In “Indian Literacy, U. S. Colonialism, and Literary
Criticism,” Maureen Konkle does an excellent job of discussing not only the
power of language but also the politics connected to it in relation to colonial
expansion. I found Konkle’s article
extremely helpful in my analysis of Life
of Black Hawk, or Má-ka-tai-me-she-kiá-kiák, especially Konkle’s point that
“Colonialism is a struggle for territory that takes place in part through the
production of knowledge; written records and a reading public are as necessary
as technologically sophisticated weaponry or encroaching settlers” (460). Hence, the English language, especially when
written, holds a certain amount of power that can be used to harm those who are
not masters of it. However, just in case
Indians do figure out how to use this language effectively, then Konkle points
out how they will soon find themselves in a kind of “catch-22” since if Indians
learned to write and speak English as well as “the white man,” then suddenly,
they were not seen as truly Indian (476-77).
As I was reading Konkle’s article, certain passages
in Black Hawk’s narrative seemed much more important, especially concerning the
power of the English language. Now, I’m
not sure if it would qualify as the
“hot spot” of the text, but I think the following is an important theme
throughout the novel. Discussing the
problems with the white settlers intruding on the Indian’s territory, Black
Hawk states:
We acquainted
our agent daily with our situation, and through him, the great chief at St.
Louis—and hoped that something would be done for us. The whites were complaining at the same time that we were intruding upon their rights! They made themselves out
the injured party, and we the intruders! and called Loudly
to the great war chief to protect their
property. How smooth must be the
language of the whites, when they can make right look like wrong, and wrong
like right” (57, italics in original).
In this passage, we can see how Black Hawk and his
tribe must go through their agent as their interpreter and spokesperson in
order to have their message and complaints told to the “the great chief at St.
Louis” while the whites spoke loudly to the “great war chief” for
protection. Mark Rifkin also points out
how “Keokuk’s language gains force through its alliance with `the great war chief,´
also implicitly suggesting that he has come to view the land as property—a dissectable
and dead thing” (693). Rifkin is more
concerned with analyzing this passage in its connection with land and
geopolitics, but I would like to look at this passage through its connection to
the power of language. It becomes
evident that Black Hawk is losing a battle of words. He wonders about the power and smoothness of
“the language of the whites” since they are able to make their cause look right
and Black Hawk’s wrong. It is the “white
man’s language” that manipulates Black Hawk into leaving his village, and it is
documents filled with “white man’s language” that Black Hawk and his fellow
natives do not understand but “touch the quill” anyway. Black Hawk seems aware of this power of
language, and it is in his rival Ke-o-kuck that Black Hawk shares his
enviousness of Ke-o-kuck’s “smooth tongue” and describes him as “a great
speaker” (62). Interestingly, Ke-o-kuck
is also using his power of words to persuade his tribe that Black Hawk is in
the wrong for wanting to go to war.
Furthermore, the Americans trust the eloquent Ke-o-kuck, releasing Black
Hawk with the condition that he will be under Ke-o-kuck’s supervision. This restriction hurts Black Hawk’s pride;
again, Black Hawk’s inability to be a persuasive orator causes him to not have
the “trust” or the persuasiveness over the Americans or even the people of his own
tribe. Black Hawk seems envious of
Ke-o-kuck’s ability to community with others, clearly sensing the power of
language. Although Black Hawk loses his
original territory, becomes a captive, and must be under the care of his rival,
he still fights back. Obviously, he did
not physically fight back; after all, he said himself that he wanted to live in
peace. I’m referring to his decision to
narrate his story to be written in “white man’s language” and read by Americans
throughout the nation. Even though he
had been the victim of the power of language, Black Hawk appropriates the
“white man’s language” in order to criticize Americans in their own
tongue. In a way, Black Hawk fights back
with words once he realizes the potential power of language.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great analysis! I think you eloquently sum up both Konkle’s and Rifkin’s arguments and incorporate them into your reading of this passage. I really appreciate how you not only look into issues of interpretation, but consider what may be understood as a white man’s language. You write,
ReplyDeleteIt becomes evident that Black Hawk is losing a battle of words. He wonders about the power and smoothness of “the language of the whites” since they are able to make their cause look right and Black Hawk’s wrong. It is the “white man’s language” that manipulates Black Hawk into leaving his village, and it is documents filled with “white man’s language” that Black Hawk and his fellow natives do not understand but “touch the quill” anyway. (Evans)
Here, you examine the power struggles between the two competing languages, and Black Hawk’s frustration in realizing that the “white man’s language” carries a “smoothness” which allows it to become perceived as good. I wonder though, if we may not also read this as a moment of Bakhtinian “heteroglossia,” in which the speaker must strategize amidst the competing languages, which each carry their own set of codes, and exert various forces depending on the context. In this case, we may also talk about different forms of rhetoric at work. And perhaps, we can then think back to this passage as a successful moment of self-reflection for Black Hawk, because he now understands how to navigate a “white man’s” language and rhetoric.
Jessica,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah; I thought your analysis was great in tying together your reading with Konkle's and Rifkin's arguments. The "hot spot" you chose is an excellent example of how throughout history white Americans have used language to construct a dominant narrative that pushes other perspectives out of the picture. The only way for Black Hawk to show that there is another side to the story is by using the same language. I think it's really interesting how you emphasized Ke-o-kuck's role in bringing Black Hawk to publish his life story. Your reading interestingly shows Ke-o-kuck as the first mimic of the white man. Perhaps it is because of Ke-o-kuck's mediation between Black Hawk and the white man that Black Hawk's later mimicry can become an act of defiance whereas Ke-o-kuck seems more compliant with the whites.