying that is a fact, whether we like it or not. I'm just suggesting that we revisit how we allow ourselves to be impacted. There's no way to contain a visceral reaction to the examples you mention ("The Searchers" and "Apache") Do we allow the damage to fester? Or do we take it, own it and find a way to use it to fuel our power? Oddly enough my Mom is of the generation that grew up with these images. She is also of the generation that had it's hair cut and lost its languages subjected to comments about "dirty savages" etc. To my knowledge she has always been a proud and empowered Haudenosaunee woman and yet she and her contemporaries love cowboy movies. (Never understood it myself except that she seemed to love seeing Indians on film. Period.) So I'm just saying we can choose how we react to the offensive pieces out there. I don't believe that any artist gets to censor another, but I do believe that we can take their work as a call to arms to create something better, stronger and ultimately more resonant. Nya-wes for joining the conversation!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Vickie, I love this dialogue. I am the wrong kind of Indian to be commenting with any authority to the specific points made by all of you, but I was struck by your point that your mom loved cowboy movies. If I can raise a parallel situation, in the LGBT community we face a similar dynamic. Growing up, there were very few gay or lesbians to be seen in film and television, and so you were happy with whatever you got. It was such a big deal just to see a gay person at all, even if he was the first person to die in the film, or was so super stereotypical it was ridiculous. It seems that that's the way it goes: First you're a waiter or some equally bit part, then you're the character that dies in the first 5 minutes, then you're the joke full of stereotyped behavior, then you're the sidekick, then you're the ax murdered, then maybe you're allowed to be the protagonist, then maybe after that, you're actually allowed to be the protagonist and not be single, and then maybe someday in the future, you're allowed an on-screen kiss. We argue about these horrible representations within in the community, but they also seem to herald progress, even if it seems ass-backwards sometimes. There is such a desire to see oneself reflected back, I think sometimes we take what we can get even if it sucks. ... Anyway, I hope I didn't distract from the main conversation, but it's always been interesting to me that we should fight and push for better images, truthful images, even as we recognize the progress these poor representations can represent. -- Deen

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Deen! EXACTLY!

    ReplyDelete