The Problem of Representation in Black Hawk

The problem of reading Life of Black Hawk is in the interpretation and translation of the original text (meaning Black Hawk’s oratory in his own language). These layers of control and editing problematize what ended up in print. That said, in the context of this filtered process, I want to consider how Black Hawk is represented in the text as an image of difference that confirms the audience’s expectations and inevitably hampers what voice he might have in the narrative.

For the most part, Black Hawk’s story is told in eloquent prose. With the exception of names, his speech in his native tongue is translated into relatively flawless English. But there are a few cases where instead of choosing the English equivalent for a word, the writer instead chooses an English interpretation of a word or phrase that is particularly “Indian” sounding. For example, instead of using the English word “soldier,” the writer says “brave;” instead of general, he says “chief;” instead of leader, he says “father” (ie: American father, British father, Great father). “Black Hawk” even refers to the White House as the Great father’s “wigwam,” even though he often used the word “lodge” to describe his own house.

All of these choices serve to reify ideas about how Indians speak and think. Maureen Konkle says, “Native writers in English are thus most successful in expressing their Indian identity when they provide evidence of what is understood as their culture through themes, forms, narratives, and figures correlated with the oral tradition written down by scholars” (458). Though Black Hawk did not write this narrative, I think the result is the same because he is represented in a way that the audience would expect. The effect of this choice is that the Indians’ difference is established – they do not think or behave in the same ways as white people, even when they are writing and speaking in English. Konkle confirms that “the positing of inherent difference between Indians and Europeans is a crucial step in denying Indians’ political status” (458).

I think this is generally true about how Black Hawk is represented in the text, but the consistent use of “father” when speaking about white leaders who offered guidance, trade, political help, military assistance, or who simply occupied a place of power, particularly functions to destabilize the Indians’ autonomy. Instead of establishing the leaders of the white people and the leaders of the Indians on equal footing, the rhetoric of father/children positions the Sauks as inferior and dependent. Konkle points out the conflict, noting that “Native tribes are simultaneously politically autonomous with respect to internal government and in the familiar colonial position of inferiority and permanent ‘pupilage’” (463).

So though I really enjoyed Life of Black Hawk, and it was not nearly as patronizing or white-washed as I expected, the layers of control and translation serve to impose the readers’ culture onto the text, altering the meaning and softening its blow against the injustices of the whites.