Christian Everett Darling

paper 4, rough, Harmon.

Indians in the Making

It is about Subordination.

Approaching a culture as if it were governed by the same customs as another culture leads to misunderstandings. In the case of the relationship between settlers and indigenous peoples, the approach required "guesswork and improvisation," (18) indubitably leading to misunderstandings on both parts as both parties sought to gain betterment from their interactions. Some tribes hoped for prestige, to acquire wealth, and like the settlers, to forge strategic alliances. But was it really a misunderstanding that led to the demise of traditional native cultures, people, and languages, or was it an intentional, opportunistic exploitation deemed necessary for settler expansion, or at least its consequence?

  "King George men and Klallams alike drew on concepts and patterns of association they regarded as common sense; but they did not draw on the same concepts and associations." (20) The divergence in concepts between the settler and the native is enchained to a dynamic of power at once seemingly equitable, but superficially masking a more sinister plot to purloin indigenous people's property. This "common sense" approach of the settlers, suggests a racist arrogance, that they were better than the natives; that they had, and exercised the right to demarcate land, legislate diverse native groups under uniform laws, and today, contest the legality of native identity and rights under settler-made laws.  Harmon surmises that "the bridge" or the bond created between the settler and the Indians, "was neither a merger of two societies nor the subordination of one to the other."(34) Yet, the immediate contradictions to this conjecture are to be found in her own book. 

The account of the conflict in the Klallam territory (20) serves to unsettle that supposed bridge. The Bretons intended to show the natives their power with a barrage of military might, and even though this encounter perhaps did not fulfill its main purpose, a village was slaughtered in the process. This perhaps did not show the Indians that the settlers were a superior race, but it certainly did show the capabilities of these people to anyone who witnessed.  "They had no conceptual basis at all for weighing HBC or British strength against the combined strength of the people Mcloughlin called Indians." (24) it is hard to imagine that such a show did not inspire some level of fear, at least among the Klallam, and that this incident didn't spread to other tribes, regardless of the HBC's inaccurate concept of a single Indian identity.  

But an all-out extermination of the natives, and the native way of life, was not at all beneficial to the settlers who depended on them.  "They...lacked knowledge of the country's natural bounty (and) were ignorant of fishing techniques." (40) The strategic partnerships with the Indians served to make the settler more knowledgeable about the area, allowing them even more plundering opportunities later down the line. Harmon says, "They (Indians) had not forgotten fishing, clam digging, berry picking...in order to trade with King George men." (40) What they had not chosen to sacrifice and what they were forced to sacrifice are two different stories, and Harmon disregards the latter.  

The Bridge that Harmon refutes to be based on subordination isn't seated in reality.  It is immediately clear, from the beginning of her book, that natives are subordinated by biased, non-native law, as she is forced to help one "tribe" defend its right to property.  "I knew that the Suquamish boundary litigation was not the first test of a Washington Indian tribe's historical authenticity; nor would it be the last." (2)

Another obvious fallacy in her argument is the near disappearance of certain languages, and the complete extinction of others. Since Harmon describes Indians being accustomed to a diversity of languages within their group, it is assumed that a monopoly on language would be quite unnatural to an Indian, regardless of their own languages' disappearance.  

The relationship between settler and Indian doesn't lie in a collection of misunderstandings leading to today's hard-to-identify notion of what an Indian identity looks like, it lies in racism and subordination. It is as simple as one group having a powerful, uniform fleet, being able to overpower a myriad of disjointed tribes. The allotment of lands, the internment camps for riotous Indians, and the extinction of traditional ways of life display a marked subordination of the Indians by the settlers. 

I dont' know about this, I want to apply this to other texts in relation to the "divide and conquer" technique that redeker talks about and horwitz touches on. I gues in this case, the dividing of the already separated natives wasn't an issue. But I think there is something deeper here (or not) that I can't put my finger on. Any suggestions?

Thanks a lot for reading this.

I am embarrassed sometimes to show people my rough copy.,

xo

Everett