Who Stole Native American Studies II: The Need for an AIS Redux in an Age of Redskin Debate and Debacle

During the spring term of 2000, as an anthropology graduate student at Arizona State University (ASU), I met and took an American Indian studies (AIS) class with Elizabeth Cook-Lynn. She was a visiting professor at, and a consultant to, this developing AIS program. I had read her seminal article, “Who Stole Native American Studies?,” when it was published in 1997.¹ As a graduate student I felt excited to meet professors whose writings I had read, often during my undergraduate studies. So, the chance to take a class with her was really exciting.

Fifteen years have passed in a flash, and I am now a professor building the AIS program at South Dakota State University (SDSU). Cook-Lynn’s seminal article seems rather appropriate to revisit for all programs dealing with Native issues in institutions of higher education. But for me here in the traditional lands of the Dakota on the east side of South Dakota bordering Minnesota, an article redux is in order. A distinguished alumna of SDSU (called South Dakota State College when she graduated in 1952), Cook-Lynn told me after a conversation at the Oak Lake Writers’ Society Retreat 2014, “I don’t talk about American Indian studies with people in South Dakota anymore.” She stated that she is more than happy to discuss AIS with folks all around the country, but that when it comes to South Dakota—she has given up on this state.

A critical review of her article and its impact on American Indian studies and contemporary figures in the field, in light of the contemporary scaffolding of a bachelor of arts degree in AIS offered now at SDSU as of the fall of 2013, seems rather fitting for this special edition of Wicazo Sa Review. In addition, the national landscape sets a backdrop—particularly the controversy over the Washington Redskins mascot and the numerous environmental battles against oil pipelines—that points to the potential of AIS to help educate America. This essay will explore some of the obstacles that hamper the development of a meaningful AIS program with an emphasis on SDSU, in relation to what Cook-Lynn proposed seventeen years ago.

BACKGROUND

I consider Elizabeth Cook-Lynn to be an elder to me in many regards, but she was simultaneously a professor of mine while I was a graduate student. I had just begun graduate school in 1998 right after she published, “Who Stole Native American Studies?” in 1997. I believe it was 2000 when she went to ASU as a visiting professor. As many people operating within higher education in Indian Country have come to recognize, the idiom of six degrees of separation is, perhaps, one to two degrees when dealing with people in Indian Country. Many of my family and relatives here in South Dakota know of her in some fashion from before I was alive through various relationships with her daughters. I’ve had the chance to keep in touch with her since my class as well. My respect for her influence and much of her career is immense, and she has made positive remarks regarding my efforts to build American Indian studies here at her alma mater.

As I am Oglala Lakota and she is Dakota, we share a cultural consciousness of certain humor and culturally specific references. I’ve had the privilege to witness her interactions with various people, mostly non-Natives. Many of them find her to be intimidating, outspoken, and polemical in her support of Indian sovereignty and rights. I’ve heard the same criticism aimed at Vine Deloria Jr., another icon of American Indian studies. Yet, many knowledgeable scholars consider Elizabeth to be the “grandmother” of American Indian studies. This is why it was rather shocking to hear that she does not talk to people in South Dakota about Indian studies anymore. If she is the grandmother of American Indian studies and if she has given up on a meaningful AIS program being developed in South Dakota, what have I gotten myself into?

Cook-Lynn...