At the end of The Soul of the White Man, Charles Eastman states "I am an Indian;...Nevertheless, so long as I live, I am an American." This seems confusing to me because I am unsure whether he is considering himself to be an Indian or an American, as in being white. But judging from the argument he presented, my guess is that Eastman is saying he still considered himself as an Indian culturally. However, because he has been influenced by the American/Western way of life, he has adapted to the civilized lifestyles.
Of course, Charles Eastman made a very convincing argument in regards to the white men's religion of Christianity. I agreed with Eastman that the white men "are anxious to pass on their religion to all races of men, but keep very little of it themselves." It's true, evidence from historical context examined that those who claimed to be "Christian" were murderers that feeds on those considered to be "weak" and are society's "outcasts." The question to be ask is not "why" they call themselves "Christian" while being guilty of executing the wicked and evil act because the reasons are obvious, but rather the question is "how" are these "less developed people" getting away with their crime? And the answer is quite simple yet does not fail to shock some people, that society today has not outgrown this system. It doesn't do anyone a favor to be pointing fingers or passing the blame because ironically enough every individual is at fault. Moreover, "the white man's religion is not responsible for his mistakes," and it does not create peace for anyone but may ignite more chaos. Another way to look at this issue is "the system of life is based upon a trade-off system when civilization is reduced to its lowest terms." By nature mankind are selfish: they are selfish to achieve an immortal life where they refuse to age, they are selfish to help others, they are selfish to share with one another, they are selfish at looking attractive, and so forth. Like the white men, society do composed of hypocrites and less developed people, who are blinded by the media and religion. These people in some way neglect their own cultures as well as beliefs and in exchange they foolishly pursued a life full of miseries and disgusts. Perhaps deep down somewhere in the illusions of being a "Christian" they are able to realize that they are spellbounded by their own spell in the attempt to cast it upon mankind. Little do they know that their souls are being sucked out of their bones and flesh and in place of it is replaced with a little monster because they have passed on a genuine religion but forgot to have faith in their God.
When Charles Eastman states "I am an Indian;...Nevertheless, so long as I live, I am an American," I feel that he was identifying himself as both a Native American and an American. Though, when I say American, I do not mean white. I feel that he is acknowledging the fact that he is a Native American and taking pride in his heritage, which is evident throughout the work. In that statement, Eastman is basically saying that Native Americans are just as good as whites, and in the end, they are all human beings in America. Eastman is advocating equality for Indians and whites and saying that not one race should be considered more American than the other.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to consider this quote as its meaning is somewhat ambiguous. I feel that Michka brings up a good point in saying that no race should be considered more American than another but am still a bit confused about what this means in terms of Eastman's identity. It almost seems as though he is prideful and in stating that he is an American he implies support of the American endeavor which I feel runs opposite to that which is relevant to the Native American's interests.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what to do about that last quote either. The blog, "The Light of Knowledge" also mentions this quote, and I think y'all are right to pick up on it as highly ambiguous. I think michka brings up a good point about separating racial identity from national identity. How does this contrast with Boudinot's claim that he "is an Indian"?
ReplyDeleteWell, Boudinot claimed that he is not an Indian as his ancestors were Indian, but he is Indian in "broader means and nobler influences have fallen upon him" (An Address to the Whites, 69). For Boudinot, he is Indian at birth and culturally but his mind takes the form of an American who has been civilized, educated and assimilated to the Western way of life. In other words, Boudinot serve as a good example of the Indian children that were taken away from their Indian parents at a very young age to be raised in American schools/missionaries and they have grew up to be American and are more familiar with the whites' lifestyles/culture than they are to their root of birth. However, for Eastman, he is also confused about his identity as an Indian or an American because he seems to have lost the bond with his Indian parents/people before he was taken away to the white school. That's why his claim for identity seems ambiguous because clearly, no line can drawn between being fully Indian or being fully American. From my own personal experience, I sometimes feel that it's hard to identify myself as a full Vietnamese or a full Vietnamese Asian American because originally I was born outside of the U.S., but had lived in America ever since the age of seven. So, I guess this pertains to the central issues of Nature versus Nurture. (?)
ReplyDelete