Volume 12 Number 1
October 1972

Jerry D. Blanche

A FULL and accurate history of the United States has never been written and probably never will be. Admittedly, it is asking a great deal to even expect such an account, but to expect greater accuracy and scope than has been written to this date is not asking too much. Even the most ignorant, bigoted racist in the country will agree that one specific ethnic group—the Native American, or Indian—has been either completely ignored or poorly represented in almost all American history books. Books, periodicals, and other materials used at the elementary, secondary, and collegiate levels are, at best, distortions of the American Indian, and the courses which utilize these materials ordinarily ignore materials which fairly and honestly portray Indians and their culture.

Steve Baldy, a Hupa Indian, put it rather bluntly: "History in college and history on the high school level is the most ethno-centric thing there is, in particular, Indian history. They don’t really mention Indians except to say that they massacred Custer" (see Note 1).

On the same point, Alonzo Spang reported: "In completing a survey for a book, Robert Costs stated: "These evaluations are the work of 32 Indian scholars, native historians, and Indian students. More than 300 books were examined in the course of this study. Not one could be approved as a dependable source of knowledge about the history and culture of the Indian people in America. Most of the books were, in one way or another, derogatory to the Native American. Most contained misinformation, distortions, or omissions of important history" (see Note 2).

To illustrate further, the New York Public Library requires 23 drawers in its card catalog for its holdings on American Indians, and the Library of Congress is comparable (see Note 3). In contrast, there are 16 drawers devoted to Jews and only seven for Negroes, yet "certainly neither of these latter groups has been overlooked by writers" (see Note 4). Quantity, of course, does not necessarily mean quality, and some of what has been written in favor of Indians is also unjustifiably biased. Who will deny, however, that both quantity and quality are readily available? And who will argue that Jews and Blacks have been completely overlooked in the classrooms of America in recent years?

So, two facts have been established to this point: (1) American Indians have been misrepresented or ignored in history books and courses. (2) Ample material is available to rescind this discriminatory and pseudo-intellectual practice.

History books and history departments are not the only guilty parties, either. There is a real need for intensive study and analysis of the Indian word, or his rhetoric, which is another curricular void in most schools. The shocking fact is that Departments of Speech are just as guilty of neglect and misrepresentation of Indian rhetoric as history departments are of ignoring true Indian history. And what is even more disturbing is the way that rhetoric students and teachers react when the topic occasionally receives superficial mention. If someone asks a question about an Indian speech or issue in American history the typical response is a smile, followed by a clever squelch, followed by a determination on the part of the one asking to think twice before asking again. Or, the instructor may just defeat the inquiry with a jocular "You can’t be serious!"

In other words, the typical Indian stereotype, i.e., "Savage, drunk" or "noble, but dumb, dignified native," strikes a bell and a significant part of American history is again defeated by the cavalry. Too bad stereotyping leads to a disjointed view of American rhetorical tradition, but as Spang said, "These stereotypes are the direct product of the teaching of a distorted, maligning, and untruthful history of Indian life, culture, and traditions" (see Note 5). Ironically, a further result is a distorted, maligned, and untruthful history of American life, culture, and traditions. Interestingly enough, most Departments of Speech have permitted stereotyping to be an easy, convenient, traditional way to avoid Indian rhetoric in their History of American Public Address.

Perhaps the point has been exaggerated. It may be that Indian oratory has no real rhetorical significance and requires only an occasional term paper or thesis. After all, what has the Indian really contributed to the development of the United States, or what specific impact, or effect, has he had upon the country? The answer to a question of this sort is difficult for non-Indians to understand, but Spang expressed the Indian viewpoint eloquently: "In general, the Indian has contributed much to this society, to its people, and its institutions. Anglos often ask for a more specific listing of these contributions, as if demanding that we give a justification for our existence here. Instead, they should be thankful that the Indian has made, and not retracted, these contributions" (see N ote 6).

As for the specifics of Indian rhetoric in American history, the issues were not remote or abstract. They were threatening and urgent concern—matters of life and death to a way of life as well as to thousands and thousands of individuals. Speakers such as Red Cloud, Pushmataha, Spotted Tail, Ely Parker, Quanah Parker, Chief Joseph, Sitting Bull, and Geronimo, to name a few, were men of eminence, dignity and ability, well trained in the oral tradition. Though they have been completely ignored in Oliver’s History of Public Speaking in America (see Note 7) their speeches would dispel for all time the myth of the Indian as an ignorant, stumbling savage. "The orators were well aware of the issues and knew that they were bargaining for nothing less than survival," according to Cammack (see Note 8). Vanderwerth echoed these sentiments when he said, "These men were giants in their times. They . . . performed deeds and spoke words which will be engraved on the face of history for all time" (see Note 9).

In conclusion, specific analyses and rhetorical criticisms will have to be deferred to later papers. Though the brilliance of specific Indian orators has not been proved here, no concession has been made that these are undemonstrated claims.

How much longer will Departments of Speech pretend that Indian oratory is insignificant or extinct? When will Departments of Communication begin practicing nondiscrimination instead of hypocritically preaching it?

1. "A Talk With Some Native Americans," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 50 (October, 1971), 108.

2. T. Spang, "Understanding the Indian," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 50 (October, 1971), 99.

3. Brewton Berry, The Education of the American Indians (Washington: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1968), 1.

4. Berry, p. 1.

5. Spang, p. 97.

6. Spang, p. 99.

7. Robert T. Oliver, History of Public Speaking in America (Boston: Alyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965).

8. W. C. Vanderwerth, Indian Oratory (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971), viii.

9. Vanderwerth, p. 12.