Native Americans and Public Memory
The discussion surrounding how Native Americans were treated earlier in U.S. history and how American’s today should approach and address the subject, has in recent years grown and become part of many polarizing political debates. The dialogue regarding the treatment of minorities in the U.S. seems to be growing and expanding in many different directions, to the extent where it appears to be completely unknown in what direction these differences in opinion will lead our country. In this essay, I hope to address and perhaps shed some light on how these conflicts have emerged and what can be done to create a more unified country.
President Trump announced that he planned to celebrate the fourth of July 2020 at Mount Rushmore. This announcement evoked some real questions about the current Native American experience and status in the U.S. It also cast a shadow on, and put into question the very existence of the faces that were carved into the former Black Hills. For many Natives, Mount Rushmore stands as a “symbol of oppression, especially offensive because it is located in South Dakota's Black Hills, which they regard with reverence.” (Lantry, para. 5) This means that we are dealing with something sacred that was taken away and trampled on by invaders. It is no wonder why the idea of organizing a “tremendous evening” (Lantry, para. 2) at this location was not taken well by the Native Americans living in the area.
Similar to the Mount Rushmore conflict, a proposition put forth by Jason Arp to create and celebrate “Wayne Day” was easy to perceive as a political publicity stunt with an agenda in mind. The Wayne Day concept was different, however, in the fact that it was not attempting to use a place that already existed on a holiday that already existed. It was an attempt to build something completely new. Arp Pitched this new idea claiming that a true American should “thank Anthony Wayne for the fact that we even have a United States of America.” (Savage, para 3) According to Arp, General Wayne was a hero who helped with the formation of America. For others, Wayne was someone who killed many of their kin while stealing their land.
The divide that is echoed in the Mount Rushmore and Fort Wayne instances is not isolated in nature. Such arguments regarding the virtue or horror of particular figures or events in U.S. history have been occurring for quite some time now, manifesting in a variety of ways. But what is the root of such conflict found even between neighbors and friends? Where do such opposing views stem from?
This contrast between views and approaches to various moments in history emerges from the stories we are told and the way in which they are told to us. (These stories are what comprise “Public Memory.”) Two people can be recounting the same event yet the protagonist and antagonist are switched according to which version of the event you choose to follow. Opposing relayed realities result in opposing opinions about how to treat the past present and future. In many instances, this kind of friction comes from the clash between official and vernacular memory. “Adherents to official and vernacular interests demonstrate conflicting obsessions.” (Bondar, page 15) Official memory strives to create general idealistic images of the past present and future and attempts to keep, even complex issues, in simple order. Conversely, vernacular memory is realistic, multifaceted, and compiled from specific and personal experiences.
I do not think that vernacular and national memory cannot coincide. I think that it is about time that American’s acknowledge both sides of the debates about our past. We should be realistic in our approach to the present and inspire and aspire to a more optimistic, even idealistic future. By fusing the vernacular with the national memory, perhaps we can achieve an overall healthier public memory, ensuring a better future for generations to come.