Canonizing Craig Womack: Finding Native Literature's Place in Indian Country

It would seem that in spite of the influx of Native literatures that evidence vibrant Native identities and perspectives, there are still those who would claim that Natives have vanished. The "vanishing Native" in current scholarship emerges from the idea that there is no such thing as a "pure" Indian identity, or the surprisingly widely accepted view of Native literature as simply one way among others of subverting Western culture. A growing number of scholars insist, however, that these arguments are outdated and unacceptable, and they provide alternative and Native-centered ways of approaching Native literature, criticism, and identities. Eva Marie Garroutte (Cherokee) makes a powerful argument for what she calls "Radical Indigenism" in her book Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America: "Radical Indigenism has the potential to help us formulate definitions of identity that can contribute to the survival of Indian people, even as it teaches the academy about philosophies of knowledge it has failed to see and understand. But it will also require the researcher to enter the tribal philosophies. Second, it will require him to enter tribal relations. "¹ What Garroutte points out here are two areas in which scholars writing about Native issues from outside of Native communities often fail. Certainly, as a white American myself, there is a sense of uncertainty in being called upon to delve into the unfamiliar in order to approach Native literatures in a respectful and ethical way. A central word in Native studies is "community," however. Community is an acknowledgement of Native sovereignties; community is accountability as an outsider in asking to be allowed to discuss Native issues; and community is an opportunity to engage in discussions with the people being written about on an intimate level.

Central to my examination of these issues is the work of Muskogee Creek/Cherokee writer and critic Craig Womack, whose fiction and nonfiction point to the ways in which critics can begin to create a sense of community between ourselves and Native authors. What is at stake in this argument is the relationship between Native authors and non-Native critics, in particular, and, more broadly the sovereignty of Native literatures. The purpose of this article is to open up a dialogue between Womack's ideas and those of other literary critics, primarily by engaging his texts within their particular Creek contexts, showing how and why Native literature should be located first and foremost in "Indian Country." In addition, I respond to critics—namely Elvira Pulitano and Arnold Krupat—who do not engage in a dialogue with Womack when critiquing his work but instead inscribe their own meaning onto his text.

A Closer Look at Craig Womack

In Red on Red Womack argues for Natives to consider their texts within the context of their communities. Womack does not write with the sole intention of critiquing the dominantly Western theories about Native literatures, or even with the intention of reforming the ways in which Native literatures have been included or not included in the Eurowestern canon; as he notes, "The primary purpose of this study is not to argue for canonical inclusion or opening up Native literature to a broader audience."² Beth Brant (Mohawk), author of Writing as Witness, makes a similar statement: "Our writing is, and always has been, an attempt to beat back colonization and the stereotyping of our Nations. But the writing is not a reaction to colonialism, it is an active and new way to tell the stories we have always told."³ Womack writes first and foremost to his Creek community, engaging them in a dialogue meant to encourage other Creek writers to come forth and share their stories. His argument insists that their voices matter, that their stories are unique, and that there are so many who need to hear them. He states, "We have gone too long thinking that storytellers cannot also talk about...