“An act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi … ”
– Full title of the “Indian Removal Act of 1830,” as passed by the United States Congress
This television history of Native Americans is more cultural anthropology than history
This television history of Native Americans seems to be more cultural anthropology than history. In part, this is because they are focused primarily on pre-Columbian history (or history before Columbus). This may explain why they don’t rely much on written records, whose availability for this period is somewhat limited – although I should acknowledge that some examples of it do exist here. History is defined more as the study of written records from the past, whereas archeology is more about the study of physical objects from the past. There is some overlap between these things, but there are also some significant differences. By this traditional distinction, there isn’t much history in this documentary, although there is much archeology in it. More to the point, there is also a lot of cultural anthropology in it. This seems to be one of the weaknesses of this documentary. I tend to be a little skeptical of cultural anthropology in general. (Although I tend to be more supportive of physical anthropology, which I see as quite different.) Cultural anthropology has some interesting things to say, but it would seem to be more humanities than social science, and makes a lot of assumptions that are hard to support scientifically. These assumptions underlie much of the discussion in this documentary.
Their focus is too broad, as they try to cover two continents (North America and South America)
As mentioned earlier, their focus is mainly pre-Columbian. You might expect that they would focus on the area that became the “United States of America” – or, at least, that they would focus more on North America. But on the contrary, they try to cover both of the American continents. Obviously, both continents are worth covering, but I think that this documentary would have benefited from a somewhat narrower focus. For example, I would have liked to see them focus on the area that became the United States – which would still be a massive topic, worthy of an epic series like this one. Trying to cover two continents seems almost too ambitious for a four-hour documentary, particularly when they don’t always stick to their primary topic of pre-Columbian America. Instead, they sometimes discuss post-Colombian America, as I will talk about later in this post – although the main focus is on things before this.
Portrait of a man said to be Christopher Columbus
They don’t do justice to the topic of Native American religion (among other things)
There are also some brief references to Native American religion in this documentary. However, they don’t really go into this subject in much detail. In fairness, they may be trying to focus on commonalities among the religions of Native America. But such commonalities only allow for some very generalized statements about their “closeness with nature” and so forth. They do not attempt to give a more detailed analysis of their religious beliefs (or mention their gods), and seem not to do these beliefs justice in their discussion of them. They make them sound rather simple, when I suspect that the truth is probably a bit more complicated – and more interesting. Cultural anthropologists are very interested in religious traditions, particularly those of indigenous peoples. Thus, this seems like the kind of topic that they should have covered in more depth than they did here. But they only give the old clichés, and do not really develop these beliefs in more detail. Thus, one comes away with the feeling that one hasn’t really learned much, if anything. Indeed, one feels like one almost could have learned more from a second-rate Hollywood “B” movie.
Big Horn Medicine Wheel, Wyoming
They claim that the Iroquois Confederacy had an influence on the United States Constitution …
One segment claims that the Iroquois Confederacy had an influence upon the United States Constitution. They essentially claim that there was a sort of Iroquois Constitution, which influenced that of the United States. For example, they say that it involved a federal model that balanced central control with the rights of member tribes, which may be partially true. They also say that it had representative democracy and elections, which seems to have applied only to the Iroquois Confederacy’s leaders, and not to the chieftains of individual tribes. I acknowledge the possibility that such a Constitution may have existed, even if it was not codified in a physical document as our own Constitution later was. I cannot now remember them showing any document that contains it; but if memory serves, they claimed that it was inscribed on a “belt” that their tribe used (or some other such object). How they’re supposed to have fit an entire constitution onto a “belt” with the technology of the time is beyond me, but that’s essentially the claim that they’re making here. The Federalist Papers are filled with acknowledgements of Greek and Roman influences – not to mention British and French influences. But nothing in the Federalist Papers suggests that the Founding Fathers were influenced by any Native American tribes, Iroquois or otherwise.
Iroquois painting of Tadodaho receiving two Mohawk chiefs
… a hypothesis that they do not really support with evidence
However, this documentary does mention a letter by Benjamin Franklin that they claim as “supporting evidence” (or words to that effect). But they fail to mention when it was written, or to whom it was addressed. They do not even quote from this letter at all, for reasons that you may soon guess at. Thus, I can only assume that they’re referring to Benjamin Franklin’s letter to James Parker in 1751, which is quoted by others who make this same argument. After some digging of my own, I have determined that this letter really is genuine, but that it doesn’t really do much to establish their “influence” hypothesis. Other defenders of this hypothesis have pointed to a passage in which he says: “It would be a very strange thing, if six nations of ignorant savages [his words, not mine] should be capable of forming a scheme for such an union, and be able to execute it in such a manner, as that it has subsisted ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal understanding of their interests.” (Source: Letter to James Parker, 20 March 1751) But given how many other unions were cited by the Founding Fathers (including the Dutch union), this doesn’t seem all that convincing. Moreover, it seems that Franklin would not have referred to the Iroquois as “ignorant” and so forth, if he were indeed holding them up as “models to be emulated,” in the way that this argument requires. And Franklin didn’t have that much influence on the final text of the Constitution anyway, although he did play a vital role in fostering agreement among the delegates – which was an important role in a very contentious convention. Thus, this seems very poorly argued on PBS’s part – particularly when they neither quote from this letter, nor mention any other details besides the author (which, again, was Benjamin Franklin).
Iroquois engaging in trade with Europeans, 1722
Problems with their coverage of America after the arrival of Europeans
In their last episode, they do attempt to give some brief coverage of Native Americans after the arrival of Europeans. But again, this focus is more on the cultural anthropology than on the history. For example, they give some footage of a contemporary ceremony, in which a Native American became the chieftain of his tribe. I should acknowledge that this does allow you to witness what these ceremonies are like, at least in modern times. But it’s hard to imagine what history is like, when you focus only on present-day things that correspond to it. Moreover, they could have talked more about how Native Americans were affected by the arrival of Europeans. For example, they could have discussed European diseases, the establishment of European colonies, and the removal of Indians to the West. Most importantly, they could have discussed the shameless genocide against some of the native peoples. But such things are only briefly referred to, in this documentary’s brief concluding episode on post-Colombian America. They’re more interested in documenting present-day culture, than they are at establishing history through written records. It would seem that they could have done much more than they did here.
“Chief Joseph,” a Native American civil rights leader who is often likened to Martin Luther King
Conclusion: This documentary could have been so much more than it was
In this and other ways, the documentary seems not to have lived up to its potential. They took a subject with a truly epic scope, and turned it into a series of smaller stories with a focus on the present day. This documentary does have some merit, but it could have been so much more. Indeed, at times, it actually seems rather bad. Buy this only if you’re interested in cultural anthropology, and skip it if you’d rather have something that’s more focused on history.
“ … all noncitizen Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Native American to tribal or other property.”
– “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924,” as passed by the United States Congress
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment