Representation and Politics: Contesting Histories of the Iroquois

Author(s): Gail Landsman and Sara Ciborski

Source: Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Nov., 1992), pp. 425-447
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/656215
Accessed: 16/02/2010 08:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Cultural Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Representation and Politics:

Contesting Histories of the Iroquois
Gail Landsman
Sara Ciborski
University at Albany, State University of New York

Introduction
In 1987 the New York State EducationDepartment(SED) began a project
aimedat improvingthe representationof Indiansin the social studiescurriculum.
Throughits Office of CurriculumDevelopment, SED fundedthe publicationof a
curriculumresource guide written by a group of Iroquois to be used by social
studiesteachersas an optional supplementto the regularsyllabus. The State Education Departmentsent the first draft of that guide to scholars, educators, and
Indiansfor review. Among the reviews thatwere returnedwere severalfrom nonIndianscholars prominentin Iroquoianstudies that were sharplycritical of the
contentof the guide; these reviews echoed criticismsby other scholarsof the Indianversionof colonial historyrecentlyadvancedby some traditionalistIroquois.
Some of the reviewers also criticized SED itself for endorsinga syllabus supplement that is, in their opinion, biased and historically inaccurate.Some Indians
involved in the resourceguide projectreactedto these criticalreviews with anger
and resentment,and a few declaredthat Iroquoisresearchwould now be closed
to those scholars.
The writing of the resource guide, and the subsequentinteractionsamong
Indians, scholars, and SED officials, form an importantepisode in the relations
of these groups. The controversyalso offers an opportunityto explore important
questionsaboutthe politics of historicalrepresentationandthe social construction
of knowledge. What are the assumptionsabout historicalwriting and the nature
of historical"truth' thatunderlieboth the Indians'constructionof theirown culturehistoryand the scholars' dissenting construction?Who has the power to authorizea particularversion of history?And is it possible, or even worthwhile,for
scholarsand Indiansto engage in a constructivedialogue about the past? These
are the questionswith which we are concerned.
Whatwe are not concernedwith in this articleis "proving" the factualityof
particularrepresentationsof history, with determiningthe "truth" value of any
CulturalAnthropology7(4):425-447. Copyright? 1992, AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.

425

426 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

of the argumentspresentedby eithernatives or scholars. Rather,our focus is the

social process of representingwhat happenedin the past, a process that is taking
place in the presentfor both scholars and Indians. The question we are trying to
answeris how and why scholars, Indians, and SED officials are in conflict now,
in a case especially significantbecause an institutionof the state is playing a role
in legitimizingminorityhistory. Ourfocus is not ethnohistorical;rather,it derives
from our interestboth in social movements and in the contemporarycritiqueof
culturalobjectification(Ciborski 1990; Landsman1985, 1987, 1988; Landsman
and Krasniewicz1990).
Our main researchmethods were interviews and analyses of written materials. The strainingof relationsbetween some scholarsand traditionalistIroquois
as a consequenceof this controversyaffected our data collection. Although we
receivedthe cooperationof a wide range of participants,each initially expressed
skepticismthat this work could be done without our taking sides. In response to
this skepticism, we made the claim not that value-free researchis possible, or
even desirable,but thatmore thantwo readingsof the controversyare possible.
We were able to conduct interviews with Indian writers, some of the dissentingscholars, the head of SED's Native AmericanEducationUnit at the time,
the projectdirector, and other SED officials. Correspondencebetween scholars
supportiveof the Iroquoiswriterswas also made availableto us by an active participant. After filing a Freedomof InformationAct requestwith SED, we were
given access to all SED files on the resourceguide. In addition, fieldworkon the
issue of scholars' interpretationswas conducted at scholarly conferences.2Offthe-cuffremarksmade in privateconversationsamong scholarsare not reported
here, but comments made publicly, in frontof a group in formalconference settings, were used as data.
The issue we studied, as well as the very process of researchingand writing
this article, have been controversial.3We rejected, and continueto reject, the attemptsmadeby participantsto place us on one side or the otherof the controversy;
we advocatefor neitherthe position of traditionalistIndianwritersof the guide
nor for its non-nativecritics. But we are not neutral.We argue for dialogue and
againstan adversarial,either/orframingof the issue. We proposethatif this conflict were to be understoodnot in termsof the truthof historybut in termsof the
incommensurabilityof the different conceptual matrices brought to the debate
over publicly representinghistory, options otherthanthe currentstate of mistrust
and anger might appear.This is not to deny that there is truth, or that there are
betterandworse ways to gain access to the truthof historicalevents, but ratherto
shift the focus of analysis from the content of history to the politics of representation.
Context of the Resource Guide Controversy
Today, thereare about50,000 Iroquoisliving in the United States and Canada (Vecsey 1988:11) on reservations,reserves, and in urbancenters. There are
38,732 Indians(all tribalaffiliations,reservationand urban)in New York State,

REPRESENTATIONAND POLITICS 427

accordingto 1980 census figures;only about 20% of these live permanentlyon

reservations(Hauptman1988:68). In New York, the Mohawks, Onondagas, Senecas, andTuscarorashave theirown reservations(Senecas have three);Oneidas
and Cayugas live among other groups (some Oneidas live on or near a 32-acre
remnantof Oneidaland).
There is considerablevariationin local political structureson the six main
New YorkIroquoisreservationsas a resultof theirparticularhistories:threehave
a governmentthattermsitself traditional;two aregovernedby an elective system;
and one-St. Regis Akwesasne Mohawk-has an elective system that is challenged by an active traditionalcouncil. At the St. Regis Akwesasne Mohawkreservation,the elective government,the St. Regis MohawkTribalCouncil, is recognizedby the stateas the official government.On most reservations,people who
identify themselves as traditionalistsare associated with a Longhouse, which is
either a religious or a political entity, or both. Traditionalists,by definition, are
also strongsupportersof the IroquoisConfederacy(Haudenosaunee),whose governing body is the GrandCouncil, which consists of Longhouse or traditional
chiefs from the constituentcommunities.4
The relationshipbetween Longhouse and Confederacyis variableover time
and from reservationto reservation.At Akwesasne and Onondaga,for example,
the Longhouseis both religious and political, and its traditionalchiefs represent
those communitiesat meetings of the Confederacy'sGrandCouncil. At Tuscarora,thereis no religious Longhouse, but the sole governingcouncil is traditional
and participatesin the Confederacy. Two of the three New York Seneca reservations are governedas a unity by a nontraditionalelective system, yet each has
a religiousLonghouse;New York Senecas do not participatein the Confederacy.
The Longhouse as a religious institutioncommandsthe loyalty of probably
only one-fourthof the people living on those reservationswhere it survives (i.e.,
in half of all Iroquoiscommunitiesin New York andelsewhere). But as a political
alternativeto elective systems, Longhousetraditionalismhas demonstratedbroad
supportat times and on particularissues. Many of the values and strategiesexplicit in traditionalistwritingscommonly areendorsedalso by Catholicsand elective system loyalists. The reality of everyday life is that most people's views,
priorities,and polemical positions constantlyshift, sometimes dependingon personalitiesor the urgencyof the problemat hand.
The conflict over the resourceguide developed within the broadercontext of
relationsbetweenIroquoispeople andthe scholarswho have studiedIroquoisculture, history,prehistory,and languagesfor more thana century.This relationship
beganwith Morgan's(1851) seminal study of the League, for which the Iroquois
have greatrespect, and continuesthroughtoday's confrontations.
The academic field of Iroquoian studies has evolved as the authoritative
voice in the representationof Iroquoiscultureand history, producinga large corpus of scholarlyworks whose main approachis characterizedby Voget (1984) as
"culturehistoricism," and whose agenda, set by the acknowledgeddean of Iroquois studies, William Fenton, has largelybeen the "authenticationof facts about
Iroquoiscultureand history" (Voget 1984:348). Iroquoianstudies is informedby

428 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

a particularconceptof culture:those patterns,traits,values, pursuits,andartifacts

thatcan be tracedto the past andconfirmedin documentarysources. This concept
of cultureis at the heartof the acculturationmodel thatcharacterizedethnological
researchon AmericanIndiansin generalduringthe firsthalf of the 20th century.
This notion of what constitutesauthenticcultureimplies that contemporary
culturalexpressions are genuine or spuriousdependingon their degree of correspondenceto the documentedoriginal culturalpatterns.This has led Fenton to
make evaluative statements such as the following: there has been a "gradual
breakdownof Iroquoisculture" over time (Fenton 1940:159), "the culture has
declinedin power and effectiveness," the Iroquois "have grown poor in knowledge of theirformerways" (Fenton 1965:259), and native culturalrevival efforts
are spuriousand ineffective (Fenton 1975).
Scholarlyemphaseson traditionalculturepatternsand aboriginalor colonial
lifeways have become partof the corporateidentityof the Iroquois,regardlessof
theirmoder political, religious, or culturalaffiliations.And Iroquoispeople have
adoptedthe assumptionsaboutculturethatunderliescholarlyresearch:it is learnable, teachable,and knowableas a field of observation,study, and analysis. Just
as Iroquoiscultureis a legitimatetopic for anthropologycourses in a university,
it is now being taughtin public elementaryschools thatserve Iroquoischildrenas
a subjectamong othersubjects, at the insistence of Iroquoisparents.
Scholars and natives alike have thus participatedin "cultural objectification" (Handler1984:55), treatingculture and traditionsas if bounded, and "as
entitieshaving an essence apartfrom" theirinterpretation(Handlerand Linnekin
1984:273). This has generatedthe possibility for doctrineaboutwhat constitutes
"authentic"culturefor both native and non-native"experts" on Iroquoisculture
history.
Althoughmany Iroquoianistscholarshave departedfrom Fenton's culturalhistoricistprogramfor the field, Fenton is unquestionablyseen by the traditionalist Iroquoiswritersand their supportersas the dominatingforce in the field of
Iroquoisstudies. For them, Fentonhas come to symbolize the oppositionof academiato natives' controlover the representationof theirown culture,history, and
identity.Indiansdo not refer to the scholarsresearchingtheir cultureand history
as Iroquoianists,the termused in the literatureandconversationof Iroquoisstudies. Instead,the traditionalistIroquoiswe interviewedreferredto those who had
expressedtheirnegative reactionto the resourceguide using either of two terms:
Fentonites or trolls.

Several other specific and long-term issues have also generatednative resentmenttoward scholars, and form the backdropto the resource guide controversy: the right of museums (and the scholars who advise them) to display Iroquois false faces, the refusal until very recently of the New York State Museum
to returnwampumbelts to the Iroquois, disposition of burialremains, disagreementover the extent of Iroquoisinfluenceon the United States Constitution,and
the state's educationalpolicy towardIndians(see Hauptman1988:75-88).
Contributingto this broadcontext of mixed relationsbetween scholars and
Iroquoispeople is the proliferationin recentyears of worksby Iroquoispeople-

REPRESENTATIONAND POLITICS 429

artists,writers,journalists,political activists, teachers-about their culture, traditions, and history. These include such publicationsas AkwesasneNotes, Daybreak,theNortheastIndianQuarterly(fromthe AmericanIndianProgramat Cornell University);books and pamphletssold in native-runmuseums;and films, videos, and cassettes producedfor use in schools and museums. Iroquois spokespersons have also representedIroquois culture and history at such international
forumsas UnitedNations conferences, gatheringsof indigenouspeoples throughout the world, and meetings of environmentaland spiritual groups (Ciborski
1990).
AlthoughIroquoistraditionalistshave long resisted white domination,what
is relativelyrecent is their sophisticateduse of media, both white (see Landsman
1987) and native (Ciborski 1990), as well as their adoptionof standardscholarly
methodsof researchin the representationof their own cultureand history. Their
public initiatives on behalf of Iroquoisculture and history can be understoodas
an effort to build nationaland culturalconsciousness among Iroquoisgenerally,
andto articulateIroquoisnationalaspirationsto the non-Indianaudience. The resourceguide controversyand the relatedquestionof the role of the Iroquoisin the
creationof Americandemocracyhave emerged in this context of shifting nativescholarrelationsand increasinglysophisticatednative culturalrepresentations.
The Resource Guide and Its Critics
The new resource guide will not be the first publicationwritten by native
people for SED. The departmentestablishedthe Native AmericanEducationUnit
in 1973, which subsequentlyworked with the Board of Regents to produce an
earlierresourceguide, the statedintentof which was to "help enlightenteachers,
students,andtheirparentsaboutthe Native Americancultureandheritageof New
YorkState" (Ambach 1985).5This publication,Iroquoianand AlgonquianIndians: An Historical Perspectiveand Resource Guide, appearedin January1985 to
"commemoratethe bicentennialof the Board of Regents and The University of
the Stateof New York" (Ambach 1985); it had originallybeen the suggestion of
a nontraditionalistMohawkfrom St. Regis who had been appointedto the Board
of Regents' externalBicentennialCommittee.
At 59 pages, the earlierguide is much smaller than the draftof the current
project. Over one-thirdof it was devoted to a listing of "outstandingIroquoian
and AlgonquianIndians" of the past and presentand their achievementsin a variety of occupations. A chronology of educationalhistory and a listing of historical markersto be foundthroughoutthe statewere included. In its section on tribal
leaders,the 1985 guide referredto the St. Regis MohawkReservation(ratherthan
to Akwesasne, as traditionaliststhen referredto thatcommunity), and mentioned
only the elective system as its government,withoutreferenceto traditionalchiefs.
Native writersof the currentguide thus point out that the earlierguide does not
representa traditionalistperspective.
The immediate stimulus for the currentresource guide, however, was not
dissatisfactionwith the earlierguide, but ratherSED's field test of a new social

430 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

studies syllabus for the seventh and eighth grades. In the fall of 1986, the proposed syllabusrevision came to the attentionof JohnFadden, a traditionalistMohawk artistand teacheremployed in a public school. Concernedby what he felt
was the usual superficialtreatmentof the Iroquois,he wrote morethan 100 letters
to SED, Iroquoiseducatorsand leaders, non-nativeacademics, and other interested people. The head of the Native AmericanEducationUnit of SED at the time
was a traditionalistIroquoiswho reportedlytold Fadden:"You came to the right
person." She then asked curriculumofficials to convene a meeting with 16 representativesof Iroquois communities for the purpose of airing native concerns
aboutthe treatmentof the Iroquoisin the public school curriculum.At the meeting, SED's Bureauof Social Studies presentedan idea for a supplementto the
syllabusto be writtenby Iroquoispeople. Following this meeting, the head of the
Native AmericanEducationUnit asked traditionalchiefs of the Iroquoisnations
to suggest a list of native writers.
Thirteenpeople researchedand wrote differentsections of the guide, which
was titledHaudenosaunee:Past, Present, and Future:A Social StudiesResource
GuideDraft. The word Haudenosauneeis used variouslyby contemporarytraditionaliststo referto the League or the Confederacy,past or present, as well as to
past or presenttraditionalIroquoispeople in general. Haudenosauneedoes not,
therefore,refer to ChristianIndiansor to the elected system governmentsof the
variousIroquoiscommunities.The guide's statedaim was to "reinforce" the regular syllabus by presentingthe "indigenous worldview" and "indigenous peoples' perspective." It began with a version of the Iroquoiscreationmyth and lessons aboutceremonies, the cosmology, the traditionalway of life, the GreatLaw
of Peace, and the formation of the League, or Haudenosaunee. It treated in
succession the Indianwars, governmenttreaties, and recent U.S. policy toward
Indians.
Like other contemporarytraditionalistrepresentationsof Iroquois culture
and tradition,the resourceguide drafteulogized Iroquoissocial, ecological, and
political principles, with frequentemphasis on the high status of women in traditional Iroquois society (an unresolved issue within academic Iroquoian and
women's studies)andthe wisdom and foresightof Iroquoisleaders. For example,
IroquoisprophetHandsomeLake reportedlysaw in his visions
thatstrangediseaseswouldbe on theEarththatthereseemedto be no curefor ...
thattherewouldbe a timein thefuturewhentheriverswouldcatchfire,and... he
wasshownthedamagethatwouldoccurto theozonelayeras a resultof humanpollution.[NYSED1988:129]
Explicit comparisonsbetween Iroquois and Euro-Americanculture are encouraged in many "TeachersNotes" sections. For example:
Ask the studentto comparethe two constitutions
[theU.S. andthe IroquoisGreat
concernfor the enviLaw]andto discussprobablereasonsfor the Haudenosaunee
theenvironronment,andthepossiblereasonsfornotincludinganarticleconcerning
mentwithintheUnitedStatesConstitution.
[NYSED1988:69]

REPRESENTATION
ANDPOLITICS431
Havethestudentsdiscussthepossiblereasonsforthelackof considerations
givento
womenby theframersof theUnitedStatesConstitution.
[NYSED1988:71]
In a lengthy "Contributions"section, the guide states that
the impactof these [indigenous]foods resultedin . . . the averageheight of the Eu-

ropeanbeingexpandedbeyondfivefeet, as it wasduringthe 15thcenturyandbefore.

TheaverageEuropean
life expectancyof 35 yearswasalsoexpanded .. . [NYSED
1988:266]
implyingthe superiorityof the native diet and lifestyle, withoutdocumentationor
considerationof otherpossible contributingfactors.
The influenceof the Iroquoison Americandemocracyis alludedto throughout, for example in the sections on Iroquoisworldview and first contact: "Benjamin Franklinand other colonial leaders were influencedby the Great Law as
they designed the United States Constitution"(NYSED 1988:68), and "Prior to
the coming of the European,the Haudenosauneehad establisheda confederacy
that was the first true democracy in North America" (NYSED 1988:131). The
idea that Indianpolitical systems were the primaryinspirationfor Americandemocracyis most fully elaboratedin the "Contributions"section:
Theconceptsof representational
individual
freedomsandequityof gengovernment,
der did not exist in the colonial experience except here in the Americas. . . . The

existenceof thesefundamental
andnaturalrightswerenotpresentin themonarchial
of Europe.European
of
governments
politicaltheorists.. . inspiredby observations
NorthAmerican[Indian]governments,
aboutthesefreedoms.Howphilosophized
ever,thesefreedomsdidnotexistuponthecontinentof Europe.[NYSED1988:271274]
This section includes documentarycitations that are interpretedas evidence for
influence, as well as discussion of the dissimilaritiesbetween the two political
systems (NYSED 1988:277).
The firstdraftof the guide, over 300 pages long, was sent out for review in
1988 to more than 30 scholars, natives, and educators. The eight scholarly reviewers included anthropologistsand historians, most of whom are well-known
Iroquoianists.Reviewers were asked to fill out a form evaluatingthe guide, and
most also submittedmore detailedwrittenevaluations, some of which were in the
formof lettersto the projectdirectoror the Commissionerof Education,or both.6
The three traditionalistIndians who reviewed the guide did so positively;
one, for example, praised the state for its willingness "to finally work with our
people to createa new feeling of trustas well as to demonstratea commitmentto
allowing studentsaccess to the Haudenosauneeversion of its culture and traditions." This reviewerpointedout thatwhen the Iroquois"encouragedthe ancestorsof presentday Americansto form theirown union with our Confederacyas a
model, they did so hoping that there would finally be peace among us," and
claimedthat "the teacher's guide is a partialfulfillmentof that wish." SED also
received a brief supportive statement from the traditionalistMohawk Nation

432 CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
Council of Chiefs, indicating that the document had been "well received" and
that the "Council appreciates the work that has been done to date." Educators'
comments on the whole focused on the usefulness of the guide in the classroom,
and tended to be more positive than negative.
Scholars' responses, however, were directed toward the specific content of
the resource guide. These reviews were written within the larger context of current
debate over the impact of the Iroquois on the formation of the American system
of government. Although some of these scholars gave measured reviews, simultaneously praising the effort and criticizing particular sections, five who are in the
mainstream of Iroquoian studies were uniformly negative, referring to the draft
of the guide, for example, as a "disaster" and an "embarrassment."
The following excerpts from reviews by these scholars indicate the tone of
the commentary to which native writers, in turn, reacted:
I have but touchedlightly on the errorsand mis-statementsin this draft.To do a complete cataloguewould take a great deal more time than I have available. My recommendationto you is to save the first seventy pages or so (the portion dealing with
Iroquoisculture), and throw the rest out. It is worthlessand does the subjectand the
educationalsystem a disservice .... Presentingthe materialincludedin the guide as
fact is as ludicrousand indefensible as presentingthe findingsof the Flat World Society as scientific truth. ... To publish this in its presentform would ... insult native and non-nativeAmericansalike.
I am sorrythat my review is so negative. I was truly appalledat the guide .... The
guide will leave the State EducationDepartmentwide open to attackby people unfriendly to Indians, and to disappointmentand disgust by those friendly to Indians
who know somethingaboutIndianaffairs.
Despite good artworkand a few good lessons, there are so many problems in the
Haudenosauneeguide thatI am temptedto recommendthatyou do not publishit....
In its presentformit will be harmfulto the childrenof this statebecause of its extreme
biases which studentsare asked to accept, as well as other serious inadequacies.If it
is not drasticallyrevised, I believe it will be harmfulto the Iroquoisas well. It representsa one-sided and narrowview of Iroquoishistoryand culture.
I believe that our children deserve a far better resource guide than the poor one
drafted.... Although some IroquoisIndians were involved in the developmentof
the project, including several of my longstanding friends, and are not altogether
blameless,I feel thatthe majorresponsibilityfor this disasterrests with the curriculum
"experts" in the Division for ProgramDevelopment.
The documentis very seriously flawed with historical, cultural,and legal errors,far
too numerousto detail here. . . . These range from vexing, easily avoided inaccuracies to grievous, and even irresponsible,distortionsof fact and the historicalrecord.
Among the Iroquoianists' criticisms was the argument that the guide was as
racist, if not more so, as the curriculum it intended to replace. They argued that
the guide idolized the traditional Iroquois, was biased against whites and Christian
Iroquois, failed to point out the diversity of Indian lifestyles and beliefs in New
York State, and misrepresented the role of the Iroquois in American history.
These reviewers contended that by offering a "laundry list" of Indian contributions, and by presenting Indians as environmentalists, missionaries as villains,

REPRESENTATIONAND POLITICS 433

and pre-contactNorth America as "some sort of non-competitiveEden," the

guide contributedto the persistenceof stereotypesabout Indiansand would ultimately do damageto Indian-whiterelationsin the schools.
Similarcriticisms have been voiced by nontraditionalistIroquois. The one
nontraditionalistIndianasked to review the guide criticized (1) its failure to cite
the elected Tribal Council as the recognized governing body at Akwesasne, (2)
the bitternessexpressed in the guide, and (3) its failure to representthe range of
viewpoints and lifestyles characteristicof Indiansin New York State. "I'm certain thatthe Haudenosauneeare here to stay," wrote this reviewer,
justas well as I'mcertainthattheTribalCouncilis hereto stay.However,theTribal
Councilis the recognizedgoverningbodyandshouldbe citedas such.The writers
haveindeedstrengthened
shouldalsodemonstrate
how thesedevelopments
ourNationstoday.
Anotherresponse to the guide, writtenby a differentIroquoiselective, appears in SED's Report of the Commissioner'sTaskForce on Minorities:Equity
and Excellence (NYSED 1989). There, the resourceguide's portrayalof Iroquois
creativeexpressionand illustrationsof oral traditionsare praised, but the overall
guide is similarlycriticized for presentinga one-sided view of Iroquoislife and
of Indian-staterelations.
The issue of the influenceof the Iroquoison the conceptionof the U.S. Constitutionmade up a relatively small section of the resourceguide, and criticisms
of the guide certainlyextendedwell beyond concernover thatparticularaspectof
it. Nevertheless, the "influence" issue has come to be representativeof the ongoing conflictover the constructionof Iroquoishistory. Althoughone "influence
school"7 scholar arguedthat importantdocuments proving the influence of the
Iroquoison the Constitutionwere ignoredin the guide, the mainstreamIroquoianist reviewersagreedwith the commentthat "the attemptto depict the U.S. Constitutionas the productof Iroquoisgenius" is "nonsense."'Most of the dissenting
scholarsmade referenceto Senate ConcurrentResolution 76, in which Iroquois
influenceon the Constitutionis officially acknowledged;they urged New York
State not to make the same mistake of sanctioningwhat these scholars feel is a
distortionof historicalfact. As one reviewerwrote, "This unsubstantiatedtheory
seems on its way to acceptanceas fact simply as a resultof repetition."
While the review process provideda new forum for discussion of the influence issue, the debate was already going on in other arenas. In addition to the
U.S. Senate, it hadextendedinto academicjournals(see especially Tooker 1988),
scholarlyconferences(such as the 1987 "GreatLaw" Conferenceat CornellUniversity, the 1988 "Civilization and Barbarism:ReciprocalImages" Conference
in Albany, and the meetings of the American Society for Ethnohistoryand the
AnnualConferenceon IroquoisResearch),and the popularmedia.8Six historians
and anthropologists,only one of whom was also a reviewer of the guide, signed
a lettersubmittedto the New YorkTimesfor its Op-Edpage outlining objections
to the contention,particularlyprominentin the year of the Constitution'sBicentennial, that the Constitutionwas modeled after the League of the Iroquois. The

434 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

letterwas not acceptedfor publicationin the New YorkTimes, but did find its way
into the hands of an influence school scholar who had also reviewed the guide.
This unpublishedletter (mistakenlycalled an "academic petition") was in turn
referredto in correspondencebetween variousresourceguide reviewers and the
New YorkStateCommissionerof Education.Appearingamidthe existing debate
over influence,the resourceguide was caughtup in thatdebate, andhas continued
to be discussed in its terms. The issue thus engaged a wider rangeof people than
those asked to review the guide, and New York State's curriculumhas become a
topic of concernfor those outside the state as well as those within it.
Scholarson both sides of the controversybecame awareof much of one another's correspondencewith SED. This occurredin partbecause some scholars
sentcopies of theirown correspondenceto a varietyof people, and in partbecause
the resourceguide projectdirectorsent copies of the reviews to influence school
scholarsand others. Reviewers had never been explicitly promisedconfidentiality, and SED is a governmentagency that complies with the Freedomof InformationAct requirements.Nevertheless,this actionconflictedwith the assumption
of some scholars,based on theirexperiencewith the refereeprocess for scholarly
articlesin academicjournals, that the anonymityof their reviews would be preserved. This occurrence and other concerns led to requests by more than one
scholarfor the projectdirector'sdismissal.
No longer limitedto confrontingone anotherin scholarlyarticlesor through
the popularpress, scholarsnow channeledtheir criticisms of one another'swritings, sources, and motives throughSED. Thus, SED became an arenafor debate
betweencompetingscholars, as well as between Indiansand academics. In interviews with us and in internalmemos, state officials made it clear that they had
become awareof theirrole in the debate. One SED employee remarked,"I'm not
and
," mentioningthe names of opposing scholgoing to referee
ars. As for calls for the dismissal of the project director, anotherSED official
remarkedthat in this line of work such demandsare commonplace. In a memo,
the SED commissionerasked his new deputy commissionerto read some of the
scholars' letters and concluded, "Welcome to the enchanting realms of high
scholarshipand interculturalrelations."
Above all, criticismsof the guide centeredon the issue of accuracyand documentation.This was the case for its treatmentnot only of the influenceissue, but
also of topics rangingfrom the game of snowsnaketo HandsomeLake's environmentalism,to the role of the Iroquoisin variouswars. Reviewers complainedof
"grossly inaccuratediatribe," "fanciful hyberbole," "intentionallymisleading
statementsaboutthe role of the GrandCouncil in the land claims cases," a lack
of correctreferences, and the presence in the guide of assertions that "are not
based on any firm or reliable evidence and are not supportedby any reputable
scholar." One dissenting scholar suggested that in the attemptto prove Iroquois
influenceon the formationof the Constitution, "there is a deliberateavoidance
of standardand accepted scholarly works." This scholar arguedthat "it is one
thing to write history from a different perspective, in this case, that of the Iroquois; nevertheless, it is quite anotherthing to create a history to suit one's own
purposes."

REPRESENTATIONAND POLITICS 435

The dissenting scholars saw the guide's "failure" to use standardsources

and its relianceon works outside the mainstreamof academicIroquoianistscholarshipas evidence not only of a lack of commitmentto historicaltruth,but also
of the existence of some ulteriormotive of the writers. A political agenda, inconsistent with an objective presentationof historicaltruth, was thereforeassumed.
Some scholarsreferredto these motives in theirwrittenevaluationsof the resource
guide, but scholars who were not reviewers also have discussed them in correspondence,conferences, and meetings.
For example, scholarsat the 1988 AnnualConferenceon IroquoisResearch
gatheredin a conference room one afternoonto discuss the problem of the rewritingof Iroquoishistory in general, and the issue of the Iroquoiscontribution
to the United States Constitutionin particular.One scholar began by posing the
questionto the group, "Why does this botherus?" Much of the discussion that
followed centeredon the presumedpolitical motivationsof this versionof history.
One scholarsuggested that it is partof a plan to legitimatethe sovereigntyof the
Confederacyandthus force the stateand federalgovernmentsto settle landclaims
with the GrandCouncil ratherthan with the individualtribes (see Stara 1987,
1988:171). Anotherassertedthatthose promotingthis versionof historywere not,
in fact, "real" traditionalists,and that their efforts to reconstructhistory were a
power manipulationby specific and named individuals. One historianexpressed
his concern about Indians writing the history of the U.S. Constitutionwith the
comment, "They're on my turf now." He explained that Indians always say
"You can't write my historybecause you aren't an Indian." Thus, the historian
argued,"Indianscannotnow claim they can writemy history.'"Anotherhistorian
statedlater, at a differentconference, "It's a damnedlie, andI won't tolerateit."
Scholars'objectionsnotwithstanding,SED officials tell us thata revised version of the guide will be published,andthatSED remainscommittedto presenting
"the indigenouspointof view." It is unclearwhetherpeople at SED realizedfrom
the startthatmaterialpresentedin the draftwould not be representativeof the full
rangeof perspectivesand lifestyles of Indiansin New York State. Nontraditionalists' involvementhad been invited;John Fadden'slettersalertingnatives to the
curriculumissue had been sent to elective system supportersas well as to traditionalistsin the beginning, but the formerdid not respond. "They were not excluded," explained one traditionalistparticipant. "They never voiced objections. . . . The guide is about what they should know about their basic way of

life. Even if they don't live it, it is always available to them." Thus it was apparentlynot until the field review that SED officials became fully aware of the
diversitywithinIroquoiscommunities. SED has not yet decided whetherthe final
version will incorporatea wider range of native lifestyles and beliefs, or if an
additionalresourceguide will be preparedto representthe perspectivesof other
Indiansin the state.
Discussion
In defendingtheir representation,Indianwritershave relied on the writings
of influenceschool scholars, who in turncite historic documentsthat they claim

436 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

revealthe truth.TraditionalistIndianwriters,the scholarssupportiveof them, and

those opposed, therefore,all use documentarysourcesto supporttheirarguments;
all claim that properinterpretationof the available documentsreveals objective
historicalfact; and all claim thatthe others' failureto presentthese facts is a conscious and biased attemptto distort the truth. Objectivisthistory, the dominant
discourseof Iroquoianists,has become, therefore,the dominantdiscourseof traditionalistIroquoisinvolved in the public representationof their history.
Iroquoiswriters saw the opportunityto write a guide for use in the school
system as a majorshift in state policy, and as a positive development. They had
expected constructive criticism of their efforts, but were shocked and disappointedby the response of the dissenting scholars, some of whom they had believed to be advocates for, or at least sympatheticto, traditionalistgoals. Most
Iroquoiswriterswe spoke to used the term "trolls" to referto these scholars;the
Indianshad felt that they were trying to build bridges between people, and the
negativescholarsbecamethe trolls lurkingbeneaththose bridges.Whenwe asked
what impact, if any, the criticisms had on Indian-scholarrelations, Iroquoistraditionalistsinvolved in the projectwere adamantthatbonds of trusthad been broken.9 "Oh, Iroquoisstudies are closed," repliedone informant,and then, aftera
pause:
whichis good,becausenowwe haveourownpeoplewiththeexpertiseto doit. These
Thesearepeoplewho sat at my
scholars,whatdid you call them-Iroquoianists?
table!Theyaremy adoptedchildren!I gavethemmy hospitality...
In our interpretationof this unfoldingepisode in Iroquois-whiterelations,we
focus on the two sets of issues raisedabove. The firstconcernsthe representations
themselves:Whatare the assumptionsbehindthem and what are the culturalmatrices out of which they emerge? The second concerns the episode as a cultural
encounter:What adjustmentsin Indian-scholar-staterelationshave occurredand
what do these adjustmentsreveal about the relationship between power and
knowledge?We arguethatthe constructionand representationof historyis a process embeddedin social relations. In the presentcase, the historicalrelationships
of domination-subordination
between scholarsand the Iroquoisaffects the form,
strategies,and contentof both scholars' and natives' representations.
For AmericanIndians, generally, historicalconsciousness has been a major
factorin theirpersistenceas a people (Fogelson 1989; Vecsey 1988:14-15). We
maintainthat this is not necessarily because of any inherentvalue in historical
consciousness, but has occurred,rather,largely because of the validatingpower
of positivist, objectivisthistoryin mainstreamsociety, within which Indianshave
to live and representtheir identity. Historicalcontinuityis explicitly a legal criterion for legitimizing a culture in land claims, federal recognition, and related
cases (Blu 1980; Clifford 1988; Rosen 1977; Vecsey and Starna1988), but it has
long implicitlylegitimized Indianidentityoutside the legal domainas well.
Iroquoistraditionalistshave portrayedas an event a meeting between BenjaminFranklinandthe Iroquois,leadingto the AlbanyPlan of Union andto even-

REPRESENTATIONAND POLITICS 437

tual incorporationof Iroquoisprinciplesinto the U.S. Constitution.The curriculum resourceguide draftincludes an illustrationof an Iroquoisman standingwith
outstretchedarm(and a woman behind him) speakingto Franklinand two others
seated next to a tall pine tree with its four long roots extending outwardin each
direction. The caption reads: "Unity, freedom of speech, women's rights and
othertenets of participatorydemocracywere communicatedby the Haudenosaunee to America's founding fathers." According to mainstreamscholars, this
event simply did not happen. But this meeting can be understoodas an example
of what Fogelson calls the "epitomizing event," condensing and dramatizinga
longer-termprocess in the form of an event that did not take place (Fogelson
1989). The explanatorypower of the epitomizing event is such that it spreads
rapidlythroughthe group and may take on an ethnohistoricalreality of its own.
Traditionalistwriters have reconstructedFranklin's awareness of the Iroquois,
which they document through a 1754 quote'0 as an event, to fit the American
ethnohistoricaldiscourse that has the power to legitimate history and culture in
the presentcontext.
Because objectivityis the dominantmode of inquiryof formalacademicIroquoian studies, and has become so as well for native historians, it is useful to
review what is meantby objectivisthistory. Novick's ThatNoble Dream (1988),
a critiqueof the notion of objectivityin historicalresearchand writing, offers the
following characterizationof the objectivist creed: "Objectivity is not a single
idea, but rathera sprawlingcollection of assumptions,attitudes,aspirations,and
antipathies,"including
a commitment
to therealityof thepast,andto truthas correspondence
to thatreality;
a sharpseparation
betweenknowerandknown,betweenfactandvalue,and,above
all, betweenhistoryandfiction.Historicalfactsareseenas priorto andindependent
of interpretation:
is judgedby howwell it accountsfor
thevalueof an interpretation
the facts;if contradicted
Truthis one, not perby the facts, it mustbe abandoned.
spectival.Whateverpatternsexist in historyare "found,"not "made." [Novick
1988:1-2]
To this list we would add Fogelson's observationthatexplanationin positivist historyconsists of relatingparticularevents along a linear time line imposed
by the documents (Fogelson 1989:135). The theory of history dominantin the
Americanhistoricalprofession, like the law to which Cliffordrefers in his study
of the Mashpee,thus reflectsa logic of the historicalarchiveratherthanof changing collective memory (1988:329).
Having prevailedas an ideal and an idea since the late-19thcentury, objectivity has become increasinglyproblematicsince the emergenceof the new social
historiesin the 1960s. Particularistor perspectivalhistories, like black historyand
feministrevisionismof male-centeredscholarship,now contest "universalism,"
the idea thatthereis one knowabletruthfor all. As a definingfeatureof objectivist
history, universalismstandsopposed to ethnic, religious, or ideological commitments, which are seen as enemies of truth. Yet the "assertive particularism"of
these groups has insisted that their story was part of the whole truth (Novick
1988:469-470).

438 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

Feministchallenges to objectivisthistoryand anthropologyhave not argued

for the absence of truth;in fact, feminist scholars have recently criticized what
they see as postmodernistrelativismfor its inabilityto help sustaincommunityin
the midst of multiplicity(DiStefano 1990; Tong 1989:232), and for its embeddednessin hegemonicrelations(Harding1987; Hawkesworth1989; Mascia-Lees
et al. 1989).11Whatfeminist scholarsdo challenge, however, is the definitionof
objectivityas disinterestedness.They speak of the partialityof truthclaims, not
just in termsof the need to add women and minoritiesto history, but also in terms
of denouncing
theuniversalistic
and"value-free"pretensions
of traditional
asmasksfor
scholarship
thedomination
of a male-centered
worldview .... Moreover,formany
maintaining
feministstheideologyof "difference"extendedto fundamental
questionsof cognitivestyleandepistemological
values.[Novick1988:494]
Feminist historians, anthropologists,and psychologists have thus largely
embracedan ethic of difference and have consciously revaluedcognitive styles
previouslydismissedby theiracademicdisciplines. Whethercriticalor supportive
of postmodernism,feminists have "proposed alternativetheories of knowledge
thatlegitimatewomen as knowers" (Harding1989:3). They have workedto alter
the structureof a field of stories or possible explanatoryaccounts by "destabilizing the plausibilityof some strategiesof explanation"(Haraway1986:81). This
involves not the replacementof false versions with true versions, but ratherthe
radicalprojectof constructing
a differentset of boundaries
andpossibilitiesfor whatcan countas knowledgefor
everyone within specific historical circumstances. .. . [Haraway's] thesis is that
feminist science is aboutchangingpossibilities. .... [Haraway1986:81]

As in the black history movement, the commitmentin feminist history has been
"to providea usablepast for theirrespectiveconstituencies"(Novick 1988:511).
The challenge to objectivism from these and other comers has met with resistance, but by and large the resultin such fields as historyand anthropologyhas
been the replacement of consensus with "ideological disarray" (Novick
1988:573). HistorianHaydenWhite, for example, calls into questionwhat counts
as historicalfact in his argumentthatlanguageconstitutesthe objectsit represents,
ratherthanreflects some externalreality (1978:95). White points out that history
is purelydiscursive, and that objectivity is but one possible discursive style, one
thathas developed only since the 19th century(White 1978:124-125). There are
not alternativeversionsof history, but alternativevisions of it. The historianwriting in the present determines the shape of the past. Rather than there being
groundsin the historicalrecord itself for preferringone vision of meaning over
another,the groundsare always the choice of the historian(White 1978:81-100;
see also Novick 1988:599-601). Facts arenot given; they are "constructedby the
kinds of questions which the investigatorasks of the phenomenabefore him"
(White 1978:43).

REPRESENTATIONAND POLITICS 439

White argues, in other words, that neitherwhat is true nor what is fact are
discoveriesof the narrative;both are artifactsof it. The events being studiedmay
have takenplace in the past, but their representationis always in the presentand
dependentto some extent on choices made in the present-in short, on the interests of the writer, whethernative or non-nativescholar.
Non-native Iroquoianistscholars defend a narrativeabout Iroquois culture
historyandIroquois-whiterelationsthathas been constructedandelaboratedover
decades of writing and research. The idea that the Iroquois influenced the formationof the U.S. system of governmentis resisted in partbecause it is inconsistentwith the authorizednarrativeand in partbecause it is not authenticatedby
the availabledocuments, the primarycriterionfor entry into the narrative.
The dissenting scholars are correct in pointing out the political agenda informingthe resourceguide, althoughin the native view it is a combinedpolitical
and culturalagenda. Like most nationalistresponses to colonial domination, it
includesan effort by a few intellectualsto reclaimthe authorityto representtheir
people's history.In addition,Iroquoispeople in generalareconcernedwith countering the devastatingnegative stereotypesof Indians in mainstreamrepresentations. Ultimately, traditionalistsaim both to resist furtherencroachmentson Iroquois land and resources and to re-createamong Iroquoispeople a culturaland
nationalconsciousness that will fortify Iroquois communities against such encroachments.This traditionalistpolitical and cultural agenda is central to the
meaningof the text of the resourceguide, just as the hegemony of objectivismis
to the meaningof its critique.
Thus, the apparentconvergence of the two sides in historical assumptions
and methods-objectivist history-overlays two distinct conceptual matrices.
The scholarsspeak from the objectivist matrixthat defends the academicversion
of Iroquoiscultureandhistoryfromcontaminationby perspectivalor particularist
interpretation.But traditionalistIroquoisspeakfrom a matrixof radicalethnicity.
Theiruse of the dominantauthenticatingstrategiesis an attemptto translateinto
power theirknowledge of the tools and symbols of white academics.
Natives constructingtheirown historyin the 1980s and 1990s are, therefore,
in a positionsimilarto thatof feminists in the early 1970s. In telling andrecording
storiesof women's lives, feministscholarssoughtfor new interpretationsof women's experiences.But in spite of writingforwomen andas women, feminist scholars of thattime neverthelessfound themselves writing "within a patriarchaldiscourse that does not accord subject status to the feminine" (Mascia-Lees et al.
1989:12; see also Nicholson 1990). For feminist scholars, this attemptexposed
the contradictionsin a supposedlyobjective discourse, leading to analysesof how
otherness and asymmetricalpower relations were inscribed in such discourse.
Some feminists then challenged egalitarianclaims that the approved academic
style, includingthe elements that make up objectivity, were uncorrelatedto gender, class, ethnicity,or race. They madeclaims, instead, for distinctivediscursive
and cognitive styles among women (Novick 1988:471), and, more recently, for
such distinctive styles among women located within particularcultural, racial,
class, and historicalcontexts.

440 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

Although such feminist analyses still remain out of the mainstreamof anthropology(Clifford 1986; Lamphere1987; Mascia-Lees et al. 1989; Strathern
1987), they neverthelessproliferateand flourishin variousacademicandpolitical
circles. As Indianshave sought to write as Indians, they, too, like earlierfeminists, have turnedto the availableand legitimized discourse:objectivisthistory. It
is our contentionthat this discourse, as it did for women, also subvertsthe experienceof the Iroquois.But as the audiencefor which they write is largely nonIndian(as comparedto feminists whose audience has largely been made up of
women), the opportunitiesfor Iroquoisto explore and develop forms of discourse
moregenuinelyexpressive of Iroquoisreality are far more restricted.
One of the outcomes of feminist researchwas the developmentof methods
to bring forththe voices that are not capturedin the documentstraditionallyexaminedby historiansand anthropologists(see articles in Harding 1987; Nielsen
1990). But Indians, compelled to use objectivist history, lacked the means to
bring forth these silences in the record. As Clifford (1988) notes, oral societies
leave only sporadictraces, and most of what is centralto their existence is never
written. Thus, their public representationsare adapted to an imposed context
(1988:340). This context, in denyingvalidityto oral history(on the one hand)and
in "exposing" the "falsity" of claims made in the dominantmode of historical
discourse(on the other), has the consequenceof relegatingthe Iroquoisto invisibility. It is the stubbornrefusal of the Iroquoisto remaininvisible in the public
representationof Americanhistory that helps accountfor the currentstate of relationsbetween natives and scholars.
The resourceguide controversywas an interculturalencounter,but because
the rules employed were those of objectivist scholarly engagement, the episode
left both Indiansand scholars feeling betrayed.The threatenedloss of access to
Iroquoisinformantsand the extremely negative personalcomments by Iroquois
people both angeredand saddenedsome scholars, many of whom had served as
expertwitnesses for Indiangroupsin land claims or federalrecognitioncases, or
both.
Besides the personal charges of betrayalexpressed by some scholars and
theirinformants,however, there also lies in this exchange a challenge to the accepted image of the Indian. If there ever had been, there is no longer a clearly
defined,morallyappropriatestanceto be takenby the scholarin relationto Indian
peoples. Even advocacyhas been taintedas Indiansmake theirway in the public
arena,serving as their own spokespersonswithoutconsulting mainstreamscholars. Withlegitimacyprovidedby a stategovernmentapparentlycommittedto presenting "the native point of view," traditionalistIroquoisseem now to have circumventedthe need for scholarlyinputandadvocacy. Despite statementsby some
SED officials that producingthis guide is but a continuationof state policy, the
guide signals a shift in the institutionalizedrelationship between power and
knowledgein New York State.
The traditionalistvision of colonial history itself also challenges the model
of Indianas dependentvictim. In the traditionalistnarrativeof the formationof
Americandemocracy,the Iroquoisarethe agentsand the initiators.But whatthey

REPRESENTATIONAND POLITICS 441

initiatein this narrativeis the very documentand formof governmentmost highly

prizedby the dominantsociety. As has been shown to be the case for ethnic movementselsewhere, it is the moder context that dictatesthe particularformulation
and representationof ethnic identity (Bruner 1986; Handlerand Linnekin 1984;
Hanson1989; Landsman1987; Linnekin1990). IndeedIroquois,like all humans,
are actorsand creators, and what they create is their ongoing culture. They legitimize thatculturewithin the context of existing asymmetricalpower relations, in
partthroughthe public representationof their history. Indians, by saying to the
dominatorsnot only "We have always been on this land" (a refrainthe public
andarcheologistshave long heardfrom Indians),but also "We have always been
partof your history, your respectedform of government,your valued democratic
principles," areassigningto themselveshistoricalcontinuityandan assuredplace
in the futureof the country.In identifyingwith the Constitution,Indiansare constructinga history that naturalizestheir role in the United States, making the Iroquois's continuedexistence and futureprominenceseem inevitable.
The concernof non-nativereviewers of the guide has largely been the "inauthenticity"or "invented" aspect of traditionalistIroquoishistory. Such scholarsexamineIroquoisconstructionsin light of objectivisthistoryand find the constructionsto be false by its standards.The conclusion drawn, then, becomes that
Indiansare either purposely creating, or ignorantlyaccepting, lies for political
ends. But to addressonly this aspect of Iroquoisactions is to miss the point made
in recentstudiesof ethnicmovementsin CanadaandOceaniathat "inventionsare
commonplacecomponents in the ongoing development of authentic cultures"
(Hanson 1989; see also Handlerand Linnekin 1984; Linnekin 1983, 1990; Linnekin and Poyer 1990). Given this, what follows is that "the analytictask is not
to stripaway the inventedportionof cultureas inauthentic,but to understandthe
process by which they acquireauthenticity"(Hanson 1989:898).
Viewed in this light, Indiansare neitherlying nor writingobjectivisthistory.
Within the matrixof radical traditionalistethnicity and the constraintsimposed
by the hegemony of objectivisthistory, these Iroquoisare presentinga narrative
thatreversesthe common image of the Iroquoisas perpetuallythwartedand victimized. With it they are challenging scholars-native and non-native-to help
New York State's schoolchildrenunderstandthe experienceof subjugationand a
contemporarycelebrationof a people's full humanity.
Implications for Native-Scholar Relations
Whenone of the scholarswas asked if he would agree to talk to us aboutthe
controversy,at firsthe misunderstoodthe role he was being asked to play. When
it was explainedthat we wanted to interview him as a participant,an informant,
there was a moment of silence, and then, "Oh, I've never been a footnote before." This exchange illustratesthe problematicassumptionsunderlyingthe relationshipbetweenscholarandnativein Iroquoisstudies. The presentcontroversy
over the guide has revealed a fundamentalchallenge by traditionalistIroquoisto
thatrelationship.

442 CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY

Every native involved in the writingof the guide with whom we talked said
she or he was eager for constructivecriticism and was committed to historical
accuracyand standardsof excellence. One traditionalistparticipantshowed us a
letter received from a scholar that she felt exemplified their expectations. The
letterpraisedthe effort, validatedthe need for a history writtenfrom the native
point of view, and then offered specific instancesof historicalinaccuraciesto be
correctedin the finaldraft;in fact, the inaccuraciescited in the letterwere in most
cases ones to which the dissentingscholarshad also referred.Writerswere willing
to writeaboutcontroversialpointsprovisionallyandto emphasizethe "this is just
our point of view" dimension. Some have modifiedtheirclaims aboutinfluence,
froman argumentof directborrowingto a presentationof the Iroquoisas but one
of several sources of inspirationfor democratic principles. What natives had
wantedfrom Iroquoianistswas genuine acknowledgmentof theirefforts, of their
intellectualcapabilities, and of their right to representthemselves. As one traditionalistsaid of the negative reviewers:
Nobody said it was a commendablefirsteffort. . . . They'remakinga lucrativeliving

We gave themeverything.
andwheredid theyget it? Fromthe oraltraditionalists.

We gave our hospitality . . . and they gave insultingreviews. They criticizedit as if

it was finished. . . . The content of the criticisms led you to think we had no intelligence, no expertisein the field of educationor for thatmatteran understandingof the
educationalprocess..... No one offered good will...

Is a dialoguepossible between scholarsdefendingobjectivisthistoryand Indians defending their self-respect and identity? There is mutual agreementon
much of what happenedbetween the Iroquoisand colonial forefathers;the relianceon anthropologicalandethnohistoricalliteratureby traditionalistsmakesthis
clear. Wherewe do not have agreement,we areleft with a choice: an acrimonious
standoff, with its consequentrupturein native-scholarrelations, or an amicable
disagreementin which participantsare open to the explorationof possible means
for bringingforththe silences in history.
Dialogue could begin with a mutual diplomatic recognition of the other's
interestsandefforts. If knowledge formationis, as some feminist and "post-feminist" scholars suggest, a dialogic process, it is one that requires a context of
equality(Nielsen 1990:29-30). Ourresearchsuggests thatas long as Iroquoistraditionalistsare on the defensive, they will defend their vision of history. If they
were positioned differently-that is, if they were speaking from a situation of
culturalautonomyand political sovereignty, from a position of recognizedequal
standingwith academicscholarsand of public visibility in history-the prospects
for a negotiated,dialogically constructedhistorywould be brighter.
In being able to envision such a process of negotiating history, we speak
fromthe paradigmdeveloped around"the inventionof culture," recognizingthat
anthropologyand historyare themselves culturaldiscoursesthatthereforecannot
occupy "some fixed perspective outside the play of signification of other discourse" (Hanson 1989:899). In his studyof Maoriadoptionof an anthropological

REPRESENTATION
ANDPOLITICS443
invention of their history, Hanson argues that to acknowledge the presence of
inventions in anthropology may appear to jeopardize the discipline's capacity to
locate truth. However, this would be the case only if one assumes "the existence
of some other form of discourse that trades in fixed rules and eternal verities. .." (1989:899). To the contrary, Hanson argues, "invention is an ordinary event in the development of all discourse, which therefore never rests on a
permanent foundation" (Hanson 1989:899).
With Iroquois traditionalists' first opportunity to formalize and publicly represent their history in the schools, the restless, impermanent quality of the foundation of their historical discourse is brought to the fore and collides with an objectivist history that does indeed profess to trade in "fixed rules and eternal verities." For many, then, the concept of negotiated representations of history violates the deepest principles of scholarship. For others, however, it promises the
enrichment of incorporating into history a wider and more diverse range of voices.
Notes
Acknowledgments.Earlierversions of this articlewere presentedat the AnnualMeeting of
the AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation in Washington,D.C., in November 1989, and
as a SUNY guest scholarlecture at the State Universityof New York at Binghamtonon 1
December 1989. Some portions of this article appearin Ciborski's doctoral dissertation
(Ciborski 1990). A Nuala McGann Drescher Award of the New York State/UUP Joint
Committeeprovidedleave time for Landsmanto devote to the task of
Labor-Management
researchingand writingher partof this article.
We would like to express our gratitudeto the following people who read and offered
commentson an earlierversionof the article:William Starna,JackCampisi, JohnFadden,
Ron LaFrance,Hazel Dean-John,GeorgeGregory,Douglas George, Dean Snow, Alfonso
Ortiz, HaraldPrins, James Preston, Alvin Morrison,JenniferBrown, FranMascia-Lees,
and GeraldSider. We would also like to thankWilliam Starnafor lengthy conversations
duringwhich the authorsand he often disagreedbut from which we always learned;and
JohnFadden,for his enlightening, thought-provokingcorrespondencethroughoutthe process of writing this article. Hazel Dean-John's generosity in providing materials was
greatlyappreciated.
'It is importantto note that some people fit both of these categories-scholar and native.
2Theseincludedmeetings of the AmericanSociety for Ethnohistoryand both the 1988 and
the 1989 Annual Conferenceon Iroquois Research. The latter also offered a particularly
interestingopportunityto see some Iroquoianistscholars and native scholars exchange
views directly.
3Fordiscussion of the consequences of conductingfieldworkamong scholars, see Landsman 1990.
4TheoriginalIroquoisLeaguewas a confederacyof firstfive, then six, tribes, whose origin
and structurehave been subjects of considerable scholarly discussion. Today's Grand
Council meets as needed at Onondaga(there is a parallelconfederacyat Six Nations Reserve in Canada),althoughusually withoutthe full complementof 50 chiefs describedby
Morgan(1851) and specified in all native versions of the GreatLaw.

444 CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY

5Hauptman(1988:78-86) claims that the Native American EducationUnit has been understaffedandbeset with problems,and thatIndianeducationhas been assignedlow priority within SED.
6Somereviewers (includingall natives and scholars, and some educators)served as paid
consultants,receiving a fee of $200, and others were given the opportunityto review but
withoutmonetarycompensation.Each reviewerwas given a form, consisting of two parts,
to fill out: (1) a simple respondentprofile (determiningoccupation and grade levels at
which respondentsteach or supervisesocial studies) and (2) an evaluationof the resource
guide in which responses to questions about the guide's accomplishmentof stated objectives were chosen on a four-pointscale. Reviewers were asked to assess the guide, the
extent to which it (1) was clearly written, (2) was organizedso as to contributeto the understandingof its contents, (3) adequatelydescribedits purpose,and(4) providedactivities
appropriatefor the designatedgradelevels, and so on.
7Theinfluenceschool refersto those who supportthe notion thatAmericandemocracywas
influencedby the Iroquois form of government. It ranges from the argumentthat the
"foundingfathers" used the IroquoisGreatLaw as a model for the Constitutionto argumentsfor indirectinfluence(e.g., that the Iroquoiswere one of many sources for the idea
of representativegovernment). Influence school scholars include Donald Grinde, Bruce
Johansen,Greg Schaaf, Bruce Burton,Oren Lyons, and JohnMohawk, among others.
8Forexample, an article in The New Republic disparagesthe influence idea, stating that
"with the help of a few renegadehistoriansand a New York advertisingfirm, the Iroquois
have been persuadingthe public thattheirancestorsguided Madison's hand in writingthe
Constitution"(Newman 1988:17). The authorridicules a September 1988 ceremony on
the Mall in Washington, D.C., sanctionedby the U.S. ConstitutionBicentennial Commission in which IroquoisIndiansparticipated.The articlefurtherproclaimsthat "in New
York the Iroquoishave almost succeeded in rewritingthe history textbooks" and warns
thatthe "myth isn't just silly, it's destructive."
9Theresourceguide controversycannotbe said to be exclusively responsiblefor damaged
Iroquois-scholarrelations,nor to have completely closed off all Iroquoisresearchfor such
scholars. As one Iroquoianistpointed out in response to this article, some Iroquoisreservationsand informantswere alreadyclosed to particularIroquoianistsanyway, and some
remainopen to workingwith Iroquoianistsdespite the resourceguide controversy.
'?Thequote as it appearsin the draftof the guide reads, "It would be a strangething if six
nationsof ignorantsavages shouldbe capableof formingsuch a union and it has subsisted
for ages and appearsindissolvable, and yet a like union should be impracticalfor 10 or a
dozen Englishcolonies."
"Harding,for example, presentsthe argumentthat "historically, relativismappearsas an
intellectualpossibility, and as a 'problem,' only for dominatinggroups at the point where
the hegemony (the universality)of their views is being challenged" (Harding 1987:10).
As an example, she points to the modem emergence of relativismin the "belated recognitionby 19th-centuryEuropeansthatthe apparentlybizarrebeliefs andbehaviorsof nonEuropeanshada rationalityor logic of theirown" (1987:10). Thus, it is not surprisingthat
claims by postmodernistwhite male scholars that truth is unknowableappearat a time
when controlover the definingof truthis slipping from the hands of white men (MasciaLees et al. 1989:15).

ANDPOLITICS445
REPRESENTATION

References Cited
Ambach,Gordon
1985 Letterto Colleagues. In Iroquoianand AlgonquianIndians:An HistoricalPerspective. New York: University of the State of New York, State EducationDepartment (Native AmericanEducationUnit).
Blu, Karen
1980 The LumbeeProblem:The Making of an AmericanIndianPeople. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bruner,Edward
1986 Ethnographyas Narrative.In The Anthropologyof Experience. Victor Turner
and EdwardBruner,eds. Pp. 139-155. Chicago: Universityof Illinois Press.
Ciborski,Sara
1990 Cultureand Power:The Emergenceand Politics of Akwesasne Mohawk Traditionalism. Ph.D. dissertation,State Universityof New York, Albany.
Clifford,James
1986 Introduction:PartialTruths.In WritingCulture:The Poetics andPolitics of Ethnography.James Clifford and George Marcus, eds. Pp. 1-26. Berkeley: University
of CaliforniaPress.
1988 The Predicamentof Culture:Twentieth-CenturyEthnography,Literature,and
Art. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress.
DiStefano, Christine
1990 Dilemmas of Difference: Feminism, Modernity, and Postmodernism.In Feminism/Postmodernism.LindaNicholson, ed. Pp. 63-82. New York:Routledge.
Fenton,William
1940 ProblemsArising from the HistoricNortheasternPosition of the Iroquois.In Essays in HistoricalAnthropologyof North America. SmithsonianMiscellaneous Collections, 100. Pp. 159-251. Washington,D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution.
1965 The IroquoisConfederacyin the TwentiethCentury:A Case Studyof the Theory
of Lewis HenryMorganin "Ancient Society." Ethnology4(3):251-265.
1975 The Lore of the Longhouse: Myth, Ritual and Red Power. Anthropological
Quarterly48(3):131-147.
Fogelson, Raymond
1989 The Ethnohistoryof Events and Nonevents. Ethnohistory36(2):133-147.
Handler,Richard
1984 On Sociocultural Discontinuity: Nationalism and Cultural Objectificationin
Quebec. CurrentAnthropology24(1):55-71.
Handler,Richard,and Jocelyn Linnekin
1984 Tradition,Genuineor Spurious.Journalof AmericanFolklore97:273-290.
Hanson, Allan
1989 The Making of the Maori: CultureInvention and Its Logic. American Anthropologist 91(4):890-902.
Haraway,Donna
1986 Primatologyis Politics by Other Means. In Feminist Approaches to Science.
RuthBleier, ed. Pp.77-118. New York:PergamonPress.
Harding,Sandra
1987 Introduction:Is Therea FeministMethod?In Feminismand Methodology. SandraHarding,ed. Pp. 1-14. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

446 CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
Hauptman,Laurence
1988 FormulatingAmericanIndianPolicy in New York State, 1970-1986. Albany:
State Universityof New York Press.
Hawkesworth,Mary
1989 Knowers, Knowing, Known: Feminist Theories and Claims of Truth. Signs
14(3):533-557.
Lamphere,Louise
1987 FeminismandAnthropology:The Struggleto ReshapeOurThinkingaboutGender. In The Impactof FeministResearchin the Academy. ChristieFarnham,ed. Pp.
11-33. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Landsman,Gail
1985 Ganienkeh:Symbol and Politics in an Indian/WhiteConflict. AmericanAnthropologist 87(4):826-839.
1987 IndianActivism and the Press:Coverage of the Conflict at Ganienkeh.Anthropological Quarterly60(1):101-113.
1988 Sovereignty and Symbol: Indian-WhiteConflict at Ganienkeh. Albuquerque:
Universityof New Mexico Press.
1990 Informantas Critic: ConductingResearch on a Dispute Between Iroquoianist
Scholars and TraditionalistIroquois. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the
AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation, New Orleans.
Landsman,Gail, and Louise Krasniewicz
1990 "A Native Man is Still a Man": A Case Study of InterculturalParticipationin
Social Movements. Anthropologyand HumanismQuarterly15(1):11-19.
Linnekin,Jocelyn
1983 Defining Tradition:Variationson the HawaiianIdentity. AmericanEthnologist
10(2):241-252.
1990 The Politics of Culturein the Pacific. In CulturalIdentity and Ethnicity in the
Pacific. Jocelyn Linnekinand Lyn Poyer, eds. Pp. 149-173. Honolulu:Universityof
HawaiiPress.
Linnekin,Jocelyn, and Lyn Poyer
1990 Introduction.In CulturalIdentityand Ethnicityin the Pacific. Jocelyn Linnekin
and Lyn Poyer, eds. Pp. 1-16. Honolulu:Universityof Hawaii Press.
Mascia-Lees,Frances,P. Sharpe,and C. BallerinoCohen
1989 The PostmodernistTurnin Anthropology:Cautionsfroma FeministPerspective.
Signs 15(1):7-33.
Morgan,Lewis Henry
1851 League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee,or Iroquois. Rochester, N.Y.: Sage.
Newman, Michael
1988 FoundingFeathers.The New Republic, November7:17-18.
New York State EducationDepartment
1988 Haudenosaunee:Past, Present, Future.A Social Studies Resource Guide Draft.
Albany:Universityof the Stateof New York, New YorkStateEducationDepartment.
1989 A Curriculumof Inclusion. Report of the Commissioner'sTask Force on Minorities:Equityand Excellence. Albany:New York State EducationDepartment.
Nicholson, Linda
1990 Introduction.In Feminism/Postmodernism.Linda Nicholson, ed. Pp. 1-16.
New York:Routledge.
Nielsen, Joyce McCarl, ed.
1990 FeministResearchMethods:ExemplaryReadingsin the Social Sciences. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

REPRESENTATION
ANDPOLITICS447
Novick, Peter
1988 That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical
Profession. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Rosen, Lawrence
1977 The Anthropologistas Expert Witness. American Anthropologist79(3):555578.
Starna,William
1987 IndianLandClaims in New York State:A Policy Analysis. RockefellerInstitute
Special Reports, 21. Albany: Nelson A. Rockefeller Instituteof Government,State
Universityof New York.
1988 Epilogue. In Iroquois Land Claims. ChristopherVecsey and William Starna,
eds. Pp. 163-177. Syracuse, N.Y.: SyracuseUniversity Press.
Strather, Marilyn
1987 An Awkward Relationship:The Case of Feminism and Anthropology. Signs
12(2):276-292.
Tong, Rosemarie
1989 Feminist Thought:A ComprehensiveIntroduction.Boulder, Colo.: Westview
Press.
Tooker, Elisabeth
1988 The United States Constitution and the Iroquois League. Ethnohistory
35(4):305-336.
Vecsey, Christopher
1988 Introduction.In IroquoisLandClaims. ChristopherVecsey and William Starna,
eds. Pp. 1-16. Syracuse, N.Y.: SyracuseUniversityPress.
Vecsey, Christopher,and William Starna
1988 IroquoisLandClaims. Syracuse, N.Y.: SyracuseUniversityPress.
Voget, Fred
1984 AnthropologicalTheory and Iroquois Ethnography:1850-1970. In Extending
the Rafters:InterdisciplinaryApproachesto IroquoianStudies. Michael Foster, Jack
Campisi, and MarianneMithun, eds. Pp. 343-357. Albany: State Universityof New
YorkPress.
White, Hayden
1978 Tropicsof Discourse:Essays in CulturalCriticism. Baltimore,Md.: JohnsHopkins UniversityPress.