NATIONALISM, INDIGENISM, COSMOPOLITANISM: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON NATIVE

AMERICAN LITERATURES
Author(s): Arnold Krupat
Source: The Centennial Review , Fall 1998, Vol. 42, No. 3, SPECIAL ISSUE: LOCATIONS OF
CULTURE: IDENTITY, HOME, THEORY (Fall 1998), pp. 617-626
Published by: Michigan State University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23740008

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Michigan State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Centennial Review

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NATIONALISM, INDIGENISM, COSMOPOLITANISM: CRITICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON NATIVE AMERICAN LITERATURES

By Arnold Krupat

native American literatures today are approached from one or anothe

of the critical perspectives or positions I will call nationalist, indigenis
and cosmopolitan. The nationalist and indigenist positions often overl
and both nationalists and indigenists most of the time tend to see themselv
as quite apart from the cosmopolitans—although, as I will suggest, cosm
politan critics of Native American literature stand in more nearly ox
moronic than oppositional relationship to the nationalists and indigenis
I should make it clear that nothing I have to say bears on the comp
and highly charged question, Who is an Indian? I assume that persons
who are identified and accepted as Indian persons may choose to adop
a nationalist, an indigenist, or a cosmopolitan perspective; that th
"Indianness" does not of itself determine their critical perspective. N
native or outsider critics like myself may also adopt any one of these
three perspectives, and this assertion does require something more—n
much—to be said. I will also briefly consider the nationalist, indigeni
and cosmopolitan preferences regarding the textual and institutio
locations and pedagogical methods for Native American literatures
* * *

The nationalist bases her critical positi

political meanings of the term sovereig
Churchill have written, in their "TREA
Within the understandings of Interna
sovereign nations and sovereign peoples
with other sovereign nations and peoples.
and peoples are entitled to enter into s
Thus Native "nations and peoples" we
as, according to Pauline Turner Stron
between 1607 and 1775 the Crown and the various colonies entered into
at least 185 treaties with Indian peoples. . . , treating them as sovereign
political entities, if only to limit their sovereignty. (11)
Once the United States achieved its own independent existence as a
"sovereign political entity," for almost one hundred years, from 1776
until 1871 (when Congress ended the treaty-making practice), it contin
ued to enter into nation-to-nation treaties with the tribes. Since that time,
Native communities which had not signed treaties with the government
617

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CENTENNIAL REVIEW

have still been able, by a variety of means, to meet the (chang

requirements for "federal recognition" as tribal nations.
As Charles Wilkinson and Sidney Harring have shown, there is a str
line of cases—from Chief Justice John Marshall's well-known 1832 r
in Worcester v. Georgia, through Crow Dog of 1883, and Taitón v. M
of 1896, up to the ruling in Williams v. Lee of 1959, among othe
that clearly supports the view that Native peoples were and continu
be competent self-governing entities, that they are, indeed, sovereig
Native people who identify themselves as Lakota, or Ho-Chunk
Mohawk wish to reserve to themselves the establishment of criteria for
citizenship in the Lakota, Ho-Chunk, or Mohawk nations, and they may
be opposed to the idea of their citizens holding dual citizenship. Means
and Churchill claim, for example, that Lakota citizens are not US citi
zens, and that US citizens residing in Lakota territory have the status
of resident aliens—who may, however, apply for citizenship.
Vine Deloria, Jr., who has been thinking and writing about sovereignty
for several decades, has most recently noted that sovereignty "simply
boils down to making another political entity respect your rights deriving
from a contractual arrangement you have with them." ("Intellectual" 26)
Beyond that, Deloria says,"... the definition of sovereignty covers a multi
tude of sins, having lost its political moorings, and now is adrift on the cur
rents of individual fancy" (26-27). A good illustration of DeLoria's observa
tion is Robert Warrior's comment, quoted critically by Jack Forbes, that
if sovereignty is anything it is a way of life ... a decision we make in our
minds, in our hearts, and in our bodies to be sovereign and to find out what
that means in the process. (15)
To the contrary, sovereignty is a matter of developing law and ongoing
political practice,2 and the nationalist's critical stance is constituted by
the attempt to extend the legal and political implications of sovereignty
to literature.

"In the modemist period," writes the Native artist-activist, Loretta Todd,
it was the lands and resources they sought; in the postmodern it is the
experiences, the sensation they want. Nothing is authentic or autonomous,
therefore everything is fair game. Couple this with a still-vague yearning
for meaning and the past and what do you get? Most often, appropriation
of "tribal" cultures throughout the world. (74)
To resist this, as the Odawa scholar Cecil King made clear, Native people
want to be consulted and respected as not only human beings, at the very
least, but as independent nations with the right to determine what transpires
within our boundaries. We want to say who comes to our world, what they
should see, hear, and take away. (118, italics added)
618

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON NATIVE AMERICAN LITERATURES

King was referring specifically to anthropologists and to cultural pra

tices but the nationalist critic of Native literatures will try to extend t
force of his remarks to texts. Although a non-Native critic could not
unless she had become a citizen in the manner allowed for by Church
and Means—speak as one of "us," she certainly could choose to fo
ground the nationalist's commitment to the issue of sovereignty as c
tral to her practice.
In general, nationalists tend to see the inclusion of Native American
texts in anthologies of American literature as appropriation; they pref
to see them appear in anthologies of Native literature only, or, of cour
collections of Lakota or Cherokee or Navajo texts. Nationalists are also
interested in the broad category of "resistance literature," where natio
alism as a force directed against colonialism—as in Africa, the Ind
subcontinent, and elsewhere—is specifically marshalled.
In the same way, nationalists are leery of Native literatures being taug
in the context of general American literature courses or surveys (mo
likely to be offered by departments of English or American studies); th
would reserve the teaching of Native literature to courses like "The O
Tradition," or "Contemporary Native Fiction and Poetry" (most likely
be offered by Native Studies or American Indian Studies departments
or programs). Best of all, perhaps, would be courses in "Lakota Literatu
or "Navajo Literature" as these are taught in the tribal colleges, wher
instruction would proceed in a manner consistent with a particular ins
tution's understanding of the Lakota or Navajo "way" or outlook. Apa
from that, a nationalist pedagogy—and, indeed, critical practice—mig
arise, as Elizabeth Cook-Lynn has suggested, from treating the work
Native religious leaders, attorneys, and politicians, "as essentially lite
ary events, actions, and ideas" (86), so that the "incorporation of such
concrete praxis" might "affect canon theory and literary theory." (8

Indigenists take their perspective not so much from law and poli
(although, as we shall see, their positions are also political), as fro
geocentric or place-specific philosophy. Winona Stevenson, a Cree wom
has recently quoted her mother as saying to her, "You are of this lan
you are Indigenous, and that's what makes you different from everybo
else" (37)—from "ethnic" persons or other Canadians, for examp
Ward Churchill explains his indigenism as founded
upon the traditions—the bodies of knowledge and corresponding codes
values—evolved over many thousands of years by native peoples the world
over. (403)
619

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CENTENNIAL REVIEW

Louis Owens, referring to Michael Dorris's sense that Native American

literature would require "a shared consciousness, an inherently iden
fiable world-view," claims that today,
in spite of the fact that Indian authors write from very diverse tribal and
cultural backgrounds, there is to a remarkable degree a shared consciou
ness and identifiable worldview reflected in novels by American Indian
authors. . . .3 (20)
And Jose Barreiro affirms that "the principles that guide Native culture
bear a remarkable resemblance to one another" (qtd. in Whitt 225
These "principles," "bodies of knowledge," and "codes of value," "shared
consciousness" and "worldview" are said to derive from the specia
relationship to the land that indigenous peoples everywhere are presume
to share—regardless of whether or not they are recognized as sovereign
nations by the dominant settler states that surround them.
As Jace Weaver has remarked, however,
Those who assert ... a commonly held [indigenous] worldview diffe
markedly ... on the components of it and how ... it is to be characterized
reflecting their own social location and their individual, often highly roman
tic perception of Native cultures rather than any pantribal reality.4 (49)
Examining a number of accounts purporting to describe the central tenet
of an indigenous perspective, Weaver concludes, "It is not so muc
incorrect to refer to a single Native worldview as it is imprecise." (50)
In these regards, we may consider another quotation from Stevenson tha
is typical, I think, of indigenist discourse. She writes that indigenous people
are spiritually attached to [a particular] place. ... we never left the bone
of our ancestors behind. Every hill, mountain, river, coulee, and forest has
ancient stories that tell us how we are related to it and to each other. (42)
The latter part of Stevenson's statement, as Keith Basso has recently show
for the Western Apache, and others have shown for other peoples, is mos
certainly true. Yet the first part can only be true, in point of fact, for long
time residents of western Africa. Although they might literally claim "never
to have "left the bones of [their] ancestors behind," the historical record indi
cates that almost everyone has come from somewhere else (indeed, from
there). Thus the question arises of just how long it takes to become indig
nous. In Hawai'i, for example, some claim indigenousness after seve
generations while others would require a hundred and fifty generation
of residence. In the southwest, the Hopi claim to indigenousness rests upo
a presence dating back some hundred generations. But Navajo peopl
in place for perhaps thirty generations can hardly imagine themselves a
anything but indigenous to the landscape they know so well.

620

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON NATIVE AMERICAN LITERATURES

Nonetheless, indigenists base their politics on the differences between

the epistemology and ethics of their geocentric worldview—however
imprecisely it may be stated—and that of modern Europe.5 As Arif Dirlik
has written, the indigenist's
insistence on a special relationship to the land as the basis for indigenous
identity is not merely spiritual, an affirmation of an ecological sensi
bility, . . . [it] also calls for a transformation of the spatial arrangements
of colonialism or postcolonialism. Indigenism . . . challenges ... the system
of economic relations that provides the ultimate context for social and
political relationships: capitalist or state socialist. (21)
Non-natives will not, of course, be able to claim an "indigenous iden
tity," but, as the development of what has been broadly referred to as
"ecocriticism" indicates, even persons with no claim to indigenousness
may work from a deep sense of the specific sensuous "surround"6 as
context for vision and value.
Indigenists would probably disperse Native literary expression among
anthologies and departmental or institutional locations. Fourth and Fifth
World anthologies comprising literature from indigenous persons around
the globe would be suitable, in their eyes, for Native literature, or antholo
gies like The Indigenous Voice.1 Like many nationalists, indigenists would
also include Native literary expression in anthologies of "resistance"
literature, foregrounding epistemological difference and value rather than
the national category. As for the courses in which Native literatures
might best appear, indigenists might offer such things as "Epistemologi
cal Pluralism," "Non-anthropocentrism," or "Environmental Ethics."8
So far as pedagogical method is concerned, indigenists would turn to a
number of recent efforts to consider such matters as how and to what degree
language use in the English texts of some Native writers might parallel
usage in tribal languages; or how imagery and description in a given text
—its reference to colors, numbers, plants, animals—might reflect specifics
of one or another traditional culture. Similarly, texts by Native writers
have begun to be examined to see whether and how their constructions
of the self or person, the family or community, or, indeed, the meaning
and function of gift-giving and exchange might derive in significant
measure from traditional, indigenous understandings of these matters.

Just as Winona Stevenson's mother encouraged her to "remember that

you are of this land," so did his father, Kwame Anthony Appiah writes,
urge his children to '"Remember that you are citizens of the world'"
(618), a cosmopolitan identity position. "The favorite slander," Appiah
621

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CENTENNIAL REVIEW

notes, "of the narrow nationalist"—or, I would add, the narrow

indigenist—"against us cosmopolitans is that we are rootless" (618). But
his father, Appiah notes in an oxymoronic construction, was a "cosmo
politan patriot" who believed "in the cosmopolitan ideal," that you could
and should "take your roots with you. . ." (622). "In a world of cos
mopolitan patriots," Appiah continues,
people would accept the citizen's [or native's] responsibility to nurture the
culture and politics of their homes. Many would . . . spend their lives in
the places that shaped them. . . . But many would move. . . . The result
would be a world in which each local form of human life was the result of
long-term and persistent processes of cultural hybridization: a world . . .
much like the world we live in now. (619)

Contemporary Native American cosmopolitan positions are constituted

by the recognition that "long-term and persistent processes of cultural
hybridization" are ongoing and inevitable, and—perhaps most impor
tantly—that this need not be read as a tragic narrative of loss.
No one has done more to dramatize the possibilities of Native cosmo
politanism than Gerald Vizenor, who, in his fiction as in his essays, has
celebrated the once pitied or despised "halfbreed" as the "mixedblood"
or "crossblood," and transformed the lowly "mongrel" into a hero of
comic invention.9 I might also mention in these regards Louis Owens
whose dedication to his important study of contemporary Native Ameri
can fiction, Other Destinies, reads, "For mixedbloods, the next genera
tion." Or William S. Penn who subtitled his recent collection of auto
biographical essays, As We Are Now, "mixblood essays on race and
identity." These Native writers—along with Patricia Penn Hilden, Diane
Glancy, Wendy Rose, Leslie Marmon Silko (in Almanac of the Dead),
and Sherman Alexie (on alternate days), among others—are all exploring
different constructions of—to take a term once more from Vizenor—
"post-Indian"10 culture and politics.
This means that critics, Native and non-Native, who work from the
cosmopolitan perspective can, like the nationalists, fully acknowledge
the importance of the issue of sovereignty in the political struggle of
colonized peoples all over the world and at home, and, like the indigenists,
can take traditional, place-specific values and principles with the utmost
seriousness. The cosmopolitan critic knows that a commitment to sov
ereignty and the home place are "roots" that Native American literature
is sure to carry with it wherever it may go—or, indeed, choose to remain.
Inasmuch as cosmopolitans, as Appiah notes, "do not need to insist
that all of [their] fellow citizens be cosmopolitans..." (633), the cosmopoli
tan position, unlike an older universalism that insisted everyone is, or
622

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON NATIVE AMERICAN LITERATURES

(in more sinister fashion) ought to be the same, stands more nearly in
oxymoronic than oppositional relation to the positions of the nationalist
and indigenist. (I have already noted that Appiah's phrase, "cosmopoli
tan patriot," is itself an oxymoron.) Indeed, so far as contemporary
critical practice is concerned, cosmopolitan critics both Native and non
Native have generally, if selectively, supported nationalists and indigenists.
Cosmopolitans wish to see Native American literatures not appropri
ated by but included in anthologies of American literature. Cosmopoli
tans would also site Native literatures in resistance anthologies or courses,
although they would want to extend the concept of resistance beyond that
of national resistance to colonialism, including in the category of resis
tance writing such things as prison writing, gay and lesbian writing,
concentration or internment camp writing, and the like. (Nationalists and
indigenists are concerned that such extension might obscure the very
particular situation of colonized Native peoples around the world. They
are wary—with good reason—of any universalizing of resistance.)
As for pedagogical location, cosmopolitans would disperse the instruc
tion of Native American literatures widely among departments of English,
American Literature, American Studies, Cultural Studies, American Indian
Studies, and Native American Studies. Although anthropology's history
as the handmaiden of colonialism is well-known, that history is not
binding on the present as it need not be on the future. Thus cosmopoli
tans, fully aware of the animus against anthropologists expressed by any
number of Native writers, can still imagine Native American literatures
taught in departments of anthropology in courses like "Representation
and Self-Representation," "Ethnography and Literature," or "Postcolonial
Literatures."11
As strong multiculturalists, cosmopolitans can agree with indigenists
on the importance of reading and teaching Native American texts—Black
Elk and John Neihardt's Black Elk Speaks, N. Scott Momaday's The
Way to Rainy Mountain, Leslie Marmon Silko's Ceremony and Almanac
of the Dead, the poems of Simon Ortiz, Linda Hogan's Solar Storms,
among many others—which powerfully present non-Western worldviews.
Cosmopolitans are interested in exploring how "seeing with the Native
eye"12 can question Western modes of vision and how it might alter them;
they are curious about hybridization in the realm of epistemology and
ethics. (Indigenists would distance themselves from such curiosity only
to the degree that they are committed to either/or—indigenous or set
tler—choices of value.)
So far as critical methodology is concerned, cosmopolitans feel free
to draw upon "structuralism," or "deconstruction," Marx, Freud, Bakhtin,
623

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CENTENNIAL REVIEW

or feminism(s) for insights into a Native American text. Aware of t

danger that the application of these Euramerican perspectives to Na
texts could be yet one more instance of (discursive) colonialism dire
against the Native, cosmopolitans want also to work with indige
methodologies to produce what I have called an ethnocriticism in
belief that use of the master's tools, as it were, in conjunction with N
tools constitutes the most powerful hybrid or mixedblood strategy
able against cultural colonialism.

NOTES
'There is, however, an opposing set of rulings dating, perhaps, from the holding
in Corn Tassel of 1830. The ruling in Kagama (1886) upholding the constitution
ality of the Major Crimes Act of the year before introduces the "plenary power
doctrine" which effectively grants Congress the power simply to do what it want
with the tribes. See Wilkinson and Harting.
2Cf. Rennard Strickland:

At this moment [1989], I believe the great generational challenge ... is to make
Indian law work for Indian people. . . . My generation has been listening to—
indeed helping to create—the music of sovereignty. Sovereignty!... Sovereignty
is not a state of salvation that magically erases all troubles. . . . Our challenge—
the challenge of Indian law—is to forge the sword of sovereignty into a weapon
capable of attacking the basic human problems of Indian people. (52)
Strickland's n. 15, p. 142, gives a good bibliography of titles bearing on "American
Indian law and the powers of tribal governments and courts. . . ."
3Owens's sentence concludes, however, as follows:
a consciousness and worldview defined primarily by a quest for identity: What
does it mean to be "Indian"—or mixedblood—in contemporary America? (20)
Thus, although Owens may be quoted—as here—as one who subscribes to the idea
that there is a common indigenous "consciousness and worldview," for him that
"consciousness and worldview" does not inevitably lead to a common indigenous
identity. It is for this reason that I take Owens to be closer, ultimately, to the
cosmopolitan than the indigenous position (6-8).
"Weaver proposes that the common thread linking Native writers is their com
mitment to community, what he calls their "communitist" orientation. But the
nature of these commitments, too, may "differ markedly," "reflecting" the writer's
"own social location and ... often highly romantic perception of Native cultures."
5The indigenist sense of difference/distance from Western epistemology has on
occasion manifested itself as an attack not merely on social science as in Vine
Deloria, Jr.'s powerful and witty attack on anthropology in 1969, but, as in Deloria's
recent Red Earth, White Lies, an attack on "science" of every kind. For the claim
that science is indeed constituted by worldview see, also, Maurice Bazin's "Our
Sciences, Their Science," and Clara Sue Kidwell's "Science and Ethnoscience."
More forceful is Alan Bishop's "Western Mathematics: The Secret Weapon of Cul
tural Imperialism." For a sympathetic yet critical review of Deloria's book, see David
D. Harris. A devastating critique by H. David Brumble (q.v.) has just appeared,
624

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON NATIVE AMERICAN LITERATURES

with a brief response by Deloria. I hold the view that "science," like "history" (s
my "America's Histories"), depends upon "facts of the matter" which can often
not always be established in a manner that, if it is not absolute and purely objectiv
is not either purely relative in the sense of strictly subject- or culture-specific.
6See David Abram for a powerful account of the panhuman need for a relationshi
to the sensuous "surround," Abram's term.
'Roger Moody's edited book of this name is a collection of essays, not an
anthology of literary texts. The title, however, seems possible for any one of a
number of literary anthologies.
8This phrase occurs in the subtitle of an essay by M. Annette Jaimes.
'Among Vizenor's many texts, see in particular part 1 of Crossbloods: Bone
Courts, Bingo, and Other Reports (1976/1990); Landfill Meditation: Crossblood
Stories (1991); the novel The Heirs of Columbus (1991); and, most recently
Fugitive Poses (1998).
10See his Manifest Manners: Postindian Warriors of Survivance (1994), i
particular, ch. 1, "Postindian Warriors."
"Thomas Biolsi and Larry Zimmerman's term, "late colonialism," is more accurate
as a description of the political situation of contemporary Native American literatur
than "postcolonialism." Although, as I have argued in my Turn to the Native, som
contemporary Native American novels resemble a second wave of postcolonial fictio
in Africa, there is no "post-" as yet to the colonial condition of many Native peopl
"See the collection of that name edited by W. H. Capps.

LITERATURE CITED
Abrain, David. The Spell of the Sensuous. New York: Vintage, 1997.
Appiah, K. Anthony. "Cosmopolitan Patriots." Critical Inquiry 23 (1997): 617
Barreiro, Jose. "First Words." Native Americas: Akwe.kwon's Journal of Ind
enous Issues 13 (1998): 2.
Bazin, Maurice. "Our Sciences, Their Science." In Race, Discourse, and the Origin
of the Americas: A New World View. Ed. Vera Lawrence Hyatt and Rex Nettleford.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution P, 1995, 231-40.
Bishop, Alan. "Western Mathematics: The Secret Weapon of Cultural Imperial
ism." Race and Class 32 (1990): 51-65.
Brumble, H. David. "Vine Deloria, Jr., Creationism, and Ethnic Pseudoscience."
American Literary History 10 (1998): 335-46.
Capps, W. H., ed. Seeing with a Native Eye. New York: Harper, 1976.
Churchill, Ward. "I am Indigenist." Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance,
to Genocide, Ecocide, and Expropriation in Contemporary North America.
Monroe, ME: Common Courage P, 1993, 403-51.
Cook-Lynn, Elizabeth. Why I Can't Read Wallace Stegner and Other Essays.
Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1996.
DeLoria, Vine, Jr. Custer Died for your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. New York:
Avon, 1970 [1969].
. "Response to David Brumbe." American Literary History 10 (1998): 347-49.
. "Intellectual Self-Determination and Sovereignty: Looking at the Wind
mills in Our Minds." Wicazo Sa Review 13 (1998): 25-32.
. Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact.
New York: Scribners, 1995.
625

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CENTENNIAL REVIEW

, and Clifford Lytle. The Nations Within: The Past and Future of Ame
Indian Sovereignty. New York: Pantheon, 1984.
Dirlik, Arif. "The Past as Legacy and Project: Postcolonial Criticism in th
spective of Indigenous Historicism." American Indian Culture and Resea
Journal 20 (1996): 1-31.
Forbes, Jack. "Intellectual Self-Determination and Sovereignty: Implicati
Native Studies and for Native Intellectuals." Wicazo Sa Review 13 (1998): 1
Green, Michael K., ed. Issues in Native American Identity. New York: Peter Lan
Harring, Sidney. Crow Dog's Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law
United States Law in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Cambridge UP,
Harris, David D. Review of Red Earth, White Lies. Native Americas: Akwe:
Journal of Indigenous Issues 13 (1996): 60-62.
Jaimes, M. Annette. "Native American Identity and Survival: Indigenism
Environmental Ethics." In Green 133-53.
Kidwell, Clara Sue. "Science and Ethnoscience." Indian Historian 6 (1973): 43-54.
King, Cecil. "Here Come the Anthros." In Indians and Anthropologists: Vine
DeLoria, Jr. and the Critique of Anthropology. Ed. Thomas Biolsi and Larry
J. Zimmerman. Tucson: U of Arizona P, 115-19.
Krupat, Arnold. "America's Histories." American Literary History 10 (1998): 124-46.
. Ethnocriticism: Ethnography, History, Literature. Berkeley: U of Califor
nia P, 1992.
. The Turn to the Native: Studies in Criticism and Culture. Lincoln: U of
Nebraska P, 1996.
Moody, Roger, ed. The Indigenous Voice: Visions and Realities. Utrecht, Neth
erlands: International Books, 1993.
Owens, Louis. Other Destinies: Understanding the American Indian Novel. Norman:
U of Oklahoma P, 1992.
Penn, William S., ed. A.? We Are Now: Mixblood Essays on Race and Identity.
Berkeley: U of California P, 1997.
Silko, Leslie Marmon. Almanac of the Dead. New York: Penguin, 1992 [1991].
Stevenson, Winona. "'Ethnic' Assimilates 'Indigenous': A Study in Intellectual
Neocolonialism." Wicazo Sa Review 13 (1998): 33-52.
Strong, Pauline Turner and Barrik Van Winkle. "Tribe and Nation: American
Indians and American Nationalism." Social Analysis 33 (1993): 9-26.
Strickland, Rennard. Tonto's Revenge. Albuquerque: U of New Mexico P, 1997.
Todd, Loretta. "What More Do They Want?" In Indígena: Contemporary Native
Perspectives. Ed. Gerald McMaster and Lee-Ann Martin. Hull, Quebec: Cana
dian Museum of Civilization, 1992, 74-79.
Weaver, Jace. "Native American Authors and Their Communities." Wicazo Sa
Review 12 (1997): 47-87.
Whitt, Laurie Anne. "Indigenous Peoples and the Cultural Politics of Knowledge."
In Green 232-46.
Wilkinson, Charles F. American Indians, Time, and the Law. New Haven: Yale
UP, 1987.

626

This content downloaded from

196.3.97.38 on Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:40:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms