Twenty years after its first publication, H. David Brumble III offers a revised American Indian Autobiography. He does this in light of two criticisms. First, critics have challenged his assertion that “it is possible to separate Indian from editor/amanuensis” in early preliterate as-told-to autobiographies (vi). Second, Brumble was accused of not giving enough credence to the preferences of American Indians in regards to the material they chose to present.
In response, Brumble defends his original assertion, and demonstrates that with a little discernment the separation between editor and American Indian author can be drawn, thereby bringing stylistic cultural distinctions to the forefront. In fact, he says that these autobiographies are actually bicultural documents. They tell of two personalities, two cultures. In regards to the second criticism, Brumble shows the ways in which American Indians have selected the material for their autobiographies, by examining the history of American Indian autobiography as a whole.
Brumble argues that the lineage of the American Indian autobiography parallels the history of Western autobiography in many ways, hence his comparison throughout the book between American Indian autobiographies and the autobiographies of ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. This lineage begins an era in which the predominant influence is that of the white, Anglo editor who radically transforms traditional American Indian oral narratives to fit Western aesthetics. Next, there is a period where American Indians begin to write their own autobiographies. But, according to Brumble, these works are representational of acculturation. The writers generally do not maintain their cultural traditions of oral narrative, nor do they tell of a traditional lifestyle. Rather, most write to please a Western audience, and their writings show signs of romanticism and nostalgia, rather than first-hand experience. The lineage then comes full circle when American Indian writers return to the traditions of American Indian oral narratives, thereby reinventing and transforming this autobiographical tradition.
In chapter 1, Brumble begins with the pre-literate as-told-to autobiographies of the late 1800s, highlighting the ways in which they were shaped to fit Western ideals of autobiography. A case in point, he says, is that these autobiographies are presented in chronological order. The American Indian authors would not have told their tales in such a fashion. Neither would they have begun with their earliest childhood memories, even though this is how the as-told-to autobiographies are presented. Rather, American Indian tales are episodic and the focus is on one’s activities as an adult. Unlike the editors’ preoccupation with childhood psychological development and individualism, it is one’s deeds as an adult (and their contribution to the community as a whole) that are important in pre-literate Indian culture. Another example is the omission of repetition in as-told-to autobiographies, which “in many tribes...was a rhetorical feature in oral narrative” (11). Again, this omission is indicative of the accommodation to Western aesthetics.
In chapter 2, Brumble further illustrates the assertions laid out in chapter 1 by discussing three autobiographies: one representational of a traditional, pre-literate, pseudo pre-contact Indian autobiography, the second representing the narrative of an Indian who was well acquainted with and somewhat acculturated into white, Anglo, Christian society, and a third that falls somewhere in the middle. This discussion illustrates the difference between as-told-to versus self-written autobiography. Plus, it illustrates a pivotal period of this genre’s history--how in the one instance it is the white, Anglo editor who transforms the oral traditions of the original material to suit a Western audience, and in the other case it is the American Indian author who has “learned a good deal about her white audience” (71), and thus adapts her writing.
Chapter 3 focuses on the Anglo editors. Brumble first talks about the different kinds of relationships they had with their American Indian informants. Next, he offers a description of three types of editors: absent editors, self-conscious editors, and the editor who offers a personal account. According to Brumble, the writing of absent editors typifies modern Western autobiography in that the uniqueness of self and/or personal self-development is central to the narrative. What is more, these editors adhere to the “Organic Imperative” (76). They “feel compelled to turn all the stories into a continuous narrative” (76-77). Self-conscious editors are those who try to empathize with American Indians and preserve their point of view. They try to maintain the integrity of the narratives “as they were told” (84). Stylistically, these editors do little to influence the original material. Plus, they often present the material from multiple points of view (87). The third type of editor, Brumble explains, is one who offers a personal account. It is obvious that the “I” is the recorder/observer, not the American Indian. These editors feel that “absolute objectivity is impossible.” Thus, they confess all biases and offer totally subjective accounts.
Chapter 4 is a specific cross comparison between American Indian autobiographies and autobiographies of ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Again, the focus is on issues like self-development, relevance of childhood, the influence of psychology, and individualism. But, the role of the social scientific perspective is also taken into account. In chapter 5 Brumble extends the comparison by drawing a parallel between two autobiographies (one from each tradition): Paul Radin’s collaboration with Blowsnake and Augustine’s Confessions.
Chapter 6 takes a look at Albert Hensley’s autobiography, because this text demonstrates an awareness of two distinct audiences as well as an ability to adapt to the two quite separate autobiographical traditions. Namely, it tries to please the Western aesthetic and remain true to original American Indian oral narrative traditions. The result, as Brumble writes, is a series of what he calls autobiographical anomalies--things that one would not expect to see in this genre of writing, such as a broken-up narrative and a lack of explanation as to “how one’s experiences have led exactly to this life, this self, and no other” (137). What is more, Hensley’s work is indicative of American Indian sentiments regarding acculturation. There is a sense of what was left behind as well as what was taken on.
Chapter 7 is another study of a specific autobiography, Charles Alexander Eastman’s, since he “is the first [American Indian] author who tries self-consciously to write an autobiography after the modern, Western fashion” (147). According to Brumble, Eastman (like the self-conscious editors before him) tries to preserve as much as possible the real American Indian tradition, but his sense of authenticity is founded on romantic and nostalgic notions. Moreover, Eastman’s writing demonstrates a genuine sense of the need for preservation--a need to “set it down before it vanishes” (154).
Chapter 8 shows how the lineage comes full circle. Brumble explains how the fore-mentioned sense of loss sparked a return to the original traditions of American Indian oral narratives. A prime example of this is the work of N. Scott Momaday, who abandons the typical modern Western style of autobiography and returns to a pre-literate mode. For example, Momaday chooses a style where there is “no continuous, chronological order” (166). Another case in point is that Momaday emphasizes the three components of traditional American Indian identity, the three types of memory: “the mythical, the historical, and the immediate” (176). In this way, early pre-literate American Indian oral narrative shapes modern American Indian autobiography, thereby bringing the lineage back to its roots.
While Brumble provides adequate support for his argument and offers many autobiographical examples (as well as an annotated bibliography of the works mentioned in the book), he falls short in offering a revision of his previous work. In the past twenty years there has been an explosion of American Indian autobiographical writing. An additional chapter referencing and examining this immense body of work would have brought his research up to date. Further, it would have shed light on his theory regarding the parallel between American Indian autobiographies and those of ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, which is weak to say the least. Just mentioning that there is a parallel does not make it so. What is more, Brumble’s work at times is glaringly androcentric—only one reference to a female American Indian autobiography! Admittedly, there are few, perhaps only one, female American Indian autobiographies from the 1800s, but had Brumble included a few of the numerous female American Indian autobiographies written in the last twenty years he would have offered a more balanced, accurate portrayal. Ultimately, a revision should be more than defending your previous argument, especially when so much time has elapsed between publications.
--------
[Review length: 1399 words • Review posted on November 19, 2008]