Tribal Theory in Native American Literature: Dakota and Haudenosaunee Writing and Indigenous Worldviews (review)

An often heard complaint from Native American scholars and writers is that critics address Native American texts through Eurowestern perspectives, which, they argue, obscures rather than illuminates, denigrates rather than celebrates, and further marginalizes Native writing. Many scholars urge the examination of Native works through the lens of Indigenous American perspectives, and some, such as Craig Womack, insist that every Native written text must be examined through tribally specific perspectives; for example, Creek writing must be examined only through Creek perspectives.

Penelope Myrtle Kelsey’s book Tribal Theory in Native American Literature: Dakota and Haudenosaunee Writing and Indigenous Worldviews attempts to answer those critics by offering tribally specific, Indigenous approaches to the literature of Dakota authors Marie McLaughlin, Charles Eastman, Zitkala-Sa, Ella Deloria, Phillip Red Eagle, and Elizabeth Cook-Lynn, as well as that of Haudenosaunee poet Maurice Kenny.

In the introduction, Kelsey states:

What I would like to suggest is that Native American epistemologies and worldviews might be used for the purposes of reading Native texts in culturally appropriate ways and that sophisticated reading of this sort that explores the contours and minutiae of key cultural concepts constitutes a legitimate theoretical practice that has hitherto remained unrecognized

(8).

While this is a reasonable and admirable goal, Kelsey is not engaging in a practice that has been hitherto unrecognized, as she claims. The previously mentioned Creek author, Craig Womack, not only argues for the same position but also demonstrates it quite effectively in Red on Red: Native American Literary Separatism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999). Cherokee writer Jace Weaver has also written extensively about this theoretical practice in several articles and books, most notably in That the People Might Live: Native American Literatures and the Native American Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), as has Anishinaabe author Gerald Vizenor in numerous articles and books, but especially in Fugitive Poses: Native American Indian Scenes of Absence and Presence (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998). However, it might be noted that Vizenor also mixes Eurowestern theoretical approaches with Indigenous approaches throughout his voluminous scholarly works.

Leaving Kelsey’s mistaken claim aside, she does attempt to engage responsibly in an understanding of tribally specific (Dakota and Haudenosaunee) knowledges to critically assess works of authors from these two Native nations, even attempting to learn the Dakota language in order to better understand the material that emerged from Dakota writers. She states: “not pursuing training in an Indigenous language as a methodology for studying a given Indigenous literature constitutes a sort of scholarly copout” (12).

In her first chapter, Kelsey revisits pre-contact forms of Dakota texts such as pictographs from the winter counts and tipi dew curtains to explicate the texts of Marie McLaughlin, drawing upon their cultural significance not only at the time of production, but also their continuing importance as historical literary documents. Kelsey’s approach is quite clear, well documented, and appropriate, but Kelsey’s claims in some subsequent chapters are not so clear and in some cases constitute unsubstantiated claims that are not supported by evidence. For example, in the chapter addressing the work of Charles O. Eastman, Kelsey writes that, by detailing accomplishments of his uncle and by including creation stories and details of sacred and secular events in his book Indian Boyhood, Eastman “portrays Dakota society as a sovereign civilization on a par with those of the West” (54). In this book, Eastman tells the story of his boyhood but does not declare any nation-building intent. Readers may infer what they wish, but it is impossible for Kelsey or any other critic to know the reader response to Eastman’s work. Further, it is unlikely, at least at the time of the publication of Eastman’s text, that any mainstream reader would have entertained any notion whatsoever that Eastman’s goal was to “portray Dakota society as a sovereign civilization.” Most mainstream readers of that time (and...