Notes on Native-American Literature and Policy: From Noble Savage to Trail of Tears - Page-by-Page

Page 1

• Theme/Title: From "Noble Savage” to “Vanishing Indian”
• This page signals a framing of two enduring stereotypes used to represent Indigenous peoples in American cultural discourse:
  • The Noble Savage: Indigenous peoples portrayed as pure, natural, spiritually connected, and noble but uncivilized.
  • The Vanishing Indian: Indigenous peoples depicted as a vanishing population facing extinction in the face of Euro-American expansion.
• Purpose: Set up a critical lens for examining how literature and visual culture have depicted Native Americans, and to prepare for discussion of post-colonial dynamics (power, voice, representation).

Page 2

• Core claim: Native-American literature is a post-colonial literature because of the dynamic relationship between colonizing and colonized voices.
• Key distinctions:
  • Literature by a COLONIZING culture (e.g., European-descended writers) often distorts the experience of colonized peoples and can imply innate inferiority (colonizer-centered viewpoint).
  • Literature by the COLONIZED culture (e.g., Native American writers) seeks to regain the power to speak for themselves, rather than be spoken ABOUT by others.
• Concept of cultural exchange and appropriation:
  • Colonizing cultures often appropriate languages, images, scenes, and traditions from the colonized land, and vice versa (cultural exchange can be layered with power dynamics).
• Key terms to remember:
  • Post-colonial literature
  • Voice/speaking for oneself vs. speaking ABOUT by others
  • Cultural appropriation and cross-cultural influence

Page 3

• Native-American literature is identified as post-colonial for additional reasons:
  • It articulates group identity and reclaims the past, offering its own version of history.
  • It also recognizes the influence of the colonizer on Indigenous cultures and narratives.
• Consequence of colonial contact:
  • Colonizing nations often appropriate Indigenous languages, images, scenes, and traditions.
  • Conversely, Indigenous cultures influence colonizers as well—an exchange shaped by power dynamics and cultural erasure risks.
• Key takeaway: Post-colonial framing emphasizes agency, memory, and re-narration by the colonized while acknowledging ongoing influence and interconnection with the colonizer.

Page 4

• Colonial New England conceptions of Indigenous peoples (two views):
  • View 1: Native Americans as the lost tribes of Israel, awaiting conversion.
  • View 2: Native Americans as children of Satan – descendants of fallen angels.
• Both views function as justifications for eradicating Indigenous peoples and cultures, framed as religious or moral imperatives.
• Imagery in this slide: The Death of Jane McCrea (John Vanderlyn, 1804). This painting is used as a representative historical image that reflects violent attitudes toward Native peoples in the colonial/early national period.
• Significance: These justifications show how religious and racial narratives were used to rationalize dispossession and violence against Indigenous communities.

Page 5

• Southern colonial conceptions of Indigenous peoples center on the figure of the Noble Savage and its counterpart, the ‘ignoble savage’ (in contrast to the New England view).
• Noble Savage (Southern stereotype):
  • Savage = uncivilized; Noble = innocent, pure, wise, childlike, nature-connected, spiritual.
  • The Noble Savage is essentially inferior in terms of civilization but morally virtuous and susceptible to European guidance/deliverance.
• The idealized, romanticized view: Indigenous peoples are depicted as open to European leadership and spiritual salvation, rather than inherently evil.
• Image note: Baptism of Pocahontas (John G. Chapman, Capitol Rotunda, Washington, D.C.) used to symbolize the supposed civilizing mission and harmonious cross-cultural narrative.
• Key implications: Justifications for paternalism, missionary activity, and assimilation policies.

Page 6

• Slide title: "Noble Savage" (likely elaborating the stereotype with visual examples and discussion in class notes).
• Concept recap: The Noble Savage remains a central stereotype used to rationalize unequal power relations while attributing moral virtue to Indigenous peoples who are framed as needing European guidance.

Page 7

• The Vanishing Indian (Pre-contact status):
  • Estimated pre-contact Indigenous population: 10{,}000{,}000 ext{ to } 15{,}000{,}000 people (10-15 ext{ million}).
  • In contemporary terms, about 2{,}000{,}000 remain today (a drastic reduction).
• Causal factors listed: Disease and warfare following European contact.
• Temporal shift: From the 1840s onward, Native Americans are labeled as the “vanishing race,” supposedly melting away in the face of Euro-American expansion.
• Political/ideological use: The vanishing narrative justifies expansionist policies and erasure of Native cultures.
• Image: Last of Their Race (John Mix Stanley, 1857).

Page 8

• Concept: The “Civilization” of the Frontier is framed through the lens of Manifest Destiny.
• Visual representation: American Progress (John Gast, 1872) depicts progress and civilization moving westward.
• Interpretive note: The image personifies progress as a female figure guiding expansion and enlightenment (education, technology) while Indigenous peoples and natural inhabitants (Indians and buffalo) retreat before this progress.
• Significance: The painting encapsulates 19th-century justifications for westward expansion as a civilizing mission and a divine right.

Page 9

• Description of the American Progress narrative:
  • A female spirit, linked to Liberty, leads pioneers forward and embodies technological progress.
  • She holds a school book (enlightenment/education) in one hand and spools telegraph wire in the other.
  • Indigenous peoples (Indians) and the buffalo retreat before this advancing force.
• Core idea: Progress equals civilization, while Indigenous peoples are displaced or displaced into marginal futures.

Page 10

• Manifest Destiny defined via John L. O’Sullivan (1845):
  • Quote (paraphrased): America’s Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.
  • This slogan became one of the most influential driving ideas for westward expansion and settlement.
• Analytical takeaway: The concept intertwines religion, providence, national destiny, and population growth as legitimating narratives for conquest and displacement.

Page 11

• Further articulation of Manifest Destiny:
  • The idea that America has a special destiny to stretch across the continent motivated migration westward.
  • Herman Melville’s stance: “We Americans are the peculiar, chosen people—the Israel of our time.”
• Implication: The rhetoric of chosenness analogous to biblical language supports exceptionalist national narratives and justifies expansion at Indigenous expense.

Page 12

• Map/scene: “Indian Territory,” circa 1700.
• Color legend: Yellow = Spanish; green = French; blue = English.
• Core observation: British actively displaced natives with settlements; Everything other than blue (i.e., non-English territories) was generally considered “Indian Territory” in practice, reflecting a contested space of colonial power and Indigenous presence.
• Implications for data interpretation: The designation of territories reveals competing colonial claims and the marginalization of Native land rights.

Page 13

• Map/scene: “Indian Territory,” 1763.
• Event: France cedes land east of the Mississippi River to England.
• Official action: King George III issues the “Indian Proclamation Line,” creating the first official conception of an “Indian Country.”
• Significance: The Proclamation Line established a formal delineation between colonial/settler lands and Indigenous lands, shaping subsequent policy and settlement patterns.

Page 14

• “Indian Territory,” 1783.
• Event: Treaty of Paris revokes the Indian Proclamation Line.
• Consequence: The line is redrawn to reflect actual encroachment across the Appalachian Mountains and the Ohio River Valley.
• Takeaway: Treaties and land demarcations shifted as European powers reorganized claims, often increasing pressure on Indigenous lands.

Page 15

• “Indian Territory,” 1803.
• Event: Louisiana Purchase.
• Consequence: The Mississippi River becomes the natural barrier between “Indian Country” to the west and “civilization” to the east.
• Significance: The geographic framing reinforces a binary between settled lands and Indigenous lands, underpinning later policies of removal and allotment.

Page 16

• “Indian Territory,” 1834.
• Event: Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834 (federal policy framework governing trade and interactions with Indigenous nations).
• Implication: Establishes legal mechanisms that regulate commerce and movement in relation to Indian lands, foreshadowing later removal and assimilation policies.

Page 17

• “Indian Territory,” 1854.
• Note: The slide header is listed, but content details are not provided in the transcript. Contextually, this period continues the era of formalized U.S. policy toward Indian lands (segregation of lands, reservation systems, and federal oversight).

Page 18

• “Indian Territory,” 1876.
• Post–Civil War relocations:
  • The Five Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole) were forced to cede additional lands.
  • Great Plains tribes were relocated from Kansas and Nebraska.
• Significance: This reflects continued policy-driven displacement and the consolidation of Native nations onto designated territories, often under coercive terms.

Page 19

• “Indian Territory,” 1889.
• Event: General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) and the creation of Oklahoma Territory.
• Outcome: Indian Territory shrunk to its final form as federal policies redefined land ownership and tribal sovereignty.
• Implication: The allotment policy aimed to dismantle communal landholding and assimilate Indigenous people into a Euro-American land tenure system.

Page 20

• Indian Removal Act of 1830 (President Andrew Jackson):
  • Policy objective: Force Native American removal from eastern lands.
  • Framing rationale: Paternalistic claim of protecting and preserving Indian cultures, while simultaneously moving Indigenous peoples west or erasing tribal rights.
  • Mechanism: Removal as the only perceived path to “civilize” the “vanishing Indian.”
• Key policy driver: Expansionist pressures and the belief that removal would facilitate national growth and security.

Page 21

• Rationale behind removal (reiterated):
  • White Americans viewed Indian control of land and natural resources as a threat to expansion and national security.
• Practical implication: Removal policies were justified on grounds of safety, economic opportunity, and national interest, often at the expense of Indigenous sovereignty and rights.

Page 22

• Map/diagram: The “Trail of Tears” route listing states/counties (Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana).
• Modes of travel: Land route and water route (specifics shown with emphasis on the scale of forced movements).
• Thematic takeaway: The Trail of Tears represents a pathway of forced displacement tied to removal policies.

Page 23

• Trail of Tears (Cherokee removal 1838–1839):
  • The Cherokee nation was forced to abandon lands east of the Mississippi and migrate to territory in present-day Oklahoma.
  • The Cherokee people named this journey the “Trail of Tears” due to its devastating effects.
  • Mortality impact: Over 4,000 out of 15,000 Cherokees died during the forced march.
• Numerics:
  • Population affected: 15{,}000
  • Deaths: 4{,}000
  • Mortality rate: rac{4{,}000}{15{,}000} \approx 0.267 (about 26.7%)
• Significance: Illustrates human cost of removal policies and the human dimension of legislative action.

Page 24

• Primary source excerpt (Private John G. Burnett, Captain Abraham McClellan's Company, 2nd Regiment, 2nd Brigade, Mounted Infantry):
  • Description of the arrest, detention, and forced march of Cherokees under wet, freezing conditions.
  • Personal testimony emphasizes suffering: arrest at homes, forced into stockades, transported in wagons, exposure to sleet and snow, and high mortality due to pneumonia and exposure.
• Thematic takeaway: Eyewitness accounts underscore the brutality and humanitarian crisis of the removal process.

Page 25

• Public address during removal: Andrew Jackson’s statement to Cherokee people regarding removal.
• Quotation context: Emphasizes the notion that removal is an unavoidable path toward improvement and a future of prosperity, framed as a collective existential decision.
• Implication: The rhetoric of inevitability and uplift helped sustain support for removal policies despite humanitarian costs.

Page 26

• Cherokee Legislative Council (New Echota) – July 1830:
  • Quote attributed to the council reflecting the sentiment of removal and relocation as a response to external pressures.
• Significance: The New Echota proceedings documented Indigenous political engagement and the contradictory stance of sovereignty within coercive policies.

Page 27

• Attribution: Trail of Tears image by Robert Lindneux (1939–1942 era, dated 1942).
• Purpose of the image: Visual representation of the Trail of Tears to accompany the historical narrative.
• Note for interpretation: Artistic renderings can shape public memory and historical interpretation; compare the painting to primary sources and testimonies (e.g., Burnett) for a fuller understanding of the removal experience.

Key Concepts and Connections

• Post-colonial framework:
  • Native American literature is analyzed as a response to colonization, emphasizing Indigenous voice, identity, and history while acknowledging cultural exchange and power asymmetries.
• Stereotypes and their consequences:
  • Noble Savage and Vanishing Indian frames both justify unequal power dynamics and removal/assimilation policies.
• Manifest Destiny and state policy:
  • The rhetoric of destiny and civilizational mission provided moral justification for expansion and Indigenous displacement.
• Legal and political processes:
  • Proclamation Lines, Treaties (1763, 1783), Acts (1830, 1834, 1889), and territorial reorganizations show how policy translated into forced relocation and land redistribution.
• Human cost and memory:
  • The Trail of Tears represents a powerful case study of how policy, rhetoric, and violence intersect to produce mass suffering; eyewitness accounts and art contribute to the historical record and memory.

Notable Names, Dates, and Figures (for quick review)

• John Vanderlyn, The Death of Jane McCrea (1804) – colonial-era propaganda/imagery reflecting erasure and violence toward Indigenous peoples.
• John Gast, American Progress (1872) – allegorical painting illustrating Manifest Destiny.
• John L. O’Sullivan, 1845 – Coined the term Manifest Destiny.
• Herman Melville – Quote framing Americans as a chosen people, Israel of our time.
• Cherokee Removal (1838–1839) – Forced migration; deaths ~4{,}000 of 15{,}000; Trail of Tears.
• Andrew Jackson – Policy proponent of removal; rhetoric of civilization and inevitability.
• Indian Proclamation Line (1763) and Treaty of Paris (1783) – Shifting legal boundaries of Indian Territory.
• Dawes Act (General Allotment Act) of 1889 – Allotment and the shrinking of tribal lands.
• Robert Lindneux, Trail of Tears (1942) – Artistic depiction of the removal narrative.

Practice/Study Prompts

• Explain how the Noble Savage and Vanishing Indian stereotypes function to justify different forms of control over Indigenous peoples.
• Describe how Manifest Destiny combined religious, racial, and political rhetoric to legitimize westward expansion.
• Compare primary-source accounts (e.g., Burnett’s narrative) with visual representations (e.g., American Progress) in shaping public memory of expansion and removal.
• Discuss the impact of legislative acts (e.g., Indian Removal Act of 1830, Dawes Act of 1889) on Indigenous sovereignty and land ownership.
• Reflect on how post-colonial critique can help us understand Indigenous agency in literature and history, even within coercive policy frameworks.