The entries on this page showcase exceptional papers handed in by students of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz.

 

Graduate Seminar: Native American Periodicals and Indigenous Non-Fiction Writing, 1890-1920

Matzel, Eva. Response Paper. Mai, 2020.

 

This paper will discuss a variety of texts dealing with Native Americans in relation to periodical studies. While the texts by Calcaterra; Littlefield and Parins; Round; and Zuck focus on Native Americans and their press, the texts by Fröhlich and Ruchatz as well as Hammill et al. discuss periodical studies, in general. Calcaterra deals with the misrepresentation of Native American aesthetics as well as the general underrepresentation of Native American literary production in American literature. Littlefield and Parins give a comprehensive overview about what constitute Native American newspapers and periodicals. The advantages and challenges brought about the Cherokee Nation by the introduction of print and alphabetic literacy are discussed by Round. Zuck undertakes a case study of a Native American periodical, arguing that its editorial practices were a means of fighting the paternalistic behavior of institutions like the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Hammill et al. want to demonstrate new emerging methods in order to read periodicals not only as media, but also in relation to media. The last text by Fröhlich and Ruchatz discusses the chances of approaching periodical studies by means of media studies.

In her study, Calcaterra tries to find new ways of reading “Indigenous content in non-Native texts” in order to turn “to contexts for literary production that directly counter the ongoing dissociation of aesthetic sophistication from Indigenous people” (4). These non-Native texts narrate encounters with Indigenous people that were written by Euro-American colonizers and settlers. The problem with these texts is the continuous and systematic misrepresentation of Native Americans: depicted as primitive, “savage” and “barbaric,” Indigenous people and their cultures were being heavily denigrated (Calcaterra 2, 4-5). At the time, aesthetics was considered “a Euro-American concern,” imported by Europeans and thus, automatically denied to Native Americans “despite their innovative cultural productions” (3-4). Aesthetic concerns, however, “var[y] according to philosophical assumptions and ethical standards” and thus, depend on the individual cultural background (2). Calcaterra demonstrates this assumption by giving examples of Euro-American narratives about cultural productions of Native Americans, for instance “a ceremony conducted by the Powhatan community” (4-5). The author of the narrative conveys the impression of the ceremony being a “haphazard, ‘savage’ accoutrement[] and action[]” since it was a “strange” and unfamiliar practice to him (5-6). What Calcaterra suggests is a new–more neutral as well as distant–way of reading this narrative and concludes that ceremonies like this were “carefully organized social rites that interweave a range of artistic practices” like painting, singing, and dancing and had, in fact, a political meaning (6). Thus, she grants Indigenous people aesthetics, which were equally valuable as Euro-American aesthetics (10). Moreover, Calcaterra acknowledges the impact of Indigenous people on the general “American literary production” (3). Although marginalized in literary studies before, Indigenous people also had a “literary culture” (1). While Euro-American literary production had to include letters in order to write down narratives about “travel, mapping … and dialogue with Native American[s],” Indigenous literary practices took a different shape since it mainly “existed outside of texts” (1). For example, they created crafts that “carried precise narratives” or they held storytelling sessions about hunting, planting and their responsibilities to nature (1-2). Once again, the importance of considering the cultural context when reading American historical texts is highlighted. By drawing her focus on terms like literary culture and aesthetics instead of “writing or textuality,” Calcaterra emphasizes “the sophistication of native creative traditions and the vast array of Indigenous people who contributed to literary production” (7). Hence, Calcaterra fights the misrepresentation, underrepresentation and marginalization of Indigenous aesthetics and literary productions in order to acknowledge the contribution of Native Americans to American literary history in general. However, while Calcaterra recognizes and highlights the non-written literary practices of Indigenous people, she fails to consider the emergence of the Native American press during the same period, which was also an important contribution to the formation of American literary history.

According to Littlefield and Parins, the period from 1826 to 1924 was “an important one in most aspects of American Indian and Alaska Native history” because it marks the foundation of “Indian and Native press” (Littlefield and Parins xxx-xxxi). And although their press did not have the intended “social or political impact,” the “vast amount of periodical literature by and about contemporary Indians and Alaska Natives” contributed to the formation of American literary history (xi, xxxi). However, it is important to know that the Native press included both periodicals published and edited by Native Americans as well as periodicals about Native Americans and their affairs published by others, like the federal government or missionaries (xi). Tribal and nontribal periodicals were owned and operated by Native Americans, but they were aimed at a white readership, which is why their content often included “little or nothing … about the Indian or his affairs” (xii-xiii). However, there is one recurring Indigenous topic in these publications, namely the divisions within the Indigenous community due to tribal and intertribal factionalism “that racked the Indian Territory” in the 1890s (xvi). Federal Indian policies led to these conflicts (xvii). For instance, while the majority of Native Americans fought for tribal sovereignty and thus opposed the opening of “the Indian Territory and allotting lands,” some assimilationists among them wanted U.S. “citizenship with full rights and dignity for all Indians” in a territory set apart from the white population and hence advocated land allotments (xv, xix). When participating in factionalism, the Native American press fueled these conflicts and eventually, “contributed to the decline of tribal power,” which, in the end, led to “the breakdown in tribal autonomy” (xvi-xvii, xxxi). Another set of papers was published by the so-called “friends of the Indians,” who “were not Indian or Native,” but who wrote about Indigenous concerns (xxi). Although they represented a “pro-Indian … nonsectarian” view by showing their concerns “about the way Indians had been, and continued to be, treated,” they “often worked against the best interests of the Indians by promoting such policies as allotment of lands in severalty” and thus fostered factionalism among Native American tribes (xxi, xxxi). The sectarian and government-supported press was aimed at a local audience on the reservations, including the indigenous population and had mainly propagandistic purposes (xxvi, xxviii). The missionary press sought “to teach and promote Christianity” in order to “civilize” Native Americans on the one hand, and, on the other hand, “to influence the public opinion on Indian affairs” (xxiv-xxv, xxvii). The government-supported press promoted the realization of the government’s policy that sought for the assimilation of Native Americans “into the mainstream of American society” (xxviii). For the same reason, the government also funded the Indian Service school publications that, in addition, were a means of proving the government’s and the missionaries’ “success in bringing ‘progress’” to the young generation of Native Americans (xxviii). These literary productions in the English language were supposed to “demonstrate the effects of English education and reflect the high degree of acculturation reached by some” of the students (xxi). Although Littlefield and Parins admit that these publications had a culturally destructive effect on Indigenous people, they still see them as “excellent examples of the printing craft learned by the students” (xxx-xxxi). They downplay the government’s paternalistic education in those schools as “vocational training” which enabled Indigenous students to acquire abilities to “work in the publishing industry” once they graduated (xvii). It seems as if they disregard the conditions under which these papers were produced: Indigenous children lived in isolation from their families and cultural roots. These same children were taught that their cultural heritage was worthless, in order to facilitate inculcating them with Western world views. When the authors write about “students who had successfully made the cultural transition,” they ignore the trauma that many students had suffered due to the physical and mental abuse, they had to endure during their forced stay at those schools (xxix). Thus, it is irritating that Littlefield and Parins represent those literary productions as such a major benefit to Indigenous students. Moreover, their use of the term “Indian” is striking from a present perspective, since this term is no longer considered politically correct and has a rather racist connotation. However, the text was published in 1984 and one may well assume that the term “Indian” here was not meant to be offending. All in all, this study would be a good example for Calcaterra’s approach of a more distant and neutral way of reading the original literary productions this study was based on.

Littlefield and Parins also mention some tribal publications that served as a “response to outside pressures, most often U.S. policy toward the tribe” (xii). The Cherokee Phoenix for instance, the first published tribal periodical, “was established in 1828 as a direct response to Georgia’s efforts to extend their laws over the Cherokee Nation” (xii). Besides disseminating news about politics and the Cherokee culture, The Cherokee Phoenix served as a propagandistic device to both the Cherokee and the white readership (Round 135). On the one hand, it sought to educate the Cherokee about Western ideals of civilization, for example with regards to culture and religion (135). On the other hand, it also had the purpose of educating Euro-Americans “about the Indian cause” in order “to rally support for Cherokee sovereignty” by eliciting “‘sentiment’ or sympathy’ from this distant white readership” in “an entertaining and unthreatening way” (Round 136, Littlefield and Parins xii). Moreover, the periodical should demonstrate that the Cherokee were not “savages” but “civilized,” progressive people since they adapted the European manner of distributing news (xii). The Cherokee even invented their own syllabary in which The Cherokee Phoenix was printed (Round 123). Although the syllabary was invented by the Cherokee Sequoyah “out of national pride” and with the goal to fight factionalism within the Cherokee Nation as well as “to beat the whites at their own game,” it also represents the “adoption … of the dominant society’s values and practices” (128, 147). However, literacy and their print culture, enabled the Cherokee to take part in the “debate over the legal status of Native nations” in the U.S. (123). Nevertheless, the introduction of literacy also compounded factionalism among the Cherokee since “alphabetical literacy became a litmus test for political identity” (124, 137). While, for example, the editor of The Cherokee Phoenix Elias Boudinot, a literate “mission-educated Christian convert,” saw the removal of his people to the Indian Territory as the only chance to keep them “distinct and untainted by white intrusions,” many other tribal members opposed this policy as well as any form of assimilation through print literacy (130, 132, 139). Yet overall, the Cherokee Phoenix was “so effective in achieving its purpose” that it was shut down by Georgia authorities (Littlefield and Parins xii). This shows the partial success of the Cherokee press as a means of resisting Euro-American oppression.

Another political, even more radical periodical was Montezuma’s magazine Wassaja, which was published from 1916 until 1922 (Zuck 72). Montezuma knew about “the need for reform in the administration of Indian affairs” (Littlefield and Parins xx). He stood for the abolishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs since he had realized that institutions like this had fostered factionalism among Indigenous tribes (Zuck 73, 79). In addition, he wanted to end the “perpetual state of wardship,” which Native Americans were restricted to by the BIA (86). According to Montezuma, Native Americans “should abandon their tribal connections” in order to “fight for American citizenship, and work to blend into Anglo-American society” (72). He was convinced that American citizenship was the only way for Indigenous people to be equally integrated into U.S. politics and law, and thus, to be finally free (80, 86). In contrast to Boudinot, Montezuma did not promote “civilization” and “progress,” even though his readership included whites as well (83-4). He did not write to entertain; he wrote to call for action. Nevertheless, although the Wassaja served as a means of communicating Montezuma’s “biting critiques” of federal policies to the government and public, this was not the main purpose of the periodical (72, 85). His emphasis laid on intertribal unity to fight factionalism among Native American tribes (73). In order to achieve this goal, Montezuma included a “Correspondence” section which served as a forum for discussions on pragmatic issues of intertribal concern, such as land allotments, by Native Americans themselves (74). The multitribal readership “was able to share tactics, strategies, and complaints” which brought about an intertribal dialogue “that crossed geographical and tribal borders” (74). Wassaja thus had a “revolutionary potential,” not only by openly criticizing the policies of the federal government, but also by unifying several Native American tribes with the aid of an “established part of periodical literature” (83, 88). Zuck’s essay is an excellent example of Calcaterra’s call for reading texts about Indigenous people in a new way (73): while Littlefield and Parins write that Wassaja was “viewed as a means of patronizing and subjugating the Indians” and thus convey a rather negative image of Montezuma (xix), Zuck depicts him admittedly as a contested character, but also as revolutionist who “reimagined the periodical press, a tool of white institutional power,” in favor of Native American interests (89).

One of the reasons for which the periodical press of marginalized groups, such as Native Americans, could rise in the late nineteenth century, was the introduction of “industrialized printing methods” (Hammill et al. 12). These periodicals were “charged with political concerns – of gender, class, race and empire –,” which is why the rise of this press often got intertwined with anxieties of changing cultural values within society (11). Consequently, the press often suffered degradation (11). This demonstrates the importance of studying such periodicals regarding their historical context as well as their relation to each other (7, 10). However, it is also important to study each periodical as an “unpredictable, idiosyncratic, and ultimately unstable whole” which emphasizes the interaction of its components such as “articles, advertisements, illustrations, letters to the editor” (3). In the field of periodical studies, the question of “how periodicals mediate their content” and how it is remediated by scholars has long been debated but remained unanswered (2). In general, scholars could not agree on one final definition of the “periodical” due to the “diversity of understandings of what a periodical is” (6). Nevertheless, they agreed on “a few features that unify the field” (6). Periodicals are thus “print media” that are characterized by seriality, the continuity of titles across several issues; periodicity, the publication on a regular basis; intermediality, the interaction and connection of various contemporary media; and juxtapositions, the coexistence of diverse articles about various topics (6-7, 10-11). Since the periodical is not clearly defined, neither is the field of periodical studies (10). The field has suffered from “a lack of communication across” various disciplinary fields, as well as from “the absence of a unified theoretical framework” which has led to divisions among periodical scholars about “what the object of knowledge” actually is nowadays (4-5). There is, however, a general consensus about the field’s continuities and interdisciplinarity being fundamental characteristics of periodical studies, as well as the fact that concentrating on how periodicals operate shall prove more effective than focusing on what they are (4, 10). Finally, Hammill et al. wonder “whether periodical studies needs consolidation as a field or if its strength lies in its heterogeneity and interdisciplinarity” (5). The authors propose approaching periodical studies as media studies (5). Media are defined as emotionally charged “modes of communication” that convey information in a materialized form and follow “protocols that regulate circulation and use” (19). Therefore, they advocate reading periodicals “as complex media artifacts whose relation to their cultural and political contexts is articulated through rhythms of seriality, patterns of remediation, and material systems of production and circulation” (15). They aim at showing methods which prove that periodicals can be read “as, and in relation to, media” (15). Even though it bears many risks – which could prove disadvantageously to marginalized periodicals, for instance, – a means of help could be new methods brought about by digitization (13). For example, new digital methods enable scholars to expose “relationships among data” by reading “across massive multi-year archives” that otherwise would have been impossible (3). Scholars thus have the chance to read familiar texts in new ways and to understand periodicals “as media rather than texts or repositories of historical information” (3-4).

Fröhlich and Ruchatz support the approach, suggested by Hammill et al., in which periodical studies should utilize media studies methodology. They critique the former scholarly neglect of periodical studies (Fröhlich and Ruchatz 170). Some disciplines may have included periodicals in their studies, but only as a means to contextualize the cultural production of the nineteenth century, though not as autonomous subject (157). Although they admit that, due to its complexity, the massive amounts to read through, and the difficulty to define its limits, the periodical is a challenging object to study, it is nonetheless a fundamental part of today’s media culture (158-9, 170). Since the periodical is a medium of media culture it seems paradoxical that it has not yet been approached as an autonomous part in media studies (165). An approach borrowed from media studies would benefit both periodical as well as media studies (167). For example, the periodical could be studied as a medium interconnecting various media and thus, as a medium of cooperation which could question the hitherto rigid boundaries of media (167). Just as Hammill et al., Fröhlich and Ruchatz also highlight the chances of digitization for periodical studies, for instance the ability to analyze the development of periodicals in the course of time (169). They also support the view that the field of periodical studies is not yet clearly defined and that the central question is whether it should be consolidated as an own field or as interdisciplinarity (169). If studied from an interdisciplinary point of view, they suggest introducing collective tools, e.g. the “Medienbegriff,” to simplify communication across disciplines (169). However, there is also a crucial difference between this and the previous text: while Hammill et al. use the terms periodical and magazine alike, Fröhlich and Ruchatz highlight the difference of the two terms. Although they admit that their distinction has not been defined clearly, they depict some major differences. First, the periodical is interested in disseminating news important to the general public, while the magazine has a rather entertaining purpose (160). Second, in contrast to the periodical, the magazine is less interested in currency and its periodicity publication cycle is far less frequent than daily (159). Third, the magazine often has a different format or layout, and it is often printed on a paper of lower quality (159). Moreover, the magazine has suffered from a rather negative reputation which explains its lower cultural status (159). This also explains the lack of archived magazines since many of them have either been mutilated during, or not even been regarded as “worthy” of, archiving (160). This raises the question whether it is even possible to live up to the expectations of periodical studies in general.

All in all, these texts treat different topics from differing perspectives, but can, nonetheless, be connected to each other – in many ways. Calcaterra demonstrates how print and media have distributed a negative, damaging image of Native Americans and indigeneity in general, especially in the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth century. She thus suggests reading Euro-American records of the time in a new, more distant and neutral, way. Thereby, the reader comes to acknowledge that Indigenous cultural practices, despite their being unfamiliar, are just as aesthetic and literary as Euro-American practices. Therefore, Indigenous non-written, literary productions should also be recognized as a contribution to American literary history in general. While Calcaterra fails to consider the emerging Native American press in the same period, Littlefield and Parins demonstrate its fundamental contribution to the formation of American literary history. However, even though some Native Americans succeeded in using periodicals as a medium to spread their reform ideas regarding “Indian affairs,” the press had a mainly damaging effect on Indigenous people. Print media fueled factionalism among Indigenous communities and eventually led to the decline of tribal sovereignty. Since this study was undertaken almost forty years ago, its views are partially outdated. Consequently, it would be a good example for reconsideration according to Calcaterra’s approach. Round supports the claim made by Littlefield and Parins about tensions and factionalism being increased by the introduction of literacy and print culture. But he also highlights the chances of the press: based on a case study of The Cherokee Phoenix he shows that, even though it mainly served as a propagandistic device to promote “civilization,” it also demonstrates the partial success of the Cherokee resisting Euro-American oppression. Zuck makes an even stronger case in favor of the Native American press. His case study depicts Montezuma’s Wassaja as a successful political device, being thus for two main reasons. First, it serves as a platform to openly criticize the government’s federal policies and second, it serves as a forum for intertribal dialogue to effectively fight factionalism. Moreover, Zuck’s essay exemplifies Calcaterra’s approach: while Littlefield and Parins draw a rather negative image of Montezuma, Zuck depicts him as a contested, but clever revolutionary editor. There is also a connection to the text written by Hammill at al., since Zuck critiques the limited access to the massive amount of writings produced by Montezuma that has been lost over the years. Hammill et al. reveal that neither the field of periodical studies nor the periodical as object are defined clearly, which is seconded by Fröhlich and Ruchatz. Moreover, both texts highlight the central question whether periodical studies should better be consolidated as a field or interdisciplinary. They also both agree on approaching periodical studies as media studies since a periodical is a medium of media culture. Fröhlich and Ruchatz though emphasize the difference between the periodical being a device of disseminating current news and the magazine being a device for entertainment. To sum up, periodical studies, in general, have long been neglected by scholars and consequently, the study of Native American periodicals as well. The attempts that have been made in the twentieth century need to be reevaluated by reading the original texts from a more neutral perspective and in relation to their historical context, to avoid further misrepresentation of Native Americans. The few studies that have been made since the turn of the century are valuable case studies that fight the marginalization and underrepresentation of Native American periodicals. However, there is still a long way to go.

Works Cited

Calcaterra, Angela. “Introduction.” In: Literary Indians. Aesthetics and Encounter in American Literature to 1920. Chapel Hill, U of North Carolina P: 2018. 1-14.

Fröhlich, Vincent, und Ruchatz, Jens. “Komplexität und Vielfalt: Plädoyer für eine medienwissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenforschung.“ MEDIENwissenschaft 2-3: 157-73.

Hammill, Faye, et al. “Introduction: Magazines and/as Media: Periodical Studies and the Question of Disciplinarity.” In: The Journal of Modern Periodical Studies 6.2 (2015): iii-xiii.

Littlefield, Daniel F., Jr. and Parins, James W. “Introduction.” In: Daniel F. Littlefield, Jr. and James W. Parins American Indian and Alaska Native Newspapers and Periodicals, 1826-1924. Westport, Greenwood Press: 1984. xi-xxxi.

Round, Philipp. Removable Type. Histories of the Book in Indian Country, 1663-1880. Chapel Hill, U of North Carolina P: 2010. 123-49.

Zuck, Rochelle Raineri. “‘Yours is the Cause’: Readers, Correspondents, and the Editorial Politics of Carlos Montezuma’s Wassaja.” In: American Periodicals: A Journal of History & Criticism 22.1 (2012): 72-93.