Please respond based on the readings from Queer Indigenous Studies. Please discuss at least one chapter from each of the three sections of the book. Papers: All memos should discuss in a short and concise manner the major arguments, themes, and issues raised by the authors in the course as they relate to their own research and lived experiences. Memos should be 3-5 pages in length, and they should be typed and double-spaced with at least 6 citations from the readings to support your responses. Memos should also be written so that they thoughtfully and adequately address the following six questions: How do the authors construct his/her/their argument(s)? What is s/he/they arguing for and/or against? What is the goal or focus of the text? What are the assumptions underlying an author’s main arguments? How might these assumptions relate to the historical context in which the text was written? What are the implications of the reading's main point, theme, or argument? Are there relevant points that are not covered adequately by the author(s)? Why do you think the author(s) did not address those points, and why is it important to consider them? How do the issues and themes raised relate to other readings, theories/concepts, discussions in the fields of Sociology and Native American Studies? How might the readings relate to contemporary events and issues going on right now in 2025? What did you agree and disagree with about the reading? What did you gain from the reading in terms of your own intellectual understanding of the topic being covered? How would you relate at least one theory, concept or idea from the reading to your own research? Papers should be double-spaced, typed and no larger than 12-point font. 3 Memos = 60% (20% each) (Due Dates: April 18th, May 9th, June 6th) A Sample Memo is Included below for a different course as a guide for writing your papers this quarter Student Names Name of Course Date HIUS 108 Memo Book: Cultural Representation in Native America Chapter 3: Liquor Moccasins How does the author construct his/her argument? What is s/he arguing for and/or against? Throughout this chapter the author, Philip Klasky, criticizes the dominant culture’s commodification of Native American identity and culture. He asserts that White America has used this commercialization of Indian culture to create its own version of Native Americans which makes it easier to forget the inconvenient truth of past relations with Native American communities (Jolivette 38). The author conveys his message by first opening on this idea and give small examples or appropriated pieces of culture. He then illustrates a specific example by citing an experience of his visiting a shop in Las Vegas that specialized in this market of recreated Indian culture. After depicting the visit to the store, the author restates his thesis and shifts his argument to go one step further. Klasky mentions the historic use of the word “savage” to describe Native Americans and contrasts it with the US government’s use of nuclear weapons during the 1940’s (Jolivette 41). As he ends, he highlights the irony found in naming these weapons tests after Native American tribes despite the fact that it is the US government causing massive destruction. What are the assumptions underlying an author’s main arguments? How might these assumptions relate to the historical context in which the text was written? The author writes from a very contemporary perspective. A lot of the assumptions made by the author come from a time in America where people are reflecting on the interactions of the US and other cultures and the implications of these interactions. Therefore, a lot of the authors assumptions are openly critical of America’s mistakes. This isn’t a new mindset, people from the creation of the country have been critical. What is new however, is the amount of people listening and agree with the statements being said. I think stories like these get a lot more attention and credibility in todays society. What are the implications of the readings main point, theme, or argument? The authors main conclusion is that American society has manipulated Native American culture to fit its own world view (Jolivette 40). In the process this has degraded Indian culture into a mythical legend when in reality Native Americans are still present today. This speaks to the sentiments from later chapters in the book that discuss the idea of one native American and our discussions in class about how a Native American “ought to be” (Jolivette 119). Klasky also makes the readers reflect on the hypocrisy of American culture when citing the irony in terming Native Americans as savages yet the US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on another (Jolivette 41). He draws attention to the nationalistic version of America’s history and how it is deeply flawed, covering its tracks by villainizing minority cultures. 4) Are there relevant points that are not covered adequately by the reading/author? Why do you think the author(s) did not address those points, and why is it important to consider them? I think the chapter is quite short. The author could have gone into further detail and expanded on their critique of American culture. Klasky’s main points support further analysis of how American culture has degraded Native American voices and the psychological damage this type of attack has cause among native communities. I think the author didn’t address more in his chapter because he wanted to focus on the stark example given by his testimony when visiting the Liquor Moccasin shop. The example is jarring and leaves readers with disgust, illustrating the problem Klasky is articulating. This makes it a more tangible problem for the reader to grasp and put into context. To add too much to this example with other analysis and examples would dilute the effect Kalsky creates with his chapter. Nevertheless, these points are valid and should be brought up because of how large their impact has been on native communities. I believe the editors of the book understand this and added subsequent chapters that expanded on these points, such as, Chapter 9 In the Tracks of “the” Native Woman. 5) How do the issues and themes raised relate to other readings, events, theories/concepts, discussions and disciplines? For example how do some of the issues relate to your own primary major if it is not American Indian Studies? As previously stated, the authors main points discuss the negative effects of America’s predominant culture on Native American identity. Klasky’s comments on the monetization of American culture parallels other readings from class. For example, the Wabanaki basket phenomenon and the Native American Barbie are both strong examples of this market where consumers, usually white, are looking for “culturally exotic” items (Jolivette 27). The consumers feed into this faux mystical story surrounding Native Americans which results in a lack of cultural education and results in products that are not historically or culturally accurate. The idea goes even farther in some cases where people fraudulently use Native American identity to further their own success. I am majoring in bioengineering, which has a heavy emphasis in genetic testing and genome modeling. One of the most fascinating things in the class has been importance of genetic inheritance as ties to Native American tribes and how new technology has helped to expand the scope of Native people that are cognizant of their heritage. It has also opened doors to a new issue where people who are very tiny fractions Native American now claiming this identity as novelty. This kind of mindset just adds to the commercialization of Native American culture. 6) What did you agree and disagree with about the reading? What did you gain from the reading in terms of your own intellectual understanding of the topic being covered? Do the readings speak to your own personal lived experience or to that of people in your ethnic community? I agree with a lot of the others statements surrounding the appropriation of Indian culture as a commodity to have by the predominant American culture. I wouldn’t say I disagree with the author but rather, I think in some points throughout the chapter he oversimplifies the United States side of history. That being said, this chapter has opened the idea of the hypocritical use of the word “savage”. I think its in some since a poetic irony that crosses multiple different examples, the use of atomic bombs being one of them. Reflecting on it I have definitely seen this type of commercialization of Native culture as an exotic item to have in stores. I think there is a lot to speak to with the fact that this problem is so normalized many don’t even realize it is a problem. Book: American Indian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Contemporary Issues Chapter 21: Museums and American Indians: Ambivalent Partners How does the author construct his/her argument? What is s/he arguing for and/or against? The author criticizes American museums and the ways in which they have displayed Native American artifacts. Karren Cooper, the author of the chapter, argues that Native American artifacts should be in the jurisdiction of the tribe they came from and if the tribe wanted to present them in a museum-like manner Native Americans should makes the decisions in how they are displayed (Morrison 403). She constructs her argument by detailing the history of instances where museums displayed Native American belongings and the main concerns behind each instance. Cooper also touches on different protests Native Americans have been a part of in regards to things such as religious objects or human remains being displayed in museums across the country. She ends on a more positive note by talking about the museums run by tribes and the ability these have to shine a different light on American Indian culture (Morrison 407). What are the assumptions underlying an author’s main arguments? How might these assumptions relate to the historical context in which the text was written? One of the main assumptions the chapter holds is that Native American objects don’t belong in European influenced museums (Morrison 403). I think this idea is the product of someone who lived through the Red Power movement, where Indian art and culture was reclaimed by the younger generations. In fact, the chapter even cites that Red Power movement gave rise to many of the museum protests (Morrison 404). Strong in their heritage and who they Native Americans looked to further their reclamation by physically reclaiming objects from their tribe. What are the implications of the readings main point, theme, or argument? The author suggests that there is an inherent wrong with non-Native American museums that display pieces of Native culture. As she points to the wrongs done by these museums dating back to the 18th century all the way the time the book was written the reader is left with a sense of injustice (Morrison 403). This is amplified by the second section of the chapter in which the Cooper discusses the display of human remains in museums and the protests brought on by Indians across the country speaking out against these displays. As the chapter ends it appears that the policy changes made have brought forth change but there is still more to be done. In context to when the book was written, in the mid 1990’s with new editions up until 2010, I would agree that at least from the authors point of view there still is work to be done. Due to the issues brought up by indigenous people museums are now more sensitive to how they portray artifacts if they do at all display them. That being said, there is now a louder discussion surrounding issues like these around the world. Coopers lasting implication is that in order for the issue to die there needs to be serious restorative justice fostered between museums and Native American communities affected by their ignorance. Are there relevant points that are not covered adequately by the reading/author? Why do you think the author(s) did not address those points, and why is it important to consider them? Cooper could have used outside famous international cases where museums have taken artifacts and relics from other indigenous groups. Instead, she keeps the scope of her argument concise, limiting it only to museum of America. I think this is due to the nature of the essay and the authors efforts to keep a very focused approach to her work. My only critique is that because she referenced museums as being of European design and gave them a negative connotation she could have easily added on examples from Europe. These examples would highlight that it is more than just a problem in the Americas and that it happens globally, in effect giving her argument more urgency and support. How do the issues and themes raised relate to other readings, events, theories/concepts, discussions and disciplines? For example how do some of the issues relate to your own primary major if it is not American Indian Studies? This chapter reminded me of the video we watched of Winona LaDuke giving a speech. Though her speech is not directly on the subject of museums she briefly covers the topic and speaks of recovering lost tribal object and waking them up form their slumber. Her language was so poetic that it shifted the mindset I had about these objects. I had always viewed them as old artifacts that were obsolete; however, for Native Americans these objects have a more cultural and religious meaning that does not wither with time. Therefore, it is much more imperative to Native Americans that these objects be given back and if displayed, in a manner with respect. This topic reminds me of a genetic issue that very strong parallels. Henrietta Lacks was an African American woman who in 1951 was diagnosed with cervical cancer. Without her knowledge or consent her doctor biopsied her tumor cells and discovered that they stayed alive longer than usual and he could gather much more research on them. Her cells were so valuable that the doctor continued to grow them into what is called a cell line, which created a stock of her cells for others to study. More than 20 years after her death, her family learned that her biological information was being used in different tests. Despite protest from her family her cells are still being used today. The continued exploitation of Lacks’ body, “in the name of science” is an extreme example of how big communities like scientists and historians can cause so much pain when blinded with occupational bias. What did you agree and disagree with about the reading? What did you gain from the reading in terms of your own intellectual understanding of the topic being covered? Do the readings speak to your own personal lived experience or to that of people in your ethnic community? I don’t believe the that all exhibits in museums that cover display Native American objects are inherently bad or racist, which is the undertone of I get from this chapter. There is also a notion that because museums come from a European background that there is something wrong with displaying things that aren’t European or that they are flawed in general (Morrison). This is definitely a more elusive point the author skirts around and as a reader made me question some of her credibility. Despite that I do think there are cases where Native American objects have been displayed through a lens that has deep bias and this should be addressed. I also am disgusted at the idea that museums thought it was appropriate to display the remains of tribal members. Overall, I generally agree with the author but have major differences when it comes to how I view museums. *My only suggestion is to be sure to include as many citations as you can to support your assertions/responses
READ MORE >>
