King begins The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America with the disclosure that, as its full title suggests, the book will be an “account” rather than a history of Indian-White relations. King immediately establishes the distinctions and connections between fact and fiction, history, and story in the book’s opening chapter. While conventional wisdom might suggest that history is rigid, immutable, and synonymous with fact, King quickly dismisses this assumption, asserting that there is no such thing as objective history. States King, “Most of us think that history is the past. It’s not. History is the stories we tell about the past.” This means that there is no such thing as a “neutral” depiction of historical events. Every account of the past, even well-intentioned ones, is the product of choices the storyteller has made. “By and large, the stories are about famous men and celebrated events,” states King, implicitly drawing attention to the conventional narrative of Indian-White relations that has dominated North American history, which celebrates the victorious settlers who conquered the North American continent and vastly diminishes the sufferings endured by the Native peoples whose perspectives have remained at the periphery of history.
King’s account of North American history subverts this conventional narrative, making the conscious choice to emphasize “stories” that shed light on the Indian perspective of European settlement in the U.S. and Canada. He demonstrates how stories White settlers had told themselves about Indians—misguided, often racist stereotypes about Natives’ cultural inferiority, godlessness, and lacking economic sense—influenced their daily interactions and the legislation their governments created to impose structure onto those interactions. To further persuade the reader of history’s inherent subjectivity, King chooses not to present his book as a conventional work of scholarship, opting instead to insert colloquial language and personal anecdotes throughout his account of North American history, emphasizing his authorial voice to underscore the conscious decisions involved in shaping history and presenting it to the world. The Inconvenient Indian emphasizes the inherent bias of history, the tenuousness of fact, and how these biases prevent North America from possessing a more informed, ethically responsible sense of its past. The tendency to mythologize a culture’s celebrated figures and dismiss its failings warps one’s sense of the past, but recognizing these biases allows for the opportunity to have a more comprehensive, humbled sense of one’s past and paves the way for a more ethical future.
Related Themes from Other Texts
History and Mythology ThemeTracker
History and Mythology Quotes in The Inconvenient Indian
Fictions are less unruly than histories. The beginnings are more engaging, the characters more cooperative, the endings more in line with expectations of morality and justice.
Most of us think that history is the past. It’s not. History is the stories we tell about the past. That’s all it is. Stories. Such a definition might make the enterprise of history seem neutral. Benign. Which, of course, it isn’t. History may well be a series of stories we tell about the past, but the stories are not just any stories. They’re not chosen by chance.
Three hundred people in the wagon train. Two hundred and ninety-five killed. Only five survivors. It’s a great story. The only problem is, it never happened. You might assume that something must have happened in Almo, maybe a smaller massacre or a fatal altercation of some sort that was exaggerated and blown out of proportion. Nope. The story is simply a tale someone made up and told to someone else, and, before you knew it, the Almo massacre was historical fact.
Almost immediately after word reached the world that Custer had got his ass kicked in Montana, America’s artistic class went to work. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Walt Whitman, Frederick Whittaker, and the like lifted Custer out of the Montana dirt, hoisted him high on their metered shoulders, and rhymed him around the country in free verse and heroic couplets. At the same time, artists began recreating and reimagining the story with paint and canvas.
Eugenics, a natural byproduct of the discussion of race, was a very popular idea in the early part of the twentieth century, until Hitler and the Nazi regime went and wrecked it for everyone.
But if you look at the sculpture a second time, you can easily reason that the horse is resisting. Its front legs are braced and its back legs are dug in. American expansion be damned. This pony is not about to go gentle into that good night. Such a reading might be expanded to reimagine our doleful Indian as a tired Indian, who, at any moment, will wake up refreshed, lift up his spear, and ride off into the twenty-first century and beyond.
Indians were made for film. Indians were exotic and erotic. All those feathers, all that face paint, the breast plates, the bone chokers, the skimpy loincloths, not to mention the bows and arrows and spears, the war cries, the galloping horses, the stern stares, and the threatening grunts. We hunted buffalo, fought the cavalry, circled wagon trains, fought the cavalry, captured White women, fought the cavalry, scalped homesteaders, fought the cavalry. And don’t forget the drums and the wild dances where we got all sweaty and lathered up, before we rode off to fight the cavalry.
Film dispensed with any errant subtleties and colorings, and crafted three basic Indian types. There was the bloodthirsty savage, the noble savage, and the dying savage.
Indians come in all sorts of social and historical configurations. North American popular culture is littered with savage, noble, and dying Indians, while in real life we have Dead Indians, Live Indians, and Legal Indians.
Whites have always been comfortable with Dead Indians.
Dead Indians are dignified, noble, silent, suitably garbed. And dead. Live Indians are invisible, unruly, disappointing. And breathing. One is a romantic reminder of a heroic but fictional past. The other is simply an unpleasant, contemporary surprise.
This idea, that Native people were waiting for Europeans to lead us to civilization, is just a variation on the old savagism versus civilization dichotomy, but it is a dichotomy that North America trusts without question. It is so powerful a toxin that it contaminates all of our major institutions. Under its influence, democracy becomes not simply a form of representative government, but an organizing principle that bundles individual freedoms, Christianity, and capitalism into a marketable product carrying with it the unexamined promise of wealth and prosperity. It suggests that anything else is, by default, savage and bankrupt.
Pratt’s plan was a simple one. North America would have to kill the Indian in order to save the man. “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man” was the exact quotation, and while it sounds harsh, it was an improvement on Philadelphia lawyer Henry Pancoast’s 1882 suggestion that “We must either butcher them [Indians] or civilize them, and what we do we must do quickly.”
At the end of the twenty-five-year trust period, each allottee would own their own allotment free and clear, and Indians, who had been communal members of a tribe, would now be individual, private land owners. Reservations would disappear. Indians would disappear. The “Indian Problem” would disappear. Private ownership of land would free Indians from the tyranny of the tribe and traditional Native culture, and civilize the savage.
Ignore the past. Play in the present.
What happens next is complicated, illegal, and sleazy. But, given the history of Indian affairs, not unexpected. The states, along with the federal government and private interests, made it quite clear that while tribes might have the legal right to run gaming enterprises on their reservations, that right could be tied up in the courts until hell froze over. What we need, tribes were told by the powers that be, is a compromise. Compromise is a fine word. So much more generous than blackmail.
Racism is endemic in North America. And it’s also systemic. While it affects the general population at large, it’s also buried in the institutions that are supposed to protect us from such abuses.
If Native people are to have a future that is of our own making, such a future will be predicated, in large part, on sovereignty.
The issue has always been land. It will always be land, until there isn’t a square foot of land left in North America that is controlled by Native people.
And as they had done in 1875, the Lakota refused the settlement. Money was never the issue. They wanted the Hills back. As for the money, it stays in an interest-bearing account to this day.
Ignorance has never been the problem. The problem was and continues to be unexamined confidence in western civilization and the unwarranted certainty of Christianity. And arrogance. Perhaps it is unfair to judge the past by the present, but it is also necessary.
So long as we possess one element of sovereignty, so long as we possess one parcel of land, North America will come for us, and the question we have to face is how badly we wish to continue to pursue the concepts of sovereignty and self-determination.
