(courtesy of the ISB)As part of my plan to get absolutely nothing done this weekend, I watched Sunday night Simpsons episodes for the first time in a long while. They're still not very funny, and insulting to the heritage of golden classic episodes, but they have a few key moments.
Case in point: Lisa, upon finding out that she has no interesting family history, makes up a fake Native American tribe for a class project. At one point in her speech, she explains [I'm paraphrasing here]:
"Our extensive and legitimate records were lost years ago in a fire started by the Europeans, so it would be a grave insult if anyone questioned their validity or tried to substantiate their existence with research."
By the end of the episode, Lisa confesses to a group of Native historians that she has lied about the tribe. At this point, most of the tribal historians in attendance admit to being frauds. "I'm onlyItalian," "I'm Japanese," "I just ski a lot," and my favorite: "I'm really just two midgets in a coat." Of course, Homer then recalls that he had several Aunts and Uncles who were Native Americans after all.
Believe it or not, this whole issue has been a topic of contention in my own classes this semester, where I've encountered another member of my cohort whose focus is Native American Studies. This person, hereafter referred to as "C," claims to be a member of an indigenous tribe, and many of her contributions to class discussions reiterate this point. I say 'claims to be' because her assertion, as well as information regarding her tribe, is backed up by oral history (rather than any written record). C argues that 'her people' (a common phrase) have other ways of recording history, such as beads (I'm not kidding) and storytelling.
I call bullshit.
I have nothing against trying to understand one's own personal history, or the history of any given ethnic or social group. That's an interesting task, and I'm of the opinion that any new information can help increase our overall understanding, and that's a good thing. However, C's behavior bothers me on 2 distinct levels: 1) the attempts to validate unvalidated information by claiming the distinciton of minority/unprivileged/oppressed voice, and 2) demanding unwarranted status by (alleged) membership in said minority community.
Let's deal with the second issue first. I think the Simpsons episode does a fairly good job of presenting the danger of allowing anyone to claim membership in a given group. I'm not saying that all who claim descendency are in error, but there is certainly plenty of room for doubt. I find this especially problematic in the Academic world, where a degree of favor and bias is shown towards members of specific groups. How much easier is it to get into school/get scholarships/etc. when you check the box marked "Inuit/Aleutian Islander"? In my experience, the bias is only more pronounced as you advance in post-graduate programs. But my current complaint is the inability to verify or even define group membership. The federal government requires specific bloodline information in order to get federal benefits and reparations claims, but tribe membership is much more fluid. Honestly, what keeps me from simply claiming to be a member of Running Zack's tribe? (God, I wish I could find a picture of that) I'm sure it would help get me published, and maybe get me a job.
A more pressing issue is the need felt by many historias and cultural scholars to accept the histories of subgroups as true simply because of their origins. C, our wonderful protagonist, would argue that Native beading patterns can reliably provide objective historical accounts. Read that last bit again. She's claiming that the pattern of colored shells in a belt is equivalent (or in C's mind, MORE reliable) than "Western" written records. After all, don't European written histories favor rich white men, since they were the literate class? (apparently, Native beadmakers represented a wide range of socio-economic factors, and are not influenced at all by power and class issues - another example of the "Noble Savage" fallacy) Of course they do. That's why legitimate historians use written histories as one of many sources, alongside archeological findings and other comparable written histories.
There's no such thing Truth, as far as history is concerned. Narratives are merely privileged as true, and as such we should value non-privileged narratives even more so. As such, I announce the establishment of my own historical account, which should be valued more than any other, as it is representative of the greatest possible minority, a single being. Plus, my version of history has more ninjas.
No comments:
Post a Comment