| Review | The History Teacher, 38.1 | The History Cooperative

Review

Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America, by Eva Marie Garroutte. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. 223 pages, $50.00 cloth, $19.95 paper.

How many ways can one define American Indian? Is "Indianness" a product of genetic heritage or cultural affiliation? Is it some mythic quality that manifests itself out of thin air and can only be verified by those sharing similar qualities? Is American Indian a static term, immutable since its first (erroneous) use more than 500 years ago? Or does this identity follow the lead of Old Man Coyote and shift shape as times change? These are some of the real and tough questions that Eva Marie Garroutte takes on in Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America. A sociologist by trade, Garroutte brings social science methodology to bear on one of the most provocative issues facing American Indian people and their nations in the United States today. Along the way, she also makes a compelling argument for an entirely new approach to this conundrum.

Real Indians divides itself into two different sections. In the first four chapters, the author explores the various ways that Indian identity has been defined by Natives and non-Natives alike. Here, Garroutte is interested in the historical dimensions of her subject. She notes that law, biology, and culture have all provided means through which individuals can claim and defend indigenous heritage. Recognizing that these three categories often overlap to further complicate an already complex issue, she uses case studies and interviews to illuminate the variety of perspectives contemporary Indians have on this subject. Garroutte reveals a range of tribal opinions that is both interesting and timely. With the proliferation of gaming and the rise of the "casino elite," a verifiable identity is arguably more important now for American Indians than it has been since the imposition of the Dawes Act (1887). But validating a claim raises awkward and difficult questions. What constitutes the proper and appropriate framework for making such a determination? How do enrollment, blood quantum, self-identification, and cultural association fit into this twenty-first century struggle? And who should have the right to make such decisions? What can individuals or the tribes or the federal government bring to this discussion that is new?

With this list of questions in mind, Eva Garroutte uses the latter section of Real Indians to argue for the creation of a new mode of inquiry grounded in Native American cultural and intellectual traditions. This new perspective, "Radical Indigenism," echoes Audre Lord's famous assertion that the master's tools are not the best weapons for dismantling the master's house. Or, in this case, that continued reference to Eurocentric, race-based definitions superimposed by outsiders on tribal communities for their own ends may not serve tribal interests. Rather, the author suggests, solutions to the problem of determining the true nature of Indianness lie within the "orientation" and "philosophies of knowledge" held by Native peoples. Identity politics notwithstanding, the doctrine of "Radical Indigenism" is the true heart of Real Indians. This new construct, as she envisions it, requires far more than just a passing nod to the intellectual history of Native nations. "Radical Indigenism" celebrates tribal intellectual traditions. It asks Indians to proclaim their own stores of knowledge as essential to understanding their cultures while challenging scholars (tribal and otherwise) to reconceptualize the entire process of academic inquiry. Along with Native activist-thinkers like Vine Deloria, Jr., Wilma Mankiller, Oren Lyons, and Winona LaDuke, Eva Garroutte contends that any resolution of the myriad problems facing American Indians today must be contingent upon a respect for and employment of indigenous intellectual perspectives. If, as the author recommends, tribal peoples and their communities decide to look to their own unique knowledge bases, they may devise definitions of Indianness that could subsume idiosyncratic political, social, religious, and economic differences. They could also privilege members of the tribal intelligentsia like elders and teachers while, finally, refuting the presumed expertise of outsiders

Eva Garroutte uses Real Indians to remind readers that the intellectual heritage of colonialism is, regrettably, alive and well. To bring down this particular house, one more than five centuries old that has served the colonizers and their descendants all too well, it is necessary to allow for the existence of Native American knowledge. It is necessary to go a step farther and accept this way of knowing and this mode of discourse as valid. Only then will Natives, non-Natives, academicians, politicians, and activists have the proper tools to complete this tremendous but essential task.


California State University, Chico	Lisa E. Emmerich

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.