Philip Deloria begins “Playing Indian” by retelling the prided American story of the Boston Tea Party. He explains in detail how and why the Boston Tea Party has been treated and referred to as a prime example of American beliefs and values in action. Concerning the role of “Indians” in the historical event, and in American history in general, Deloria asserts that “There has been all the time, in the white American soul, a dual feeling about the Indian […] The desire to extirpate [him]. And the contradictory desire to glorify him,” (Deloria 4) In saying this, Deloria points out how white Americans feel that Native Americans are a threat to the “American identity,” yet admire and honor their values of freedom and instinct. As D. H. Lawrence explains it, Americans want to “have their cake and eat it too,” (Deloria 3), or in other words, white Americans wanted to integrate Native American culture into their own, but they also wanted to essentially eliminate the Native Americans entirely.

            I agree with Deloria’s point that white Americans lived a contradictory lifestyle when it came to deciding how to handle the presence of Native Americans in their society. The white Americans treated the natives as inferior and inhuman yet recognized that they had similar values. They wanted to integrate a part of Native American culture into the American Identity, but not let Native Americans identify as American. Remains of this mindset can still be found in our society today. For example, Americans still reflect Native Americans’ values today in sports mascots. The Chicago Indians and Washington Redskins are two examples of this; naming the teams after Native Americans reflects savagery and strength in the way that the teams play their sport. However, one cannot forget the forced assimilation of Native Americans into white culture that was intended to strip them of those exact qualities. Many often forget that the American Indians also created many important tools that the settlers adapted upon coming over to north America and being exposed to them. Many clothing and decorative items in America today are inspired by native American craft; dream catchers and baja hoodies for example. Americans seem to have adapted many aspects of Native American culture, yet we often ignore the history of these people and view them as different, or even separate from the rest of society.

Native Americans are not the only group of people that Americans do this to. I feel that white Americans, even today, have a tendency to adapt aspects of other ethnic cultures into their lifestyles and then try to claim them as their own. White people mimic black culture in many areas, including fashion trends, music, and dance. Similarly, Asian-inspired art can be seen in homes all across the united states, as it is commonly seen in modern American interior design. I believe that it is a good and beautiful thing to see cultures combine in these types of ways. However, I believe that it becomes an issue when white Americans are appropriating another culture, while forcing the people of that ethnic group to assimilate to our own. And I think that that is something that white americans have historically done, beginning with the Native Americans.

In the introduction of “Playing Indian” by Philip Deloria, he explains how the concept of playing Indian has been a way of displaying American identity throughout history and to this present day. There was a time when America was set on either assimilating or exterminating the Indian population, but now we are starting to realize that all along Indians have played a vital role in defining American identity. D.H. Lawrence puts it best in the way that “There has been all the time, in the white American soul, a dual feeling about the Indian, the desire to extirpate [him], and the contradictory desire to glorify him” (Deloria 4). Lawrence is arguing that white Americans have been back and forth between despising Indians on one hand and then wanting to be more like them on the other. I insist that Lawrence is right because Americans go back and forth from calling Indians uncontrollable, animal-like savages, to an admirable people who show distinct American values such as freedom and instinct. When Americans view Indians as the enemy, they are trying to destroy and de-Indianize these people, but when the Americans are focused on the values an Indian holds such as the spirit of the continent, they are trying to be more like them.

Deloria provides evidence that shows how the image of an Indian has been present in some of America’s greatest stories. To start, the Boston Tea Party was an event that allowed the tea party participants to act out noble savagery. These American men dressed up as Mohawk Indians and paved the way for the coming of a new American identity, one that displayed savagery, and free will. Another example was when the government of the early republic was formed, Indian clothing was worn by the revolutionaries. This glorified the Indian image in an American success story.

Deloria emphasizes how Indian play has been a vital part in forming American culture and identity. Aside from all of the historical examples of how Americans have brought Indians into the picture after our many successes or proud moments as a country, our mentioning of Indians today in the contemporary world is also very present. Two highly ranked tobacco brands, “Redman Chewing Tobacco” and “Natural American Spirits” both have an Indian chief on their packaging. Schools around America have Indians as their mascot, including the NFL team, the Washington Redskins. There was even a hit Disney movie labeled, “Pocahontas.” The image of the Indian is very important in American culture, and Deloria believes that the Indians are the only ones who can teach Americans the aboriginal closeness to the land. Deloria states, “Indianness provided impetus and precondition for the creative assembling of an ultimately unassemblable American Identity” (Deloria 5). In other words, Indians are the requirement for Americans to be able to form a national identity. I agree with Deloria because after all, Indians were the first settlers of the land. These Indians were closest to the land, and Americans could only acquire this closeness by being more like the Indians. In today’s world, playing Indian by Americans is a way to honor that figure that plays such a huge part in American Identity.

Open-ended entry:

How do you feel about Philip Deloria’s main argument in his “Introduction” to Playing Indian? If you agree with him, provide contemporary or historical examples to explain why. If you disagree with him, provide contemporary or historical examples to explain why. If you have mixed feelings, do the same.

Remember: Your response to Deloria’s text will require you to first identify his main argument. Make sure that it is clearly stated before you articulate your own position. Your entry must be 500-700 words, make use of at least 2 direct quotes (page numbers provided) and include examples and evidence to support your own position, whether you agree, disagree, or both agree and disagree with him.

 

 

Feel free to include relevant pictures, videos, GIF, or social media posts in your entry.

As much as immigration is a central part of American history, I think that alienation and discrimination has also had a large influence shaping our history and identity. And I believe that the root of this cycle is captured perfectly in the chapter “Whiteness became the privileged grounding and metaphor for the empty abstraction of US Citizenship” (Singh 2009:10). Native Americans and African Americans, as wells immigrants from Europe and elsewhere, were seen as a threat to this vision until they were brought within the acceptable definitions of “Americanness” or excluded form it entirely.” The author then spends the rest of the chapter demonstrating who Native Americans suffered the most from the consequence of such a mind frame stating that “In the case of Native Americans, as we shall examine, the differences between tribal and white culture appeared too great for a satisfactory assimilation.” We can also see how the Europeans suffered less as they were instead eventually absorbed into the definition of whiteness and awarded that privilege.

In my opinion the first step to reducing the potential for animosity is to identify the underlying factors that result in such conflict. In the case of America, it seems that this cycle of conflict and discrimination stems from a place of fear. In a New World country that is continuously trying to define its identity to encompass its vast diversity, it seems like we paradoxically feel threatened by adding to that diversity and struggle to accept it as essential to who we are. Instead, it almost seems like we’ve decided that the easiest way to unify our nation is for us to come together against an Other. Every new immigrant population that comes to America first is labeled as this ‘Other’ and faces the consequential discrimination. This continues until they finally are able to convince the general public that they worthy of being Americans and assuage the public’s fear that they won’t assimilate. Otherwise they wait until another population comes along and the target is shifted to them.

Therefore to break this cycle, what we should learn about the history of Native Americans isn’t only the fact that discriminating against them is wrong because they have proven to be great people and actually not threatening to our society. Most importantly we should internalize the fact that discrimination that is purely based on fear, ignorance, and a sense superiority is inherently destructive. We need to switch the mentality of fear and instant rejection to an understanding that differences and new cultures enrich our country. It’s the bits and pieces of ourselves that we bring from our different backgrounds and inherit from our ancestors that gives America its diversity and rich culture and the potential for innovation and prosperity. The author of the chapter includes a wonderful description of this when he introduces ‘ghost values’. He writes “In 1988 Peter Marin wrote of “the generational legacy of every family, a certain residue, a kind of ash, what I would call “ghost-values” which he describes as “the ‘shreds and echoes’ of the past (Singh et al. 1994:8). It is, however, these ‘ghost-values’ that become of greater and greater significance in the development of ethnic identities in America.” And I truly believe that accepting that will help us come together in understanding and create a better definition of who is America.

Throughout the entirety of the history of America, we have held the idea that anyone can come and be their own person. We have African Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans, Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans and many more different people from all different backgrounds. These are people who may not share anything in common other than the fact that they have come to seek a better life in the United States of America. I find it strange that people feel the need to define a group of people under a single identity instead of in a way that portrays each persons character as an individual. I feel like the desire to try and take a group of people and get them all to conform to living in the same type of way has come back to bite America in the past, particularly in the case of the Native Americans when the colonists came to take over their land. In Ethnicity and Immigration, we read of how these encounters took place, with the author saying “‘Ethical uniformity’ was the underlying intention of the reservation system and the establishment of Indian schools, like the Carlisle School started in 1879 with a philosophy of ‘Kill the Indian and save the man’. Both worked towards de-Indianisation and the ideology of ‘one country, one language, and one flag’ (Adams 1991: 39”.

I think the only way that we can get people to be themselves and to be proud of who they are it to accept that everyone is different and beautiful in their own way, instead of creation one image of beauty and saying “this is what is beautiful and if you aren’t it, then you aren’t beautiful”. THis is also why I think the idea of plural identities is so important to the growth of society and how we act as human beings. Not one single person in the world is only one person. Take me for example, I am a student at The Ohio State University, but thats not all I am. I am a brother, an uncle, a son, an athlete, a sports enthusiast, a bit of a video game nerd, and much more. To say that I am only one of those things would leaving out most of who I am as a person. My girlfriend, who has a white mother and aa black father, always has friends as her which one she is, and her responce is “I’m both. Who said I have to choose? That would be like choosing which parent I like most. NOT cool.”

I also feel as though this is the path to being one nation; not having to all be the same. If we love each other’s differences and we are able to come together to make the country great, why should we all be the same? Sounds pretty boring to me. The late and great president, John F. Kennedy once said “If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.” This is a statement that we must live by each and every day to assure that everyone has an equal voice in the society that they live in. If we do not, how are we any better than the dictatorships and monarchies that we have fought against in the past?

The work of Ethnicity and immigration runs through the necessity of an assimilation and how crucial it is for the movement of this country. The idea of an assimilation once was to strip any idea of cultural identity and completely reinvent yourself. Campbell quotes the works of assimilation from Peter Merin when he said, “… a certain residue, a kind of ash, what I would call “ghost values…”; the shreds and echoes of the past.” 

Campbell continues to elaborate on the idea that the ghost values are what we use to define as ethnic identifications. He opens the door of intersectionality where we no longer just declare one’s selves as American, but instead to where the multitude of cultures can find their own place in a new society. I think it’s important to readdress the nature of this country and the freedom it has been stereotypically priding its self on for a good sum of its time. The “free” land and blank page we have conquered pushed Native Americans from not only their homes but their historical traditions. Louise Erdrich powerfully depicts this notion of forced assimilation by sharing, “…land is the only thing that lasts life to life. Money burns like tinder, flows off like water. And as for government promises, the wind is steadier. Dollar bills cause the memory to vanish.” I found this particularly powerful in comparison to customs that have been forced to be perceived of value. As Americans we have created a notion of superiority through our beliefs and ways of life. The Native American had to re-identify themselves with the ultimatum of genocide during the “process of nation building”. 

We pride ourselves on a country that has created itself, when in reality it was never ours originally. This piece brought me to the idea of how we define an assimilation and what we’ve done to establish such a thing. A country pre-existing with Native Americans and other immigrants that settled here, European immigrants have grown to make themselves omnipresent. It’s almost existential in the sense that identifiably we are made up of everything that has already existed. Our customs, government, and culture are a mixture of many, yet we have such a forceful nature of assimilating the customs that are obscure to European norms. The text we read for the week has introduced many questions in the face of differentiating between cultural acceptance and forced re-identification. Through the process of forced re-identification it has perpetuated an evolving form of discrimination. I found that we normalize the idea of progression but don’t emphasize how we advance in hostile manners. The intention of our government to move forward together can be seen, but the execution was flawed. The acts of aggression taking place in stripping the culture of native people from their knowledge, is when we see the discrimination in our assimilations. 

After reading “Ethnicity and Immigration”, I took some time to reflect on what the passage was saying. I do not believe that assimilation is a necessity for becoming an American. Assimilation is defined as when an individual gives up their previous culture and traditions from their past life and adopts the culture of their new life. In the past, we as Americans have been so obsessed with the idea of immigrants coming into our nation and having to be stripped off their past identities to fully embrace the American culture. It was believed that it was important for our nation to be held under one unifying identity. The immigrants that seeked freedom in America were forced to form new, americanized beliefs and values that would be held at a higher standard than any value or belief they had in their previous life. When I first considered the idea of assimilation it didn’t seem like such a bad idea. How could anything be possibly be wrong with all Americans being held under common values and beliefs? Well, I started to dive deeper and realized that the customs and beliefs that you grow up help to shape who you are as a person and even bring you closer with your relatives and your heritage. People feel this enormous sense of pride in their culture and traditions and it would be flat out wrong for them to come to America and be told they have to stop everything and start fresh with ideas and traditions they may not feel as connected to. For this reason exactly I feel as though the losses would outweigh the gains of assimilation. Although there will always be this expectation that people who come here will completely immerse themselves in the American culture, I think it is almost impossible for it to happen.

Americans have always had pride in this beautiful country, whose main purpose was to welcome people pursuing asylum. Sadly though, we aren’t always as welcoming and accepting as we appear to be. It still baffles me that this country was started from immigrants, but we treat immigrants with little to no respect.The whole history of this country were people coming here to have a better life and be free to make and do as they please. I think a great way to look at how assimilation has failed in the past is from the Native Americans that have inhabited this country long before the Europeans did.

The Europeans came in and started to force this completely different lifestyle on the Native Americans, and tortured or killed them if they did not abide by their rules. Turner stated that “assimilation could not, according to this logic, cope with the presence of the Native Americans whose customs and traditions were too alien, too different to become merged into the new American self.” Native Americans were not as advanced as the Europeans were at this time, so it is no shock that they were too animalistic and primitive to be assimilated into the life that the Europeans invisined for everyone. I think there should be somewhat of a common ground here in America. Neil Campbell and Alasdair Kean make a good point when talking about plural identity. Plural identity can be defined as “not being subjected to one version of identity,” (pg. 53). For me this means that a person doesn’t just have to be held to one identity. I can be an American but I can also hold onto my Jamaican and Haitian heritage and uphold the traditions and values that come with all three of these identities. I think that is important for everyone, to be who they want and stay true to themselves.

Nonetheless, Assimilation is not the answer. I still do think that the losses outweigh the gains because assimilation cannot happen in a country with so many immigrants who come in and start a live on a regular basis. We as Americans should be able to identify as we please and be ourselves regardless of where we are.

I believe that assimilation is the incorrect solution to a real and important problem we face in America to this day. Tension formed between ethnic groups prevailed since the United States of America came into being. Previously, this issue had been resolved in a large part by demoting certain groups of people to a sub-human class where they could not achieve respect until they had accepted European/white culture as the golden standard. This position gave rise to sentiments such as “our grandparents were ethnic, not us” attempting to conglomerate all citizens of this country under the label of American. Not only this, but it singularizes the allegiance of an immensely diverse group such as Americans to a largely undefined demographic. Assimilation was a primitive attempt to define this demographic based on the leading party of the time, white people, and their mostly European influences. Again, proving that without history, we are directionless.

In the final sentence on page 51 of the author quotes another writer, Oscar Handlin, who in 1951 reveled that, “once I thought to write a history of immigrants in America, then I realized that immigrants were America’s history.” An assertion that clearly, greatly displeased the author due to the exclusion of indigenous peoples in his definition of an American. They concluded that Handlin had the perception that Native Americans were unimportant to the formation of America’s identity. They even went as far as to say that Handlin believes, “They exist only, it would seem, as Others to be conquered, destroyed and pitied by the immigrants that Handlin viewed as true Americans.” To me, this assertion, even if it is justifiably incited, is far too harsh based on the situation. I will admit that I was actively reading this passage with the knowledge that it was addressing Native American’s role in our history, and I did not realize the lack of acknowledgement in the quote. On one hand, it slips our minds all too often who we have trodden on to get where we are today. One must also realize, though, that this land was not America until the immigrants arrived, whether or not you believe it was rightfully theirs.

            This point brings us back to the question of assimilation. If America was the product of an immigrant invasion, are they justified in forcing compliance and adjustment to their way of life? When a group is marginalized, there will always be great pushback on those in charge to recognize them as a relevant part of society. Assimilation is simply disregarding any groups on the basis of ethnicity, thereby removing a chunk of identity from people who used to belong to that group. Doing this is very problematic because it refuses to address the individual needs spawned by ethnic traditions. So in attempting to create a uniform identity, it alienates all who are unable to conform, especially those who lived here originally. fffffffff

In the reading, American Cultural Studies, the author pulls from many other writings and argues that assimilation has been prevalent in American society since its inception, because of the strong opinions of the majority at the time. The author argues that many Americans have their own idea of what it means to be American and when someone who live in American goes against those views, others can feel attacked because their Americanness is a defining piece in their own self-identity.  I agree with the author on this point and I especially like this quote from the reading, “Native American culture represented a challenge to the emergent national identity; it was already ‘un-American’, believing in communal lands, tribalism, sacredness of the earth, and being suspicious of private property. I feel this embodies the overall theme of the passage in that Americans have always, since the very beginning, had a very set I stone idea on what they wanted their nation to be like.  The native way of life threatened them and went against the essence of what America was meant to be for these people.  Early immigrants came to America to escape powerful governments and strong communal ties. Democracy and capitalism were already strong principles in their minds and they didn’t think the was a place in America for people who thought different. People were very defensive of these rights because they were not given to them before they came to America, so even the smallest difference was seen as a threat to their way of life.  This led to great persecution of the native peoples and segregation in the form of reservations to further exclude them from the society where their way of life was not welcome.

            This pride and sense of Americanness that Americans use to identify themselves still persists today. The author explains the goal of America assimilation as “These versions of Assimilation argues for conformity and homogeneity as the means of guaranteeing democracy and equality for all.” I for the most part agree with him on this. Though I disagree with the motivation for it.  Many want immigrants to assimilate to the “culture” of America because new ideas and ways of doing things are still seen as a threat by many. These are the same reasons that the early Americans didn’t want new cultures entering American society. 

            Assimilation can be in some ways good for society.  There are some things that I feel an immigrant should display when coming to America.  An immigrant should have knowledge of and agree with the values that American society was created on. They should think on the basis that all people are created equal and should be treated as such in society.  I however do not support the forced assimilation of culture.  The blending of cultures in America is what makes our country so strong and diverse. New ideas should be welcomed, and one should never stop having the desire to make our society better though innovation.  Assimilation also creates an unfair society. The previous quote that the goal of assimilation is to create equality though conformity goes against equality itself.  As humans every person should have the right to think freely and forcing those who think differently to change the way of life is discrimination against them.

Since its birth, America has worked towards a cohesive identity which all inhabitants must strive to conform to. Even though the country itself is built upon immigrants, people are urged to trade their heritage in for American ideals. This concept is especially unfortunate in relation to the Native Americans who inhabited this land long before “American Ideals” were concocted.

This country comprised of immigrants refuses to accept the indigenous way as a valid American lifestyle. At the time of this continent’s discovery, the native people lived only to be conquered by the European settlers. They were defined as inferior and savage, in need of domestication and vast intervention. Crevecoeur insists that these people could not possibly partake in the melting process happening in America because they refused the “riches” and “education” provided by the settlers, and much preferred their survivalist mentalities. They could not live amongst other Americans because “assimilation could not… cope with the presences of the Native Americans whose customs and traditions were too alien” (pg. 53). These differences were too great to blend into a composite nationality. Because of this, reservations were created to enforce ideological homogeneity. People were watched over, “educated” and forced to assimilate into the American identity. This process of forced assimilation was a way which this country promoted an arbitrary concept of “oneness”.

The idea of creating a singular American identity in a land comprised of so many ethnicities is unrealistic and nearly impossible. Forced assimilation will do nothing but create resistance and breed hatred, and tensions will amplify in the political sphere. It is impossible to live harmoniously as a homogeneous group, when people are given no choice but to change who they inherently are. Even so, some level of acclimation is necessary for America’s newcomers to be successful while living here. Some knowledge of the language, politics, and cultural norms proves to be advantageous for anyone living in any country. To some degree, all people will absorb their surrounding society and culture as a result of being exposed to it. This simple psychological phenomena cannot be avoided, and anyone living in a new environment will see it happen. Native Americans did not experience this gradual diffusion of ideas, but a violent killing of their ancient culture. Settlers could not understand why these groups wanted to stay with their primitive lifestyle. They worked hard to exterminate the most sacred of traditions in order to morph native people into compliant individuals. Re-instilled with a new identity, cognitive discomfort was unavoidable and shocking. The backbone of their culture: storytelling, was even stripped from them, making them defenseless without their way of learning. People who were educated on the reserves were brought back and re-educated with stories passed down from generation to generation so as not to lose this practice to white-washing. It is crucial to allow individuals to maintain the cultural aspects they wish to hold on to in order to create a harmonious society. Citizens who are brutally forced to leave their previous identities behind, will assuredly carry grief and resentment towards the country for the rest of their lives. It is imperative to “retain their traditions, history, and identity, reminding them of their roots in the land, which in turn constitutes their sense of self” (pg. 57). Familiarization with the majority of the country’s ways is necessary and inevitable, but to insure that all peoples sustain their personal identity, nothing must be forced on them.