Performative Rhetoric in Native American Protest

By Susie Emerton, Third Year History Student

‘Above all, they were committing cultural acts in which they sought social and political power through a complicated play of white guilt, nostalgia, and the deeply rooted desire to be Indian.’

-Philip Deloria

Deloria, an American Indian scholar and activist, highlights the importance of performative rhetoric in protest. Performative protest is a way in which activists use imagery and symbolism to challenge current narratives. In the turn of the decade, from 1969 to 1971, ideas around land occupation and counter-commemoration were displayed through symbolic rituals in protest. The result was a transformation in pan-Indian unity, as well as a new-found media engagement, which fostered national and international interest from white and minority groups. This essay will argue the importance of acknowledging performative rhetoric in American Indian protest.

Performative protests prior to 1969 also held significance on a localised level. Protests such as the Fish-In movement at the start of the 1960s demonstrated the early days of performative protest, setting up illegal encampments on the shores of Frank’s Landing to contest American Indian fishing rights. But, as George Horse Capture points out, the Alcatraz occupation ‘exploded and reshaped the psyche of the Indian world’. 1969 and Alcatraz is an important starting point for an ideological shift in performance protest, with a closer focus on creating pan-Indian unity and media engagement, while also inspiring similar protest acts. That being said, this essay shall not fall into the “classic narrative” either, which is evident in Paul Chaat Smith and Robert Allen Warrior’s work, stating that the entirety of Red Power can be mapped onto Alcatraz, the Trail of Broken Treaties, and finishing at Wounded Knee in 1973. This short narrative fails to take in a much longer history of Indian protest, and implies that the American Indian struggle had a start and end date. Thus, the time frame is limited to finish in 1971, focusing on just a small section in a larger American Indian protest movement. More research needs to be done on the localised protests of the 50s and 60s, such as the fish-ins, as well as the protests of the mid to late 70s, such as Wounded Knee and the Trail of Self-Determination.

There is a large silence in historiography regarding American Indian performative protest. Historians such as Bradley Glenn Shreve, while acknowledging that performative protests have influence on media coverage and pan-Indian unity, weigh up Red Power success more so on policy change and proclamations. While it is important to recognise the impact changes in policy have had on the American Indian population, this same attention must be used for the impact of metaphorical, performative protests. Specifically, their ability to create narratives that unite Indians, and also open the eyes of the white population. Some anthropological and sociological studies have more detail on this topic. Jeffrey Juris, for example, outlines the importance of this practice, articulating how cultural protest and performance create ‘alternative meanings, values, and identities’ that have a profound impact both inside and outside the protest community. The limitations of these studies, however, is that they are wider, generalised theories, and thus some ideologies do not represent American Indian protest specifically. A number of history scholars allude to performative protests of the Red Power era, and this essay shall engage with them, however there is a gap of acknowledgement of the direct impact the performative rhetoric has.

The protest technique of land occupation demonstrates one intrinsic way in which performative rhetoric had a strong impact on progressions of the Red Power movement. Juris acknowledges how protesters ‘use their bodies to physically enact confrontation and occupy space.’ During the Alcatraz occupation, the physical enactment and rhetoric of claiming the island ‘by right of discovery,' as it is stated in the proclamation, demonstrated the way in which the Red Power movement satirically engaged with ideas of American values. Terminology throughout the proclamation played with constitutional rhetoric, twisting ideas around honour and fairness, condemning the American government for their broken treaties. This point alone demonstrates the importance of performative rhetoric in constructing a political narrative in protest.

            Yet, the nineteen-month occupation went further than just inverting white American freedom narratives, it ‘sparked a resurgence in ethnic identity.’ The congregation of Indians from a number of tribal nations created unity on the island, allowing a space to discuss experiences. In a period of intensive government policy of relocation, American Indian circumstances were becoming more and more disparate, both geographically and culturally. Thus, by grouping these diverse individuals in one area, Juris states that an ‘affective solidarity’ forms, uniting against a singular oppressor and a common cause. Patty Silvas, Blackfeet Indian and key figure in the Indians of All Tribes group who occupied Alcatraz, stated how crucial the occupation was in representing unity for her generation. It was ‘a chance for us to be Indian, to learn about our people and to let our children be Indian […] Alcatraz is the first time that all Indians have worked for these things together.’ Not only did it unite the Indians that were occupying the island, but as Paul Rosier points out, Alcatraz constructed a ‘real and metaphorical place for pan-Indian activity that would inspire similar acts of protest.’ During and after the occupation, Indians across the nation united to occupy locations that the government had unlawfully claimed, violating the Treaty of Fort Laramie. Ellis Island, on the East Coast, was one of these. Occupying Ellis Island demonstrates not only the wide-reaching effect of Alcatraz but also replicates the imagery. Claiming key islands on both the East and West coast of the United States establishes a clear ‘anti- discovery’ rhetoric, taking back the islands that “book-end” the manifest destiny campaign. Despite the lack of success at reclaiming Ellis Island, the symbolic importance of the attempt still holds value, showing a growing activism-based unity across America.

            American Indian land occupation protests did not stop at islands. Starting in 1970, Sioux Indians protested on Mount Rushmore, in an attempt to regain ownership of the Black Hills. Chiselling the faces of four U.S. presidents, all of which had a hand in the decimation of the American Indian population, into hills once owned by the Sioux, has an ironic and derisive impact on the American Indian psyche. The protesters developed their performative rhetoric around religious, ceremonial practices. Kills Straight, a Dakota Sioux, commented on how the protests on Mount Rushmore were ‘first a spiritual movement, a religious rebirth, and then a rebirth of Indian dignity’. Spiritual connection to the land is an intrinsic element of American Indian religious tradition, thus the act of reigniting these spiritual connections on a national monument demonstrates how the Sioux reclaimed both their lands and their ceremonial heritage.

            Aside from constructing unity within the pan-Indian movement, these protests also had a wider effect on the white American population, and internationally. Kevin Deluca and John Delicath state that these ‘image events’ were ‘designed for media dissemination’. While, as the previous paragraph states, it cannot be stated that the only purpose of the protests was media attention, Deluca and Delicath stance still holds weight. By creating emphatic spectacles for the media to bite into, the American Indian plight narrative travelled further, reaching more newspapers and television screens. Mount Rushmore protests were displayed on the news, with repeated reference to the religious drumming and rituals. This implies that the performative element is what resulted in media engagement. Yet, the support did not stop there. Both György Tóth and Rosier explore ideas around Indian protest harbouring international support, from white Europeans, indigenous peoples, and minority groups. During Alcatraz, five articles were written by The Times in the UK on the occupation, and with very little negativity. Considering the previous lack of acknowledgement of American Indian issues anywhere outside the reservations, this jump to international engagement is prominent and must be recognised. In addition, Tóth suggests that the performative protests created a ‘transnational advocacy network’ of indigenous peoples around the globe. In a climate of post-imperial self-determination and pushes for sovereignty world-wide, this unity makes sense. The American Indian protests against the government were symbolic resistance to the white oppression that was occurring internationally.

These land occupation protests only demonstrate one aspect of Red Power performative rhetoric. Another, equally prevalent, ideological protest method, is the construction of counter-narratives against national American history. White America has always engaged in overwriting American Indian narratives with white settler myths, which Homi Bhabha attributes as a ‘strange forgetting’ to establish the ‘beginning of the nation’s narrative.’ The ideological resistance adopted by American Indian protesters was thus to construct their own ‘memory movement,’ as Kubal names it, in these nationally important sites that have become the signposts of white American identity. Protesters went to the Mayflower, the Statue of Liberty, the aforementioned Mount Rushmore and more, to engage ironically with the landmark, confronting its silence to American Indian history. Russell Means, standing at the Plymouth rock on Thanksgiving, spat on the monument and announced, ‘Plymouth Rock is red. Red with our Blood.’ Once boarding the Mayflower, a Pilgrim dummy was chucked overboard. He goes on to say that the interaction at the Mayflower that day was a ‘symbolic gesture to reclaim our rights in this country.’ This protest is imperative for looking at how counter-commemorations both re-told the history of the “Great America” by highlighting American Indian’s plight as a result of white greed, while also demanding improved treatment and recognition of American Indians in the public eye and in policy.

            The effect on the American Indian people as a result of this form of protest was profound. Following decades of ‘psychological torture,’ as Coody Cooper puts it, with the white settler narrative dominating their boarding school history classrooms, the opportunity to rewrite history created a strong sense of pan-Indian unity across the nation. Furthermore, it allowed Indians with different views on sovereignty to unite. Those who approached the American Indian cause with a separatism goal, viewed these counter-commemorations as demonstrating an independent narrative. Those who were more engaged with being a nation within a Greater America, viewed these protest events as a plea to the government to do better. The result was a unity that Rosier has labelled ‘hybrid patriotism,’ demonstrating the complexities of American Indian engagement with patriotic sentiment. In essence, by protesting these sites, the agency over American historical narrative can be returned to American Indians.

            Unsurprisingly, minority protest at sites with national significance caused a great deal of media engagement. Tóth observes how performative interventions in these public spaces enabled protesters to ‘communicate their messages and champion their causes through television and printed media.’ Rising TV purchases by the end of the 1960s, contributed to the success of imagery-based protest. Adam Fortunate Eagle proposed that public support for the protests came from the use of ‘satire and humour,’ yet Paul Collier rejects this. Collier suggests that, while the humour was understood and appreciated internally, media reporting on ideological protests were laughing at, not with the Indians. Juris acknowledges this, stating that a hindrance to the performative rhetoric is that one cannot control the ‘reception’ of the message. For instance, reactions to Columbus day protests were met with judgement and mockery, one article stating the protesters were creating ‘unjustified guilt-mongering,’ in an attempt to ‘spread lies.’ This demonstrates the growing defensiveness of the white population towards acknowledging their somewhat fabricated history. Yet, negative reactions must not be deemed a hinderance. Kubal points out that conflicting views contribute to the ‘cultural resonance.’ It is unimportant that the protest rhetoric is argued against, as long as ‘the idea is repeated.’ Thus, despite Collier’s stance that media intervention in protest has its limitations, many American Indians saw the press outrage as a positive. Pamela Shen stated that in fact, negative reactions only made the American Indian movement ‘stronger as a group,’ as well as obtaining more space in the media headlines.

            External engagement with counter-commemorations spread internationally. Coinciding with a shift to revisionist history in the 1960s, the American Indian movement gained support from international academics and minority groups alike. Tóth engages particularly with counter-commemoration perceptions in white European newspapers and journals. While stating that these platforms were ‘sensationalist and rehashing Indian stereotypes,’ he also argues that American Indians acknowledged this by ‘playing Indian,’ enacting the stereotypes in order to maintain support. One newspaper in Germany described a protest: ‘Indian activists who were dressed in tradition costumes, wore their hair in braids, or at least sported items of garment or ornaments considered ‘Indian’,’ which demonstrates a European curiosity about American Indian culture. While this may be the case for particular causes or tribes, when considering the protest objective of constructing pan-Indian unity, “dressing up” for the white audience seems to lose its value somewhat. Thus, Tóth’s point is an interesting observation, but must not be used to describe performance protest purposes as a whole. Nevertheless, counter-commemorations enabled engagement internationally due to their spectacle nature.

It is important to acknowledge that performative protest has its limitations. As well as the aforementioned issue of reception, Juris also explains the inevitable decline in interest after the initial ‘shock factor’ of the protests. Thus, in order to fully understand the successes and failures of the Red Power movement, one must measure policy change and proclamations along-side performance and media storms. Diana Eidson’s analogy explains this idea perfectly. The words ‘I do’ hold little emotional or weighted meaning in every-day life. Yet, say these words in the symbolic setting of a wedding venue in front of a religious figure, and the meaning behind the words transforms. Parallel this to the Alcatraz proclamation, or Lehman Brightman’s speech at Mount Rushmore, there would be far less an impact on the media reception and other Indians across America, if the words were not said alongside a symbolic, eye catching protest performance.

The importance of acknowledging performative rhetoric in American Indian protest, therefore, is clear. Whether this be standing alone or in combination with protest literature, the symbolism in the actions between 1969 and 1971 of the Red Power movement had significant influences both internally to the pan-Indian community, and on a wider scale across America and the globe. Defying white American narrative or demonstrating American Indian sovereignty and agency in these non-violent acts, are still being used within the native community today. Cannupa Hanska’s Mirror Shield project at Standing Rock protests in 2016 is a testament to this. The symbolic importance of constructing a pan-Indian identity that is recognised both in America and internationally has profound implications on the capacity of performative rhetoric and its contributions to social change.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

‘Indians of All Tribes’, Alcatraz Proclamation, 1969. In Alvin Josephy, Joane Nagel, Troy Johnson (eds), Red Power: The American Indians’ Fight for Freedom (University of Nebraska Press, 2000) (2nd print), 39-43.

Frontpage

Indians of All Tribes Newsletter

Kills Straight, ‘The Meaning of AIM’, April 1972, Folder 2, Box 1, RFAIM-P.

Patricia Silvas, “The Promise of Alcatraz” n.d., folder: Alcatraz, Box 155, R-NCAI.

The New York Times

The Times

Yale Herald

Secondary Sources

Bhabba, H. (ed.), Nation and Narration (London: Routledge, 1990).

Bruyneel, K., The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of U.S.-Indigenous Relations (University of Minnesota Press, 2007).

Cobb, D. M. (ed.), Say We Are Nations: Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America since 1887 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015).

Collier, P., ‘Indian Power: “Better Red Than Dead”’, in Ashby, L., Stave, B. M. (eds.), The Discontented Society: Interpretations of Twentieth-Century American Protest (Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1972).

Coody Cooper, K., Spirited Encounters: American Indians Protest Museum Policies and Practices (Maryland: AltaMira Press, 2008).

Daniel Cobb and Loretta Fowler (eds.), Beyond Red Power: American Indian Activism and Politics Since 1900 (School for Advanced Research, 2007).

Delicath, J. W., Deluca, K. M., ‘Image Events, The Public Sphere, and Argumentative Practice: The Case of Radical Environmental Groups’, Argumentation: An International Journal on Reasoning, 17:3 (2003), 315-333.

Deloria, P., Playing Indian (Yale University Press, 1999).

DeLuca, K. M., Image Politics (New York: Guildford Press, 1999).

Durham, J., ‘Cowboys and…Notes on Art, Literature, and American Indians in the Modern American Mind’, in Jaimes, M. A. (ed), The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance (Boston: South End Press, 1992).

Eidson, D., ‘Tree Hugging: Employing Performative Rhetoric in the Environmental Movement’, academia.edu, 1-31.

Horse Capture, G., ‘From the Reservation to the Smithsonian via Alcatraz’, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 18:4, (1994), 135-149.

Johnsons, T. R., Red Power and Self Determination: The American Indian Occupation of Alcatraz Island (Urbana: University of Illinois press, 1996).

Juris, J. S., ‘Embodying Protest: Culture and Performance within Social Movements’, in Baumgarten, B., Daphi, P., Ullrich, P. (eds.), Conceptualizing Culture in Social Movement Research (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 82-104.

Kubal, T., Cultural Movements and Collective Memory: Christopher Columbus and the Rewriting of the National Origin Myth, 1st ed, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).

Lonetree, A., Decolonizing Museums: Representing Native America in National and Tribal Museums, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012).

Pratt, M. L., Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (New York: Routledge, 1992).

Robbins, R. L., ‘Self-determination and Subordination: The Past, Present, and Future of American Indian Governance’, in Jaimes, M. A. (ed), The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance (Boston: South End Press, 1992).

Rosier, P. C., Serving Their Country: American Indian Politics and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century (Harvard University Press, 2009).

Schroeder, A., ‘‘They Lived Together with Their Dogs and Horses:’ ‘Indian Copy’ in West German Newspaper 1968-1982’, in Feest, C. F. (ed.), Indians and Europe: an Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays (Aachen: Edition Herodot, Rader Verlag, 1987), 527-50.

Shreve, B. G., Red Power Rising: the National Indian Youth Council and the Origins of Native Activism (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2011).

Smith, P. C., Warrior, R. A., Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee (New York: The New Press, 1996).

Tóth, G. F., From Wounded Knee to Checkpoint Charlie: The Alliance for Sovereignty Between American Indians and Central Europeans in the Late Cold War, (Albany: University of New York Press, 2016).

Tóth, G.,“Performing ‘the Spirit of ‘76’: U.S. Historical Memory and Counter-Commemorations for American Indian Sovereignty,” in America: Justice, Conflict, War. Amanda Gilroy and Marietta Messmer, eds. (Heidelberg, Winter University Press, 2016).

Cover Photo Credit: Warren on Flickr