CONTINUING THE MOVEMENT:
THE INTERNAL RHETORIC OF
NATIVE AMERICAN DOCUMENTARY
We Shall Remain: America Through Native Eyes
Episode Five -- Wounded Knee
PBS American Experience | Native American Public Telecommunications (2009)
Kathleen Ditewig-Morris
CMN 538: Rhetorical Criticism | Professor Ned O’Gorman
December 15, 2012
2
Preface
Choosing a term to classify a people is as controversial as defining race itself.
A fundamental notion threading its way through this essay deals with the cultural identity of a
historically marginalized people. Approaching such a topic requires a note of caution.
There is a pervasive tendency within the dominant society to affix the label of “Native American”
or “American Indian” universally to a single group of people who seemingly share common
cultures, ideas, beliefs, practices, even language – despite distinct tribal differences. This
monolithic perception runs the risk of essentialism and discounts the highly complex, mosaic
nature of individual tribal and ethnic subgroups. Since the social movements of the mid-twentieth
century, there has been a distinct trend for American Indian people to establish a more “panIndian” identity, but one whose goal, however, is for unity of purpose and social justice rather than
racial identity. Such a process is ongoing and constantly negotiated among its participants. This
point is critical in the understanding of the rhetorical nature of Native-produced documentary,
which has as a fundamental goal the creation and perpetuation of such a collective identity.
An unresolvable debate rages among scholars, activists, and community members themselves on
which term, if any, to use. Filmmaker Loretta Todd (Métis/Cree) warns against the essentialist use
of the term “Native,” stating: “The term 'Native' is a discourse, inscribed with meaning from
without” 1. Others claim “Native American” can apply to any person born in America, regardless
of ethnic background. Additionally, some view the term “American Indian” as a purely race-based
definition. Many community members simply prefer to be considered “indigenous” or more
frequently, specifically affiliated with their particular tribe (Apache, Diné, Ojibwe, and so forth). It
is a common practice to state one’s tribal affiliation, both as an individual and as part of a
community, in introductions and formal situations. Jamie Folsom (Oklahoma Choctaw), Capacity
Building Assistance Specialist for the National Native American AIDS Prevention Center,
explained it to me in this way: “It has always been the practice to identify your tribe when
introducing yourself to others, especially in Native circles. We value knowing our relation to
others and also consider it a point of pride. Some of our tribes are almost invisible, so we say it to
show we're still here! So many of our ceremonies include a part where everyone introduces
themselves around the circle and speaks their concerns. Many of us teach our children how to
introduce themselves as ‘proper.’" 2
However, in many situations – as with the criticism that follows – we are forced to make choices.
Because the documentary I am reviewing uses the term “Native,” as do a number of other key
sources, I will use the term “Native American” or “Native” only for consistency purposes.
-
1
Kate Ditewig-Morris
Loretta Todd, "What More Do They Want?" In Indigena: Contemporary Native Perspectives in Canadian Art, ed.
Gerald McMaster and Lee-Ann Martin (Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Civilization, 1992), 71.
2
Jamie Folsom, personal email correspondence, Dec. 2012.
3
WOUNDED KNEE
On a cold night in February, 1973, a caravan rolled through the Pine Ridge
Reservation in South Dakota. The cars were packed with 200 Indians—
men and women, local Oglala Lakota and members of the urban militant
group, the American Indian Movement. They headed toward the hallowed
ground of Wounded Knee, the site of the last massacre of the Indian Wars.
“We were about to be obliterated, culturally.
Our spiritual way of life—our entire way of life—
was about to be stamped out,
and this was a rebirth of our dignity and our pride.”
– Russell Means, former AIM leader
~
4
The 2009 documentary, We Shall Remain: America Through Native Eyes (Episode
Five: Wounded Knee) 3 is a historical representation of the 1973 occupation of Wounded
Knee, South Dakota, by a group of Oglala Lakota protesters and members of the urbanbased militant group, the American Indian Movement (AIM). It chronicles the events of
the 71-day protest through eyes of the people who lived it: community residents,
protestors, former AIM leaders, as well as white governmental officials. It also examines
the political, economic, and cultural forces that led to the emergence of AIM and the
confrontational protest tactics the group employed. The fact that the documentary is not
neutral is without question; the fact that it tells the Wounded Knee story with a rhetorical
purpose is clear from the outset. What requires illumination and discussion, however, is
the nature of that rhetorical purpose, the methods with which that message is
communicated, and to whom.
The We Shall Remain: America Through Native Eyes five-part series highlights
key moments in Native American history: After the Mayflower; Tecumseh’s Vision; Trail
of Tears; Geronimo; and Wounded Knee. It is logical to assume the series was produced
as a simple history lesson, targeted at the general public, and intended to fill in some of the
great gaps of knowledge concerning Native history in this country. This assumption is
only partly true. The We Shall Remain series accomplishes those ends, explicitly and
implicitly, as a collaborative effort among a variety of entities and by virtue of PBS
support, promotion, and distribution through its established channels. However, the series
3
We Shall Remain: America Through Native Eyes, PBS /American Experience film; produced in association with
Native American Public Telecommunications (2009; Alexandria, VA: PBS Home Video).
5
is extraordinary because it is also a representative example of a little known subgenre of
rhetorical documentary: it is a project primarily driven and produced by Native people,
about Native people, and fundamentally for Native people. Its rhetorical intent extends far
beyond merely reiterating a moment in history; rather, it continues the rhetoric of the
historical protest it is revisiting.
Such is the intriguing parallel to explore in this context. Since the sixties and
seventies, scholars across disciplines debate the audiences, rhetorical purpose (and
ultimately, the effect) of the Red Power movement with AIM as a focal point. Was its
rhetoric targeted at white society and the United States government, as most assume? Was
it intended fundamentally for Native people, including the corrupt among them? Was it
aimed at a multiplicity of audiences? Was its purpose to reclaim lost land and force the
government to honor broken treaties? Was its purpose to reject white society and return to
traditional cultural life? Was its purpose to unify Native people of all tribes and create a
pan-Indian identity joined in common purpose? Or, was the entire movement merely a
protest for protest’s sake, instigated by the frenzied and disjointed “antics” of a group of
ego-driven leaders seeking power and attention for themselves?
Strong arguments exist for all these points of view, among both Native and nonNative scholars and informal observers of history, cultural studies, and rhetoric. But if
one aligns with the notion that Native American protest rhetoric was indeed fundamentally
(if not exclusively) aimed inwardly, then it follows that Native-produced historical
documentary on the subject mirrors that rhetorical intent.
6
The linkage is clear. As a subgenre, Native documentary has its rhetorical purpose
historical and cultural representations that encourage the viewer to empathize with the
point of view of the Native speaker, especially when the viewer is also Native. Steven
Leuthold, a Northern Michigan University art history professor who specializes in Native
documentary, states: “Indigenous groups have recognized the potential of video for
intragroup communication and as a means of gaining cultural and political recognition in
the wider society. Video and film productions are used to ‘rethink history,’ even to
address the ignorance of the dominant culture about past history and contemporary
culture.” 4
This essay will show how the collaboratively-produced We Shall Remain: America
Through Native Eyes (Episode Five: Wounded Knee) uses this genre and rhetorical
strategy to address a fundamentally internal audience: other Native people. In so doing, it
mirrors and continues Red Power social protest rhetoric itself, aligning with the theory
that it, too, was fundamentally focused toward an internal audience. Most specifically, this
essay will illustrate how the documentary undergirds the ongoing quest to empower and
unify Native people in the pan-Indian sense. Whether or not the intent was successful is
beyond the scope of this essay.
Accordingly, this work will draw upon theories of documentary as a rhetorical
genre, primarily those of Grierson and Nichols and following the critical models of
Thomas Benson; narrower theories of Native American documentary as a rhetorical
4
Steven Leuthold. “Rhetorical Dimensions of Native American Documentary,” Wicazo Sa Review, 16, no. 2, (Fall
2001): 58.
7
subgenre, relying extensively on specialized scholars; and evidence from a variety of
Native American social protest and cultural identification perspectives, drawn from
prominent cross-disciplinary sources such as Randall Lake, Richard Morris, Philip
Wander, Robert Warrior, and Paul Chaat Smith.
Before beginning an analysis of this nature, one must consider the appropriate
methods to employ, especially with a mode of discourse as non-traditional as Native
documentary. Cara Finnegan once said, “As with all research, one’s approach should
follow from one’s critical questions.” 5
Therefore, it is necessary first to establish documentary itself as a rhetorical genre
as distinct from a film genre.
Stephen Lucas said, “If the promise of genre studies is to be fully realized,
however, one major obstacle must be overcome – the tendency to treat the identification of
genres as an end in itself.” 6 Rather, as he, Carolyn Miller 7, and others claim, one should
consider a genre based on what it is trying to accomplish, rather than on its substance or
form. With this in mind, is documentary art or rhetoric or a combination of both?
Since the 1920s film documentary has been recognized as a viable artistic and
rhetorical genre. Scottish filmmaker and theorist John Grierson coined the term, calling it
5
Cara Finnegan. “Studying Visual Modes of Public Address: Lewis Hine’s Progressive-Era Child Labor Rhetoric,”
The Handbook of Public Address, (2010): 252.
6
Stephen E. Lucas. "Genre Criticism and Historical Context: The Case of George Washington’s First Inaugural
Address.” Southern Speech Communication Journal 51, no. 4 (June 1986): 354.
7
Carolyn R. Miller. "Genre as Social Action." Quarterly Journal Of Speech 70, no. 2 (May 1984): 151.
8
“the creative treatment of actuality,” a characterization that simultaneously distinguishes
the documentary from the fiction film and the non-fiction film. 8 The documentary is
commonly considered a subset of nonfiction film, “characterized by more aesthetic, social,
rhetorical, and/or political ambition than, say, a corporate or instructional film.” 9
What exactly is documentary, and most importantly, how is it rhetorical?
It is not surprising that there is no commonly accepted definition of documentary,
just as there is no clear method of how one effectively critiques it or evaluates its
rhetorical power. While Bill Nichols, in his seminal book Representing Reality, claims
that documentary is “a fiction (un)like any other” 10 (thereby aligning with Grierson’s
view), he also admits that documentary “as a concept or practice occupies no fixed
territory. It mobilizes no finite inventory of techniques, addresses no set number of issues,
and adopts no completely known taxonomy of forms, styles, or modes.”
11
However,
Nichols does emphasize throughout his treatise the importance of documentary’s linkage
to the historical world, which drives his theory and provides one of the key foundations
for this essay:
The pleasure and appeal of documentary film lies in its ability to make
us see timely issues in need of attention, literally. We see views of the
world, and what they put before us are social issues and cultural
8
John Grierson. Grierson on Documentary, ed. Forsyth Hardy (Los Angeles, CA: Univ of California Press, 1966) 13.
9
Carl Plantinga. "What a Documentary Is, After All." Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism 63, no. 2 (2005): 105.
10
Bill Nichols. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1991) 12
11
Ibid., 105
9
values, current problems and possible solutions, actual situations and
specific ways of representing them. The linkage between documentary
and the historical world is the most distinctive feature of this
tradition. 12
Nichols proposes four modes of documentary that have guided and shaped
documentary creation, analysis, and criticism since he published Representing Reality in
1991. While thought on these categories have continued to evolve and generate argument
since then, they are considered classic definitions in the study of documentary:
expository, observational, interactional, and reflexive. 13 These categories move along a
continuum of interaction, from a more detached objectivity to greater involvement
between the documentarian and the subject.
Many contemporary film scholars claim this classic taxonomic view is no a
sufficient tool and may actually interfere with a critique of documentary’s true purpose.
For example, Chris Cagle has refuted Nichols’ neat categorizations, stating, “The
categories work well enough for selectively chosen historical examples but hold less
explanatory power for contemporary work” 14 and that such “taxonomy is “an incomplete
or problematic endeavor for such a complex beast as nonfiction representation.” 15 He
posits a newer form of documentary – one best defined as a “middle ground” or “hybrid”
12
Ibid., ix
13
Ibid., 32
14
Chris Cagle. "Postclassical Nonfiction: Narration in the Contemporary Documentary." Cinema Journal 52, no. 1 (Fall
2012): 45
15
Ibid., 46
10
– and one that best captures contemporary Native-produced work such as We Shall
Remain.
Despite the debate over the taxonomy, no one disagrees with Nichols on the strong
rhetorical nature of documentary. According to Nichols, “documentary begins with the
concrete representation of people and places, situations, and events, but depends for its
success far more on the ability to induce us to derive larger lessons, broader outlooks, or
more overarching concepts from the detail it provides. Every cut or edit is a step forward
in an argument.”
16
Most emphatically, Nichols states that the documentary has as its
fundamental purpose not a story, but an argument about the historical world it represents.
Next, we must consider Native documentary as a “subgenre” and attend to its
unique form and rhetorical function.
Native-produced documentary emerged along with other forms of photography,
film and video, as a distinct subgenre in the 1970s, with direct ties to political activism
that emerged at the time. 17 As Native social movements flourished and video technology
became easier to obtain, Native documentary focused on smaller scale projects with a
local, community-based focus. Native American documentary producers began making
film and videos based on an initial focus to “enhance the survival of their own
16
17
Nichols, Representing Reality, 29
Leuthold, “Rhetorical Dimensions,” 57
11
communities,” 18 in their own production facilities and through coproduction
arrangements with non-Native videographers and filmmakers.
Over the years Native documentary has developed and matured to a level of
sophistication that has crossed over into more “mainstream” media channels, such as those
produced by the award-winning Rich-Heape Films, Inc. (Trail of Tears: Cherokee Legacy;
Black Indians: An American Story);
19
Cree filmmaker Neil Diamond (most widely known
for his popular documentary, Reel Injun, that explores the stereotypical portrayal of Native
Americans in Hollywood film.) 20 and a host of others. These works construct clearly
persuasive arguments and are considered rhetorical as well as artistic, political, historical,
or cultural treatises. Typically, Native documentary advances notions of cultural identity
and traditionalism, whether tribally based or within a broader “pan-Indian” sense, as a
means to drive social change. Native documentary is explicit about its unique perspective,
offering up a worldview that is quite different from that of a strictly non-Native produced
work.
There is a marked distinction between Native and non-Native produced
documentary, even that which advocates for Native issues and social change. Native
produced films are distinctive in two essential ways: they are created with clear selfrepresentation as a goal, and to cultivate a sense of identity with its Native audiences.
18
Ibid., 55
19
Rich-Heape Films, Inc,: A Native American Owned Corporation. Accessed December 2012.
http://richheape.com/company.htm.
20
Reel Injun: On the Trail of the Hollywood Indian. Accessed December 2012.
http://www.reelinjunthemovie.com/site/the-film/
12
Non-Native produced documentary with Native themes were typically produced
with the intention to “give a ‘voice to the voiceless,’ that is, [to] portray the political,
social, and economic realities of oppressed minorities and others previously denied access
to the means of producing their own image.” 21 Since the 1970s, however, the power of
controlling that image shifted as Native film and documentary producers picked up the
camera. The new genre purposely linked the right to represent oneself visually to political
rights of self-representation: “The right to represent oneself redefines the victim as a
proactive political participant; now members of a community can best define and choose
their own course of action.” 22
Additionally, from an anthropological standpoint, the act of indigenous
filmmaking is viewed as a socially constructive communicative act, a distinct means of
creating cultural identity: “Cooperatively produced and subject-generated films are
significant because they represent an approach to documentary and ethnographic films
dissimilar to the dominant practice. They offer the possibility of perceiving the world from
the viewpoint of the people who lead lives that are different from those traditionally in
control of the means for imaging the world. Subject-generated films and video are a tool
used by some disenfranchised people in their efforts to negotiate a new cultural
identity.” 23
21
Jay Ruby. "Speaking for, Speaking about, Speaking with, or Speaking alongside: An Anthropological and
Documentary Dilemma.” Journal Of Film & Video 44, no. 1/2 (Summer 1992): 44
22
Leuthold, “Rhetorical Dimensions,” 63
23
Ruby, “Speaking for,” 43
13
The documentary We Shall Remain demonstrates these criteria. Told “through
native eyes,” it reminds a Native audience of a watershed moment in contemporary
history, the 1973 siege of Wounded Knee. Acknowledging the protest’s failures and
tragedies, it nonetheless focuses on the intent of the protest, how reservation and urban
Natives came together for unified purpose, in an attempt to establish a common identity
and create necessary change for and within Native communities. It hinges on the notion
Richard Morris and Philip Wander posited in their work, “Native American Rhetoric: In
the Shadows of the Ghost Dance” (1990), that such an approach is both deliberate and
rhetorically strategic. According to them, Native American rhetoric of this nature enacts
“significant efforts to revitalize tribal cultures by creating an ‘ethos’ capable of
transcending cultural differences among different tribal cultures and of forming coalitions
sufficiently powerful to resist encroachments by the dominant society.” 24
To make the claim that Native-produced historical documentary parallels Native
American protest rhetoric, it is necessary, then, to examine key rhetorical elements of the
“Red Power” movement in context of the 1973 Wounded Knee siege, and second, trace
their mirror images in the documentary.
Since the sixties and seventies, the debate over the rhetorical purpose of the “Red
Power” movement has riveted historians and critics alike, inside and outside Native
communities. As is typically the case when analyzing social protest, rhetoric is considered
to be outward-directed, targeted at other groups or the larger society as means of enacting
24
Richard Morris and Philip Wander. “Native American Rhetoric: Dancing in the Shadows of the Ghost Dance,”
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, no. 2. (1990): 166
14
change. In the case of Red Power, the most contentious debate surfaces when it is
examined through the filter of white society, which offers an entirely different worldview
and hence interpretation of events. Randall Lake, in his landmark 1983 essay “Enacting
Red Power: The Consummatory Function in Native American Protest Rhetoric,” disputed
the common assumption that the rhetoric of the time was outwardly directed, focused on
changing white attitudes. Part of Lake’s claim states that:
… the judgments of failure so often leveled against Native American protest
rhetoric are problematic because they misanalyze this rhetoric's primary audience.
Most Red Power rhetoric is directed at movement members and other Indians for
purposes of gathering the like-minded, and is addressed only secondarily to the
white establishment. For the Indian audience, Red Power rhetoric is persuasive
insofar as it serves consummatory purposes prescribed by traditional Indian
religious/cultural precepts. White audiences, which do not share these precepts,
remain unconvinced and even alienated; nevertheless, consummatory strategies are
necessary and effective techniques of Indian self-address. 25
Thus, this error in interpretation “illustrates the misleading results which can be produced
when a majority culture critical perspective is imposed on minority culture discourse.” 26
Native scholars Warrior and Chaat Smith echo the argument supporting the
internal nature of the Red Power movement. In an introduction to their book, Like a
Hurricane, they write:
A great many books written about American Indians … have been written by
people who were not Indians, and they usually sought to persuade readers that
25
Randall Lake. “Enacting Red Power: The Consummatory Function in Native American Protest Rhetoric,” Quarterly
Journal Of Speech 69, no. 2 (May 1983): 128
26
Lake, “Enacting Red Power,” 141
15
government policies were cruel and misguided…. We came to write Like a
Hurricane out of a profound dissatisfaction with the existing narratives of this
crucial period in Indian and American history, one that we believed too often
saw Indian people as mere victims and pawns. Our focus is not on the U.S.
government’s failed policies or on police repression, but on how Indian
people, for a brief and exhilarating time, staged a campaign of resistance
and introspection unmatched in this century. It was for American Indians
every bit as significant as the counterculture was for young whites, or the civil
rights movement for blacks. 27 [emphasis mine]
One can argue that both the Red Power movement and Native documentary
exemplify Richard Gregg’s concept of the “ego-function” of social protest as an inwardlydirected rhetoric. Gregg suggests that protest messages help constitute, maintain, and
defend advantageous conceptions of the self. The concept has been particularly useful to
the movement’s critics (largely from the dominant society), who claim that its rhetoric
was directed primarily toward “the protestors themselves, who feel the need for
psychological refurbishing and affirmation." 28 This point of view (shared at times by both
Native and non-Natives) particularly targets AIM leaders, who, they claim, operated from
an ego-driven place and were therefore ineffective in their efforts. Regardless, it is
possible to argue that Red Power rhetoric was indeed a form of self-address, but in the
context of building cultural identity: “… at the same time an individual is engaged in a
rhetorical act for the primary purpose of establishing his own identity to himself, he may
also, acting as a surrogate, aid in the establishment of identities for others.” 29 Lake
27
Paul Chaat Smith and Robert Warrior. Like a Hurricane : the Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee.
(New York, NY: New Press, 1996) viii
28
Richard B. Gregg. "The Ego-Function of the Rhetoric of Protest." Philosophy & Rhetoric 4, no. 2 (Spring 1971): 74
29
Ibid., 75
16
extends Gregg’s claim when he said that in the case of the AIM, “this felt need appears to
be not only or merely psychological, but the demands of an entire weltanschauung.” 30
With a theoretical foundation in place, it is now possible to consider the specific
rhetorical devices We Shall Remain utilizes to advance its purpose. By using a key
moment in Native American history as a touchstone, the producers make a clear argument
for Native people for the need to remain united as a “culture” in the broadest sense of the
world.
The We Shall Remain series premiered at Sundance Film Festival and aired on
PBS in 2009. Its promotional material reads:
We Shall Remain establishes Native history as an essential part of
American history. These five documentaries, spanning almost four
hundred years, tell the story of pivotal moments in US history from the
Native American perspective, upending two-dimensional stereotypes of
American Indians as simply ferocious warriors or peaceable lovers of
the land. We Shall Remain represents an unprecedented collaboration
between Native and non-Native filmmakers and involves Native
advisors and scholars at all levels of the project. 31
The We Shall Remain: America Through Native Eyes series was co-produced by
American Experience (PBS) and Firelight Media, in association with Native American
Public Telecommunications (NAPT). Firelight Media is a non-profit organization
dedicated to developing documentary filmmakers “who tell stories about people, places,
30
Lake, “Enacting Red Power,” 141
31
“We Shall Remain.” PBS.org. 2008-2009.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weshallremain/the_films/episode_5_about
17
cultures, and issues that are underrepresented in the mainstream media.” 32 The mission of
NAPT is to “advance media that represents the experiences, values, and cultures of
American Indians and Alaska Natives.” 33 Its primary constituencies are American Indians
and Alaska Natives producing quality public broadcasting programs; tribal nations, Indian
organizations and Native communities; public television and radio; and finally the general
public and global audience:
34
NAPT exists to serve Native producers and Indian country in
partnership with public television and radio. NAPT works with
Native producers to develop, produce and distribute educational
telecommunications programs for all media including public
television and public radio. NAPT supports training to increase the
number of American Indians and Alaska Natives producing quality
public broadcasting programs, which includes advocacy efforts
promoting increased control and use of information technologies
and the policies to support this control by American Indians and
Alaska Natives. A key strategy for this work is the development of
strong partnerships with tribal nations, Indian organizations and
Native communities. Reaching the general public and the global
market is the ultimate goal for the dissemination of Native produced
media that shares Native perspectives with the world. 35
The documentary’s format includes no dramatic recreation of events with actors or
staging. It consists entirely of the following elements: archival footage of the Wounded
Knee siege and other AIM-related activities of the time; on-camera interviews and
commentary of former AIM members, local community protestors, and governmental
32
Firelight Media. 2011. http://firelightmedia.tv/about/
33
Native American Public Telecommunications. Accessed November 2012. http://www.nativetelecom.org/about_us
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
18
officials; and background narration provided by popular actor Benjamin Bratt (Qechua).
The documentary also features prominent Native scholars Dr. Robert Warrior (Osage),
Director of American Indian Studies at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 36 and
Paul Chaat Smith (Comanche), Assistant Curator of the Smithsonian’s National Museum
of the American Indian 37. They are co-writers of Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement
from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee (1996), a seminal text in American Indian cultural and
historical studies. Both men acted as advisors to the project and provide on-camera
historical and cultural context.
When considering a text such as Native documentary, one that is replete with
historical and cultural significance for its intended viewers, a meaning-centered approach
is warranted. Thomas Benson, in his rhetorical criticism of the Frederick Wiseman
documentary, Primate, stated: “For modern rhetorical criticism, a meaning-centered
approach brings to the text a curiosity not simply about the structure of the text, nor about
the clues to the author revealed by the text, nor about the extent to which the text mirrors
‘reality,’ but also about the ways in which the text invites an audience to make meanings.
The text implies its audience and the interpretive actions of its audience.” 38 With
Benson’s wisdom and models as guideposts, we are better equipped to consider the
meaning and rhetorical techniques contained in We Shall Remain.
36
“American Indian Studies Progam.” University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 2008.
http://www.ais.illinois.edu/people/
37
38
“Paul Chaat Smith.” 2010. http://www.paulchaatsmith.com/bio.html
Thomas Benson. "The Rhetorical Structure of Frederick Wiseman’s Primate.” Quarterly Journal Of Speech 71, no.
2 (May 1985): 204.
19
The documentary uses storytelling techniques and visual imagery that create
profound meaning for its audience. These strong images capture and mirror the rhetorical
techniques the Wounded Knee protestors employed as they found themselves in the
national spotlight. In the interest of space, this essay will focus on specific examples of
imagery and narration that illustrate the three following rhetorical goals: overcoming
internal discord; remembering history and ritual; and cultural unification to advance social
change.
The Wounded Knee protest initially positioned the “enemy” as not necessarily the
federal government, but rather, as an internal one: the corrupt Pine Ridge Reservation
tribal chairman, Richard (Dick) Wilson: 39
Despite the apparent disparity between the protestors' condemnation of the corrupt
practices of a local tribal government and their demand that Native Americans
should be granted the freedom to run their lives "according to their own traditions,"
their condemnation of Richard Wilson was not merely a ruse. In one sense, local
tribal government, as personified by Richard Wilson, was a condensation symbol
for those who had marginalized, oppressed, and sought to destroy Native
Americans and their cultures. He was, in effect, the embodiment of everyone who
had prevented Native Americans from achieving self-determination. In another
sense, Richard Wilson, the man, was a condensation symbol for the false identity
the dominant society had imposed on Native Americans and for all "nontraditional" Native Americans who had given in to the pressures of the dominant
society, who had accepted the mandates of acculturation. 40
This rhetorical strategy is reflected in the documentary itself, as it begins with a
discussion and background images of Wilson as a way to symbolize the internal discord
taking place within Native communities, thereby creating a strong visceral reaction in the
39
Lake, “Enacting Red Power,” 131
40
Morris and Wander, “Native American Rhetoric,” 172
20
Native viewer. Accompanying archival footage of Dick Wilson and his GOON squad
(Guardians of the Oglala Nation) – in addition to graphic images of reservation poverty –
the following is excerpted from the transcript text:
Narrator: The protesters demanded one change close to home. Through a
translator, the Lakota chief Fools Crow called for the immediate ouster of Dick
Wilson, the elected head of the tribal government there on Pine Ridge.
Lakota elder (archival): Wilson molest the Indians. Sometimes threatening them
and so forth. Before the sunset, we want him out of office and there will be no
trouble.
Narrator: By 1973, the Lakota way of life on the plains was largely in the past. The
Oglala Sioux Tribal government ran things on Pine Ridge, and where traditional chiefs
had once sought consensus, elected Chairman Dick Wilson ruled with an iron hand.
Steve Hendricks, writer: He was like a Chicago ward boss from the 1930’s, big flour
sack of a guy, wore dark glasses inside and out, was fond of drinking and uh, brought all
his friends and family and cronies into office with him, effect. Gave them jobs on the
federal payroll.
James Abourezk, former senator: On the Pine Ridge Reservation, as with most
reservations, the tribal chairman and the council have a great deal of power to spread
money around, to spread food around, or to withhold it. Or to favor one part of the
reservation over another, which is what was happening.
Narrator: Wilson favored mixed-race, assimilated Indians like himself, and slighted the
traditional Sioux who spoke their language, practiced their religion, and remained loyal to
the traditional Oglala chiefs.
Reporter (archival): Do you get any help from the tribal council?
Indian woman (archival): No. Dick Wilson’s the president here. He’s the worst one I
think. He’s the-I don’t know he gets the most of everything.
Paul Chaat Smith, writer, Comanche Nation: The federal census, I think every decade
through the mid to end of the 20th Century, show Pine Ridge as the poorest jurisdiction in
the United States. So there’s poverty and then there’s reservation poverty.
Narrator: When traditional Oglalas challenged corruption in tribal government, Dick
Wilson responded with force.
Regina Brave, Pine Ridge resident, Oglala Lakota tribe: He had his own army, which
intimidated, uh, the full-bloods mostly, the traditional people. His GOONs started beating
up the people. And no charges were ever pressed. And if they did, it got thrown out of
court. He controlled the whole reservation.
21
Dick Wilson (archival): There’s been a lot of accusations made here lately, and one in
particular that upsets me is the fact that I am using a goon squad, so to speak. They are
respectable and honest citizens of Pine Ridge.
Goon 1 (archival): We’re all sharpshooters. Tell ‘em the goon squad’s comin’.
Goon 2 (archival): Let’s go and get ‘em!
Narrator: In late 1972, traditional Oglalas came together to push for Wilson’s removal. 41
With an internal enemy clearly defined (as did the original protest), the
documentary then uses strong imagery to highlight key moments in Native history and
traditional spiritual practices. Strong images of Native history and spirituality appeal to
multi-tribal notions of traditionalism, and ultimately serve as a unifying force to combat
enemies, both internal and external.
The image of Wounded Knee itself has strong symbolism for Native audiences. It
presented an ideal opportunity for AIM to take its stand on behalf of Native people.
“Wounded Knee, nothing more than a tiny, isolated bit of South Dakota prairie to most
whites, has great historical significance for Indians. For, in 1890, on the same site, the
Seventh Cavalry of the U.S. Army massacred nearly 300 Sioux men, women, and children
who had gathered for a tribal ceremony, in what is generally acknowledged as the final
battle of the Indian wars. Thus, for militants, the 1973 occupation recaptured premassacre history, and served symbolic notice that the "Indian problem" was not yet
resolved.” 42 By staging the protest at Wounded Knee, the site of the 1890 massacre, the
41
PBS. We Shall Remain, Episode Five: Wounded Knee (Transcript), 4. Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weshallremain/files/transcripts/WeShallRemain_5_transcript.pdf
42
Lake, “Enacting Red Power,” 140
22
protestors “advanced, relied on, and assumed an identity that was a sophisticated mixture
of rhetorical strategy and Native American cultures.” 43
The documentary, too, relies on graphic images of the 1890 massacre as a
rhetorical strategy. The following excerpt depicts the connection between the 1973 event
and the massacre and is accompanied by black and white images of the slain lying frozen
in the snow:
Madonna Thunder Hawk, former AIM member, Two Kettle Lakota: I knew
we were making history for our people. It didn’t all happen in the 1800s. We’re
still fighting in the modern day. I mean that’s how I felt! That, it was a
continuation, and that’s why I was not afraid. I was not afraid.
Narrator: In the 19th century, the Lakota fought furiously to defend their territory
against relentless American expansion. In 1868, embattled Lakota chiefs signed the
Fort Laramie Treaty to protect more than 30 million acres of their land. But the
United States soon reneged, and forced the Lakota onto small, desolate
reservations.
Carter Camp, former AIM leader, Ponca tribe: Americans like to think that
American Indian history is something in the past. I’m one generation removed from
the genocide of my tribe. And every tribe in this country has a time of horror—I
mean a time of absolute horror—when they were confronted by this invader. And
some of it happened almost 500 years ago. But as they come across the plains, our
time of horror came in the late 1800s. And we remember it very well.
Narrator: In the frigid winter of 1890, Chief Big Foot was leading a group of
Lakota, mainly women and children, to shelter on the Pine Ridge reservation. On
the morning of December 29th, they were attacked by the U.S. Army on the banks
of Wounded Knee Creek.
Charlotte Black Elk, Oglala historian, Oglala Lakota tribe: My great
grandmother is Katy War Bonnet. She was a survivor at Wounded Knee. When the
shooting broke out, she and her sister, Kakeek-sa-we, ran down into the ravine and
made it to some plum bushes. And she could hear the firing and the firing and
hollering and then finally it was quiet.
43
Morris and Wander, “Native American Rhetoric,” 174
23
Narrator: More than 300 Lakota people lay dead. After remaining untouched in
the ice and snow for three days, they were buried in a mass grave. The massacre
would mark the brutal end of centuries of armed Indian resistance. For those who
came nearly 100 years later, Wounded Knee was sacred land.
Carter Camp, former AIM leader, Ponca tribe: I walked over to a gully and I
picked up some sage and I went and washed myself and I prayed to those ancestors
that were there in that gully and I said “We’re back. We have returned, my
relations. We-bla-huh.” 44
The power of the rhetorical device is without question, reminding Native viewers
of the tragic history against which they remain united still. As Madonna Thunder Hawk’s
comment in the section above shows, the protestors believed then that the fight for justice
was a continuation of what had transpired in the previous century.
The documentary also depicts historical acts of assimilation, particularly related to
government-run boarding schools and the irreparable harm they caused--harm felt
personally and intimately by the protestors themselves, and many who have followed
after. The following excerpt is accompanied by film and black and white photographs of
Native children in boarding schools:
Dennis Banks, former AIM leader, Ojibwa tribe: There is one dark day in the
lives of Indian children; the day when they are forcibly taken away from those who
love and care for them, from those who speak their language. They are dragged,
some screaming and weeping, others in silent terror, to a boarding school where
they are to be remade into white kids.
Narrator: By the late 19th century, the Indian Wars were over. The United States
seized on a ruthless strategy to assimilate Native children to a subordinate place in
white-dominated society: government run boarding schools.
Dennis Banks, former AIM leader, Ojibwa tribe: I was five years old. My mother
was crying, and they were taking us off and my sister Audrey, who also, you know,
44
PBS. We Shall Remain, Episode Five: Wounded Knee (Transcript), 10-11.
24
was like a second mother to me and a very close friend as a sister and my brother,
Mark, they were very sad. Within two hours or so after the buses filled up and we’re
down the road. This is the furthest I’ve ever been from my home in my life. And
then of course it turns into evening and we arrive at this place…. We all had to strip
down naked, and then they put the DDT on us. They line us up and they’re cutting
our hair. You have long hair, you have braids, and then that gets cut off. And I
would say within a matter of an hour and a half we’re standing there, all looking
alike.
Narrator: Between the 1870s and the 1960s, over 100,000 Indian children were
sent to one of the nearly 500 boarding schools scattered across the United States.
Newsreel (archival): Through the agencies of the government, they are being
rapidly brought from their state of comparative savagery and barbarism to one of
civilization.
Children (archival): Singing “Ten Little Indians”
Dennis Banks, former AIM leader, Ojibwa tribe: You couldn’t sing any native
songs or tribal songs. They just started using English, you could only, you could not
use any other language. We’d whisper, ‘Pass the pa-qua-shi-ga, pa-qua-shi-ga’—
pass the bread over. It’s like I had to be two people. I had to be Nowa Cumig, and I
had to be Dennis Banks. Nowa Cumig is my real name, my Ojibwa name. Dennis
Banks had to be very protective of Nowa Cumig. And so I learned who the
presidents were. And I learned the math. I learned the social studies. I learned the
English, and Nowa Cumig was still there.
Walter Little Moon, Wounded Knee resident, Oglala Lakota tribe: This is
education that was promised us. That was guaranteed us through the treaties, but it
wasn’t. It was torture, brainwashing. They called us many different names. Savage.
Dumb. I got beat for looking like an Indian, smelling like an Indian, even speaking
Indian. Everything I did.
Dennis Banks, former AIM leader, Ojibwa tribe: Their de-Indianization
program, it failed. But, the toll was devastating. It destroyed our family. It destroyed
the relationship we had with our mother. I could never regain that friendshiploveship relationship that I had with my mother. It wasn’t there anymore, and that’s
what, to this day, I keep thinking, you know, ‘damn this government. What it did to
me and what it did to thousands of other children across this country.’ 45
In addition to depicting with great pathos important historical events leading up to
the occupation, the documentary is careful to show how the Wounded Knee protestors
45
PBS. We Shall Remain, Episode Five: Wounded Knee (Transcript), 14.
25
incorporated the use of traditional spiritual practices into the occupation as a strong
rhetorical device. As Randall Lake says, “Considered symbolically, these acts, merely by
being taken, in effect enact tradition, and thereby defeat threats from white society.” 46
Lake also says that “…where the process of gaining white support threatens traditional
Indian culture, militant Indians have chosen tradition, and the ritual self-address which
enacts it, in the belief that the Old Ways offer the only real hope for the long-term
betterment of the Indian condition… .” 47
To illustrate this rhetorical technique, the documentary highlights the protest’s
emphasis on a rejection of white assimilative activity and how it encouraged Native
people to return to traditional ways. It presents many examples of the protestors returning
to traditional “Native” practices, which were based primarily on Sioux tradition but which
opened the door for non-Sioux to enact their own tribal-specific practices. The following
excerpt demonstrates these examples, accompanied by film archival images of the
practices being enacted:
Narrator: … inside the borders of the Independent Oglala Nation, the chiefs and
medicine men introduced Lakota culture to the protesters, many of whom had come
from cities and were disconnected from Indian traditions. 48
Dennis Banks, former AIM leader, Ojibwa tribe: We smudged everybody as they
came up and painted them. When you go off to war if you get killed in battle then
46
Lake, “Enacting Red Power,” 139
47
Ibid., 142
48
PBS. We Shall Remain, Episode Five: Wounded Knee (Transcript), 16.
26
they’ll, then that paint will signify that you went there with the blessings of the pipe
and that you’ll go to the spirit world with great honor.49
Clyde Bellecourt, former AIM leader, White Earth Nation: One of the first
things that we did when we got into Wounded Knee is we built a purification lodge,
an inipi, a sweat lodge. We were all required, everybody was required to go in there
and purify themselves and to pray and ask their creator for help. Everything that we
did was preceded by prayer and gathering, smoking of the sacred pipe and tobacco
offerings, everything. 50
Paul Chaat Smith, writer, Comanche Nation: The Indian Movement was different
than other political movements of the time because it defined itself as a spiritual
movement. Their trajectory in a way mirrors what a lot of the Indian world was
about, which was trying to connect with traditional knowledge, culture, religion. 51
This depiction of return to traditional ways is a natural segue to a third rhetorical
strategy: cultural unification and identification in a broad, “pan-Indian” sense. The
following excerpts from the documentary are accompanied by film archival footage of
Native people from all over the country descending on Wounded Knee in a display of panIndian unity:
Steve Hendricks, writer: One of the things that AIM tried to do was to return
“Indian-ness” to all Indians. Whether folks lived in the city, on reservations,
whether they spoke the language or didn’t speak the language, if you were
Indian, you could sort of return to the tribe.52
Narrator: The news out of South Dakota held Indians around the country
spellbound. Some were ashamed by AIM’s armed display of defiance, but many
were inspired.
49
Ibid.,15
50
Ibid., 16
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid.
27
Ken Tiger, former AIM member, Seminole tribe: I left school and me and
another guy left and we drove in his car from- we were in Central California and we
drove up to Oakland and from Oakland we drove back to South Dakota. Up until
‘73, when it started, I was never involved in anything politically, dealing with, uh,
either Native Americans or any other organization. I just felt like I should go up
there and I did.
Bill Wordham, reporter (archival): You all are not Oglala Sioux, I take it.
Assorted voices (archival): I am, I’m not.
Indian Man #2 (archival): Chippewa.
Bill Wordham, reporter (archival): You’re Chippewa? Where are you from?
Indian Man #2 (archival): Minnesota.
Bill Wordham, reporter (archival): And what about you sir, where are you from?
Indian Man #1 (archival): Winnebago, Wisconsin.
Woman #3 (archival): Cheyenne, Oklahoma.
Bill Wordham, reporter (archival): And you’re not necessarily all members of
AIM, huh?
Indian Man #1 (archival): We didn’t say that.
Bill Wordham, reporter (archival): Are you members of AIM?
Indian Man #1 (archival): We didn’t say that either.
Woman #1 (archival): We’re here to support our Indian people that are in Wounded
Knee. 53
Attempting unification was, for the original protest, a risky venture: “Concerted
efforts to unify Native Americans for purposes of resisting encroachment of the dominant
society and preserving cultural traditions have been infrequent, in part, because Native
Americans are inherently disunified … particularly "traditional" Native Americans, who
53
Ibid., 12-13
28
seek to preserve the traditional cultural patterns of their tribe, to join with another tribe is
to risk losing tribal identity.” 54 Because of a long history of inter- and intratribal discord,
the evolution of a collective, pan-Indian identity has been extremely significant – and
prominent – in Native rhetoric. The documentary, by featuring prominently all the tribes
who came together in support of the protest, successfully continues this rhetorical intent.
CONCLUSION
This essay has attempted to demonstrate how the contemporary documentary, We
Shall Remain: America Through Native Eyes (Episode Five: Wounded Knee)
accomplished a number of rhetorical strategies. While it reminded the general public of
key moments in Native American (and hence, American) history, as a Native-produced
work, however, its primary audience was not the general public, but rather, other Native
people. For this audience, the documentary extends far beyond merely reiterating a
moment in history; rather, it continues the rhetoric of the historical protest it is revisiting.
The documentary used rhetorical techniques replete with meaning for Native
audiences: imagery and testimony of past history, traditional spiritual and cultural
practices, and ultimately, the ongoing quest to empower and unify Native people in the
pan-Indian sense. The producers make no definitive judgment on the militant tactics of
the American Indian Movement, but leave that particular question for audiences to
contemplate. The recent death of controversial figure Russell Means has reopened old
wounds and new sets of questions regarding the motives of some of AIM’s leaders, nearly
54
Morris and Wander, “Native American Rhetoric,” 167
29
40 years after the Wounded Knee occupation. Means’ obituary in the New York Times
stated, “critics, including many Indians, called him a tireless self-promoter who
capitalized on his angry-rebel notoriety…” 55 Many others in the Native community still
regard him – and other AIM leaders – as heroic.
Regardless, what is clear from the documentary is that its rhetorical purpose was
fulfilled: to give Native people a voice, to perpetuate traditional tribal values in a
contemporary world, and to come together in a broad “pan-Indian” sense to advance social
change. The final excerpt of the documentary captures this purpose:
Robert Warrior, writer, Osage Nation: The good that came out of Wounded
Knee was the entry into American Indian political life of people who had not
been there before, who had not had a real voice. People learned they could tackle
problems, create opportunities. And I think that coming out of Wounded Knee,
people knew they could make a difference.
Ken Tiger, former AIM member, Seminole tribe: There was a lot of sense of
‘we’re important and we can do something within our own people, our own tribe,
our own homes.’ I didn’t go back to what I was doing before. I felt maybe I can
do something to help, not only my people, but other people, too.
Narrator: Native activism would spur the revitalization of Native cultures. In the
years following the siege at Wounded Knee, Indians would create tribal schools
and cultural institutions charged with preserving Indian traditions—and passing
them on.
Paul Chaat Smith, writer, Comanche Nation: In the late 60s and early 70s,
these were still emerging ideas about reconnecting with traditional culture,
language, religion that was starting to happen. But this became the majority
sentiment in the space of just a handful of years. It was really about identity. It
55
Robert D. McFadden. “Russell Means, Who Clashed With Law as He Fought for Indians, Is Dead at 72.” The New
York Times (October 22, 2012). Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/us/russell-means-american-indianactivist-dies-at-72.html?smid=pl-share
30
was about affirming we’re still here, we want to be here, and we want to be here
on our own terms.
John Trudell, former AIM leader, Santee Sioux tribe: Whatever went on in
the 60s and 70s, it’s an extension, it’s a continuation. It was no different than
what King Phillip was about, or Crazy Horse was about. And whatever means
and manner we could, since the Europeans arrived here, we’ve had to fight for
our survival.
Charlotte Black Elk, Oglala historian, Oglala Lokota tribe: What the 1973
occupation did was people started saying ‘Hey, we’re Indians. It’s okay to be
Indian. We are Indian, we really should be who we are.’ The struggle that we
have in the 21st Century is to remain ourselves. Every one of us has to do our
part to remain Lakota, to remain Indian and to teach our children, to teach our
grandchildren and make sure that there will be children sitting in sweat lodge,
standing at the sun dance in a thousand years.56
Through Native eyes, the ultimate rhetorical effect of the Red Power movement
was seemingly successful decades after the fact. The ultimate rhetorical effect of We Shall
Remain and similar Native-produced documentary, to achieve a continuation of the
movement’s rhetoric, is the topic of another paper, for another day, perhaps for another
scholar.
#
56
PBS. We Shall Remain, Episode Five: Wounded Knee (Transcript), 24
31
References
Benson, Thomas. "The Rhetorical Structure of Frederick Wiseman’s Primate.” Quarterly
Journal Of Speech 71, no. 2 (May 1985): 204-217.
Cagle, Chris. "Postclassical Nonfiction: Narration in the Contemporary Documentary."
Cinema Journal 52, no. 1 (Fall 2012): 45-65.
Finnegan, Cara. “Studying Visual Modes of Public Address: Lewis Hine’s ProgressiveEra Child Labor Rhetoric,” The Handbook of Public Address, (2010): 250-270.
Firelight Media. 2011. http://firelightmedia.tv/about/
Gregg, Richard B. "The Ego-Function of the Rhetoric of Protest." Philosophy & Rhetoric
4, no. 2 (Spring 1971): 71-91.
Grierson, John. Grierson on Documentary, ed. Forsyth Hardy. Los Angeles, CA:
University of California Press, 1966.
Lake, Randall A. "Enacting Red Power: The Consummatory Function in Native American
Protest Rhetoric.” Quarterly Journal Of Speech 69, no. 2 (May 1983): 127-142.
Leuthold, Steve. "Rhetorical Dimensions of Native American Documentary." Wicazo Sa
Review 16, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 55-73.
Lucas, Stephen E. "Genre Criticism and Historical Context: The Case of George
Washington’s First Inaugural Address.” Southern Speech Communication Journal
51, no. 4 (June 1986): 354-370.
McFadden, Robert D.. “Russell Means, Who Clashed With Law as He Fought for Indians,
Is Dead at 72.” The New York Times (October 22, 2012). Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/us/russell-means-american-indian-activistdies-at-72.html?smid=pl-share
Miller, Carolyn R. "Genre as Social Action." Quarterly Journal Of Speech 70, no. 2 (May
1984): 151-167.
Morris, R. and Wander, P. “Native American Rhetoric: Dancing in the Shadows of the
Ghost Dance,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, no. 2. (1990): 164-191.
Native American Public Telecommunications. Accessed November
2012.http://www.nativetelecom.org/about_us
32
Nichols, Bill. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1991.
PBS. “We Shall Remain.” PBS.org. 2008-2009.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weshallremain/the_films/episode_5_about
PBS. We Shall Remain, Episode Five: Wounded Knee (Transcript). 1-24. Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weshallremain/files/transcripts/WeShallRemain_5
_transcript.pdf
Plantinga, Carl. 2005. "What a Documentary Is, After All." Journal Of Aesthetics & Art
Criticism 63, no. 2: 105-117.
Reel Injun: On the Trail of the Hollywood Indian. Accessed December 2012.
http://www.reelinjunthemovie.com/site/the-film/
Rich-Heape Films, Inc,: A Native American Owned Corporation. Accessed December
2012. http://richheape.com/company.htm.
Ruby, Jay. "Speaking for, Speaking about, Speaking with, or Speaking alongside: An
Anthropological and Documentary Dilemma.” Journal Of Film & Video 44, no. ½
(Summer 1992): 42-66.
Smith, Paul Chaat and Robert Warrior. Like a Hurricane: the Indian Movement from
Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York, NY: New Press, 1996.
Todd, Loretta . "What More Do They Want?" In Indigena: Contemporary Native
Perspectives in Canadian Art, ed. Gerald McMaster and Lee-Ann Martin (Ottawa:
Canadian Museum of Civilization, 1992), 71.