Argueta 1

Mila Argueta

ENG 314

4 April 2017

Researched Analysis

How Buried Guilt Leads to Voluntary Submission:

Thomas King’s Response to Willa Cather

In his critique of Willa Cather’s Death Comes for the Archbishop, Graham’s analysis

presents new understanding concerning the subtleties of colonial powers’ hold on the Indian’s

past, present, and future. Although he commends Cather for her in-depth research, he discovers

that her novel presents identities and characters that ignore the incurred guilt of their actions. He

reveals,

But for all the importance of the novel's hard facts—the incursions it charts, the atrocities

it exposes, the silenced voices it listens for—its most distinctive achievement is its

portrait of the nineteenth-century American mind, especially that mind's desire to make

peace with its own belligerence...the US past had been bloody, but also...its violence had

depended on the unique ability of Americans to reconcile themselves to it. (Graham 48)

Although subtle, Cather presents paradoxical identities who, built up by stature and supposed

well doing, are enabled to bury their guilt and excuse their continual misconduct.

Cather relates this guilty conscience most completely through her stately, and widely-

respected protagonist, Archbishop Latour. Latour is a man who can be seen as a bridge between

cultures, while also reconciling himself to the violent conquest performed by his colonial

brothers. By the end of the novel he overcomes this guilt through his belief that he has seen “two

great wrongs righted...the end of black slavery, and…the Navajos restored to their own
 Argueta 2

country"(Cather 290). Although he sees these instances of slavery and exile as wrongs, he words

them as accidental or ignorant failures of his colonial friends. This is exemplified through

descriptive words like “misguided” and “under orders” to describe those like his friend, Kit

Carson, who performed colonialism’s dirty deeds by ravaging and murdering innocent Indians

(Cather 291). As Graham expounds, “Death Comes for the Archbishop, which among other

things meditates on how Americans shield themselves from troubling knowledge and absolve

themselves from crimes that the state commits in their names”(Graham 48). Under such

descriptions that redirected guilt, the American colonialists were able to reconcile their actions,

then further their personal gain. Graham argues that “Cather's America proclaims its

commitment to cultural diversity even as it forces the continent's peoples under one flag; it

values peace even as it stays on a war footing; and it aspires to make its citizens free even as it

enslaves a great many of them” (Graham 58). In order to truly conquer, these “freedom-loving”

imperialists overcame the obstacles of guilt and opposition by sequestering the Indians, stealing

their lands, and Americanizing them through their religions and language (The Truth About

Stories 45). These actions did not just intend to subdue the Indian nations, they intended to make

them disappear from the minds of the larger populace by creating them into something else and

propagating the idea that the Indian was a legend of the past. These intentions would prove

successful and even inspire artists beyond Cather, like photographer Edward Sheriff Curtis, to

heroically dedicate their careers to capturing and writing about the dying Indian (The Truth

About Stories 32). These constructs were buried so deep that the Indian became enslaved to this

hegemony. Indians, who are very much alive today, desire its removal, and this ideology is

attacked by various contemporary Indian authors.

 Argueta 3

Native author Thomas King responds and attacks this guilty conscience and colonial-

abandonment ideology as he depicts its effects on two Indian communities in his novel Truth and

Bright Water. Although he confronts commonly depicted detriments to the Indian community, he

does so in a unique way. His novel is full of unanswered questions. These unanswered questions

are a way to emphasize that answers to colonialism are not easy to find, and when solutions are

presented, they do not always take the expected form. Although his characters’ lives, and the

community that envelops them, point out ills and the necessary reactions that have been caused

because of the subjugation and erasing of the Indian, these same individuals also agree, and at

times fall into common stereotypes constructed by initial, hegemonic ideologies. This

unexpected conformation, however, is King’s way of showing how powerful the dogmas and

abuses of colonialism are on not only in the larger society, but in the very lives of its victims.

Imperialist special ability to transform and bury their guilt leads to the Indian’s surrender through

reconciling themselves to the colonial influences and stereotypes.

The most far-reaching tactics used by colonialists to bury their guilt are especially

brought to light by Monroe Swimmer as he points out the missing presence of Indians and seeks

to restore them. In a subtly powerful dialogue between Monroe and Tecumseh, Monroe almost

casually states that he was constantly being fired for painting Indians back into the landscape.

Monroe explains that these past employers would hire him for what he did best--- restore

paintings. Although Monroe was skilled, museums would soon let him go because he would go

the extra mile and restore the “villages and the Indians back into the painting” (King 133).

Monroe insists that he had not intentionally done this, but that the Indians were meant to be there

in the first place, and were bleeding through. This emphasized the imperialist’s attempts to hide

past atrocities by getting rid of or hiding the Indian from their rightful and initial homes. In this
 Argueta 4

scene of recognition and restoration, Monroe is presented as a character who focuses on the ideal

to correct historical fallacies and to reconstruct the invisible Indian in a restorative process.

Like the scene above, King hints at these ideals to correct literary and historical fallacies

through seemingly meaningless interactions with Monroe throughout Truth and Bright Water.

One of the most telling of these scenes is Monroe’s choice to sing Oklahoma! as a dedicatory

song for the buffaloes he and Tecumseh set up throughout the landscape. This anomaly hints at a

deeper theme involving Indian Territory and the withdrawal of the Indian from the arts and land.

There are many surprising facts connecting Oklahoma! to Monroe’s restorative process, among

which lies the inspiration to this musical’s success, Green Grow the Lilacs. This foundational

play is the work of Lynn Riggs, a Cherokee descendant (Mohler 63-75). Such strong connections

to Native American culture come unexpectedly when taking into account that the new addition of

the piece, Oklahoma!, centers itself on very white people and conflicts. However, as Courtney

Mohler analyzes, this is the case because as he asserts, “all Indians must be played by non-Indian

actors, because all Indians are dead” (Mohler 63-75). This ideology of a hegemonic Caucasian

race attempting to erase a group from history in order to escape some truth, ties in very well with

Monroe’s counter attempts. As Oklahoma! seeks to deny the existence of the Native American,

Monroe seeks to rediscover them. Just like Monroe’s paintings, the Native Americans have been

removed from their proper lands. These missing Indians go beyond the actors of the play or

paintings in a museum; in fact, Oklahoma! shows that these Indians have been hidden and

removed within history itself.

In addition to showing how society has subverted the Indian in the arts, Monroe’s choice

of dedicatory music further shows how this removal and disappearance became a ploy to divert

attention from the guilt-ridden colonial acts within Oklahoma history itself. Monroe points at this
 Argueta 5

specific history as he states that “nineteenth century landscapes were his specialty,” a period

whose players would lead up to the underlying conflicts within Oklahoma! (King 129). As the

play begins, it is understood that Oklahoma is finally making its way to statehood, but what it

fails to mention is that it does this while supplanting Indian Territory and the various nations that

had been displaced there (The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture). This formal

relocation began with Thomas Jefferson’s attempts to deal with “the Indian problem” by

proposing an “Indian colonization zone” (The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture).

When whites happened upon the promises and open lands of the west, they began to push this

zone to its limits. Finally, by the early nineteenth century, the Removal Act was forcefully

removing Indians and relocating them (The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture).

These new territories would be reduced to the state of Oklahoma where three dozen tribes would

have to reside (The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture). Oklahoma! picks up there.

It is a play depicting events that would displace the Indians from a territory to which they had

already been displaced. Once again, whites would overtake the land, gain statehood, and govern

Oklahoma. All this background information creates heavy irony in the use of the play’s title song

by a past resident of one of those “relocation zones.” Monroe however, seems to be aware of this

irony. He chooses a song that was written by a Cherokee, in the Cherokee style, in order to relate

and restore hidden Cherokee history (Mohler 63-75). A history he attempts to bring back through

recreations like his depictions of the landscape before colonial entities like religion buried or

transformed it. These restorations of churches and paintings are reminiscent of Cather’s “one

flag” that would lead to one religion, one education, and one language. In the end, his buffalo

and the ritual ceremony he uses to dedicate them follow his attempts to uncover and restore the

true order of things. He seeks to put things back the way they truly were.
 Argueta 6

As if in answer to the denial present in Cather’s work and other American fantasies,

Thomas King puts them on trial by pointing readers to histories that might have been covered

through romanticized historical depictions like Oklahoma!. In the end, nothing that Monroe does

or says seems to be by accident. His performance of Oklahoma! is a prime example of this. It

relates a history of hidden truths, and hegemonic lies. As shown through Mohler’s studies and

historical context, it brings to light a white-washed history that Monroe seeks to paint over.

Although Monroe is able to restore and act against this suppression of truths and people,

most of the other characters find these effects hard to work against. These characters fall into a

futile submission. Thomas King expresses these failures as a representation of how present-day

Indians must respond to a national ideology that continues to sequester, suppress, and

romanticize the Indian. This adoration of the ancient Indian, and dismissal and mistreatment of

the actual and present one, creates many problems for these characters and other Indians,

including economic instabilities and obstacles in achievement. This ideology is so forceful that it

extends into these modern-day-Indians’ views of themselves. They see their futures behind bars,

or believe they have to aim low to avoid disappointment. The most poignant example of this is

Lucy’s explanation of why Marilyn Monroe’s Indian ancestry was hidden. She explains, “Well

you would want to keep something like that secret now” (King 19). In the end, to be an actual

Indian is not a happy or hopeful truth.

The reason this ideology does not promote a happy future is shown by Thomas King’s

ironic insight in his essay, “You’re Not the Indian I Had in Mind.” He emphasizes that the

general Indian culture is overused in advertising, from butter to baseball. He theorizes that

leaving the population to see the Native Americans through a general “authentic” identity,

instead of revealing the truth of their individuality, leads to unrealistic expectations. In fact, he
 Argueta 7

goes so far as to say, “I suppose, a violation of the physical laws governing matter and

antimatter, that the Indian and Indians cannot exist in the same imagination” (The Truth About

Stories 36). The governing culture may see and even revere the general and stereotypical Indian

while neglecting and mistreating the individual. He questions this as he states, “Yet how can

something that has never existed – the Indian - have form and power while something that is

alive and kicking - Indians - are invisible?” (The Truth About Stories 53). In his novel, Thomas

King upsets this hegemony as he portrays the genuine and individual “Indian.” He emphasizes

the larger culture’s failings in their honoring of the superficial Native American culture while

continuing in the mistreatment of its individuals.

Thomas King shows this hypocrisy of current and past culture through a superficial

appreciation of the Indian that verge on mockery. This can be seen through the supposed

admiration that the Germans have for the Indians. They are such devotees to this Native

American image, that there is never a lack of Germans impersonating the “authentic” Indian at

Indian Days. They come in feathers, and other iconic Indian paraphernalia. Little does it matter

that the Indian they admire is long in the past, and there is not a character in Truth or Bright

Water that resembles this commercial identity in the least. Although this image of the iconic

Indian is false, it allows events, like Indian Days, to happen—which turns out to be some of the

only possibilities for economic progression and survival of these Native Americans. They must

be superficial in order to be supported by society.

An example of this need to be superficial is evidenced through Monroe’s story. The

rumors come together to show that Monroe left to make it big in the city, but had many failings.

However, it is later related that, “Monroe got lucky, he landed in Toronto just as being an Indian

was becoming chic…” (King 27). Monroe did not succeed because he had sincere artistic
 Argueta 8

ability—which he does indeed have—but because the trending, general, and “chic” Native

American became popular. While culture revered the iconic Indian, Thomas King counters that

they fail to respect the “real”, Native American. This lack of respect is painfully exemplified

through Indian Days where all the Native Indians leave because, as Lucy ironically points out,

“[There was] no room left for the Indians” (King 221). Because white culture has replaced the

victimized Indian with the legendary spiritual and headdress-donning, “authentic” Indian, there

is no room for the actual Indian to celebrate or progress in their own existence.

This apathy toward the individual is evident in the way the characters see themselves, and

the opportunities they are not given. Lum, when responding to the eccentric Lucy, angrily but

accurately states, “Lucy wants to be Marilyn Monroe because no one gives a damn about

Indians, but everybody likes blondes” (King 21-22). Through the lives of these specific Indian

characters, his opinion of apathy held in regards to the Indian people holds true. For example, no

one cared when the bridge was left dangerously unfinished, and no one cares that these Indian

people have little chance for upward movement and success. A blatant confirmation of this is

shown through Tecumseh’s indifference as he logically decides, “While Wally is nice enough, he

always hires the white guys before he hires Indians” (King 40-41). It is not something he is

necessarily angry about or desires to change. Rather, he accepts it as part of how life is. This is

similar to how Lum treats the large percentage of Indians in prison as commonplace fact and a

sort of fate. It is the Indian’s fate, according these Indians to remain on the fringes of society.

This belief is repeated through lines like, “Toronto had more Indians than it wanted already”

(King 26). In that case, they are nothing more than nuisances who rarely contribute to society

except to bring on an unwanted rise in population. It is for this reason, this neglect, that the
 Argueta 9

Indians in Truth in Bright Water desire to, and must fall into, common stereotypes further than

imprisonment, or costumes.

Although King subtly, but poignantly puts colonialism on trial by bringing to light its

suppression of truths that would emphasize guilt, and by using the reconciliation of the Indians to

its effects as defense, he also questionably presents characters that fall into the hegemonic

stereotypes placed on Indians by the larger culture. The most apparent of these stereotypes

presented within the novel surround the breakdown of Tecumseh and Lum’s families. Their

families include the stereotypical alcoholic, the abusive father, the jobless aunt that cannot or

does not want to escape the reservation, and the all-wise grandmother. King however seeks to

emphasize these stereotypes, and relate their reality as a way to symbolize society’s failings and

to express how colonialism has forced Indians into a fatalistic future where the Indians’

conditions force them into larger stereotypes.

One of the ways he uses these stereotype to evoke society’s failings is in the awkward

and slightly humorous relationships among parents and children. These relationships relate

tensions beyond those shown on the surface. In an interview, Thomas King relates the

significance of the failure of the adults within the lives of these adolescents to the life of the

Native American. Beyond an emphasis of a failed father figure close to home, King expresses

that the lack of parental and adult guidance in the lives of Tecumseh and Lum were his way of

connecting them to the greater Indian society. He clarifies, “…One thing I wanted to get at was

that there is no salvation for these kids within the community. There is no one there to protect

them because in many cases what's happened to Native peoples is they've wound up in a position

where they're hardly able to protect themselves”(Andrews 168). Knowing that the absence or

neglect of the adults in this story is parallel to the neglect of the Indians by larger societies,
 Argueta 10

transforms various scenes and characters throughout the book, especially Elvin and Tecumseh.

One of the greatest deficiencies between Tecumseh and his father is their unproductive dialogue.

When Tecumseh is seeking answers concerning a woman, his father responds with condoms

(King 37). A common ploy that Elvin uses, is to relate all of his son’s problems to sexuality,

which is a reflection of his own struggles. Elvin, like outside culture, cannot get the problem

right, and so fails to find a solution. In so doing, the culture’s solution often reflects the answer

they have given to their own downfalls. Elvin, as a failed and alcoholic father, represents that

one of society’s solutions is the ideal of taking no action by disguising and ignoring the problem.

These failed solutions, resulting in the reserves, might be seen as similar to Elvin’s ill-

fated reconciliatory decisions transferred and presented by the white culture. They can be found

as the cause of the conformation to these stereotypes. Again, these supposed solutions have never

fully healed the relationship, or proven beneficial for the Native Americans who, as shown

through these fictional characters, face problems like unemployment, suicide, imprisonment, and

alcoholism because of the restrictive reserves. These are truths are affirmed through Lucy’s

comparisons of the Indians sad predicament to Marilyn Monroe’s fate. She frankly states, “She

died young, of drugs. Sounds like an Indian to me” (King 200). This occurs because as the

greater society continues to ignore their failings, they rid their minds of the problem by keeping

the Indians in the far away corners of their world, saying that they will “eventually fix it”. This

abandonment has led Indians to be trapped in stereotypes. Not only do they abandon them to

reserves, but they continually put off the solution by trying to find the “Indian” they think is lost.

During Indian Days, a group of tourists say they came in search of “Real Indians” because all the

Indians they knew were in prison. They fall into the hegemonic ideal of the spiritual and

honorable Indian and deny any other individual that title. Because of this, it is impossible for
 Argueta 11

those Indians in prison be real, to be found, or to be helped. In fact, why should the Canadian

tourists care about those Indians when it is their ignorance that makes it more likely for Indians

to enter and stay in those prisons? In addition, there is very little difference between a prison and

a reserve: both seek to enforce reform, lesson opportunities for economic growth, and lead their

prisoners to fall into stereotypes. So, while literature along with these Canadian tourists often

present and believe the stereotypical version of the Indian, it is because they are looking into

another dimension invented and propagated through fantasy; a fantasy that continues while many

real Indians remain imprisoned and are left to only exist and somewhat progress if they pretend

to be participants in that world.

Beyond portraying Indians in history and literature in a way that would erase American

responsibility, Thomas King shows that society today continues to avoid solutions by

romanticizing the Indian. Because if they are nothing more than legend, then the atrocities

associated with them can be nothing more than folk tales. Sherman Alexie affirms this in his

satire on “great American Indian novels.” Sherman Alexie points out within his poem “How to

Write the Great American Indian Novel,” exaggerated absurdities that are required and forced

onto the Indian image within literature. Throughout much of the poem there is a sarcastic

humorous style, but as it reaches its climax it takes on a serious political overtone. He pushes the

boundaries of comfort as he states, “In the Great American Indian novel, when it is finally

written/ all of the white people will be Indians and all of the Indians will be ghosts” (Alexie).

Through these lines, Alexie transforms this poem into a subtle condemnation of real, and

present-day issues. This idea of portraying Indians as ghosts is not a fantastical idea, but rather, a

postcolonial struggle faced and exemplified by Western and Indian writers. Thomas King

continues these struggles through his characters in Truth and Bright Water. Although he
 Argueta 12

condemns, he also relates that the solution is hard to find because of how deep the narrow

depiction of the Indian has delved within the minds of the dominant group and of the Indians

themselves. He does relate though, that in order to counter literature and society’s dogmas, the

truth of the buried guilt must be uncovered, and the right stories must be told. Lucy rightly says,

“Everybody’s related. The trouble with the world is that you wouldn’t know it from the way we

behave” (King 202). By telling the right stories, maybe we can begin to act on this truth.
 Argueta 13

Works Cited

Alexie, Sherman. "How to Write the Great American Indian Novel." The Summer of Black

Widows. N.p.: Hanging Loose, n.d. N. pag. Print.

Andrews, Jennifer. "Border Trickery and Dog Bones: A Conversation with Thomas King."

Studies in Canadian Literature / Études en littérature canadienne 24.2 (1999)Web.

Mar.f14, 2017.

“| The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture.” | The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma

History and Culture,www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entryname=

INDIAN%2BTERRITOR Y. Accessed 22 Mar. 2017.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: a Native Narrative. New York, House of Anansi Press,

2011.

King, Thomas. Truth & Bright Water. New York, Grove Press, 2000.

Mohler, Courtney E. "The Native Plays of Lynn Riggs (Cherokee) and the Question of

"Race"-Specific Casting." Theatre Topics, vol. 26, no. 1, 2016, pp. 63-75, Research

Library, https://search-proquest.com.byui.idm.oclc.org/docview/

1783684195?accountid=9817.

T. Austin Graham. “Blood on the Rock: Cather's Southwestern History.” American Literary

History 28.1 (2016): 46-68. America: History & Life. Web. 23 March 2017.