La literatura comparada en el fin de siglo.

Fil: Bernheimer, Charles. Universidad de Pensilvania; Estados UnidosFil: Arac, Jonathan. Universidad de Pittsburgh; Estados UnidosFil: Hirsch, Marianne. Universidad de Columbia; Estados UnidosFil: Jones, Ann Rosalind. Universidad de Bangor; GalesFil: Judy, Ronald. Universidad de Pittsburgh; Estados UnidosFil: Krupat, Arnold. Sarah Lawrence College; Estados UnidosFil: LaCapra, Dominick. Universidad Cornell; Estados UnidosFil: Molloy, Sylvia. Universidad de París; FranciaFil: Nichols, Steve. Universidad de Utah; Estados UnidosFil: Suleri, Sara. Universidad Yale; Estados UnidosTraducción de Claudia Gilman

Ethnocriticism: ethnography, history, literature

Ethnocriticism moves cultural critique to the boundaries that exist between cultures. The boundary traversed in Krupat's dexterous new book is the contested line between native and mainstream American literatures and cultures.For over a century the discourses of ethnography, history, and literature have sought to represent the Indian in America. Krupat considers all these discourses and the ways in which Indians have attempted to "write back," producing an oppositional - or at least a parallel - discourse

Représenter la dépossession des Cherokees

Dans son oeuvre magistrale, De la démocratie en Amérique, 1838-1839, Alexis de Tocqueville, qui avait anticipé les effets de la loi sur l’exil des Indiens de 1830, laquelle donnait au président Andrew Jackson le droit « d’exproprier » les Indiens de l’Est vers des terres situées à l’ouest du Mississippi, écrivait ceci : « On ne saurait détruire les hommes en respectant mieux les lois de l’humanité ». L’année même de la parution du livre de Tocqueville, les Cherokees de l’Est ont dû quitter de force leurs foyers en Caroline du Nord et en Géorgie pour prendre le chemin de l’exil et se rendre en territoire indien, aujourd’hui l’Oklahoma. Ayant entrepris le voyage en pleine canicule et l’ayant poursuivi par les grands froids d’hiver, environ quatre mille membres de la nation cherokee ont péri sur les treize mille qui ont cheminé sur le sentier connu plus tard sous le nom de « Sentier où ils ont pleuré » ou « Sentier des larmes ». Cet article examine le travail de certains auteurs cherokees, Robert J. Conley, Glenn Twist, Wilma Mankiller et, en particulier, Diane Glancy qui cherchent à représenter la dépossession de leur peuple.In his magisterial Democracy in America (1838-1839), Alexis de Tocqueville, foreseeing the effects of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, giving President Andrew Jackson the authority to “remove” eastern Indians to lands west of the Mississippi, wrote that “It is impossible to destroy men with more respect to the laws of humanity”. It was in the same year that De Tocqueville’s book appeared that the eastern Cherokee were forcibly removed from their North Carolina and Georgia homes to Indian Territory, present day Oklahoma. Travelling first in the hottest days of the summer, then, in the coldest days of the winter, the Cherokee lost some four thousand of the roughly thirteen thousand people who set out on what came to be known as “The Trail Where We Cried”, or “The Trail of Tears”. This paper looks at attempts on the part of some contemporary Cherokee writers, Robert J. Conley, Glenn Twist, Wilma Mankiller, and, in particular, Diane Glancy, to represent the dispossession of their people

Recovering Hiram Chase

Hiram Chase III (1861-1928) was an Omaha Indian and the first Native person to pass the Nebraska State Bar in 1889....This paper examines Chase's speech to the 1911 Convention of the Society of American Indians and prints and comments on two brief, previously unpublished biographical notes of Chase by his sons, Hiram IV and Kenneth Chase

Mythography and Dialogue in the Study of Native American Literature

Mythography and Dialogue in the Study of Native American Literature The Spoken Word and the Work of Interpretation. By Dennis Tedlock. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983. 365 pp. $35.00 Cloth.$14.95 Paper. Arnold Krupat With this book Dennis Tedlock establishes (or perhaps confirms) his position as one of the handful of indispensable commentators on Native American literatures. Not merely honorific, such an estimate means that it would be hard to imagine any important developments in this field, for the immediate future, that did not take account of Tedlock's work for its wide range and for the excellence of its particular parts. The Spoken Word contains four sections, "Translation and Transcription, "Poetics, "Hermeneutics" and "Toward Dialogue, " each of which contains four essays. Such an arrangement would seem both to invoke a widespread Native American pattern number, and a widespread Euroamerican pattern of disciplinary distinctions. The materials of Part 1, for example, are usually considered the province of social scientists; those of Part 2, of literary theorists; of Part 3, the philosophers; and Part 4-? Part 4 precisely calls into question the preceding distinctions as well as, most importantly, the presumptive distinction between the knower and the known that has founded Western anthropology from its inception until well into the twentieth century. Everywhere there are specifically valuable observations on the narrative practice of the southwestern Zuni, and the Quiche Maya of Guatemala, as there are subtle and finely argued observations on what it means to "do" anthropology-to study an-Other culture-in our post-colonial period

University of California Press eScholarship editions

Drawing on the life stories of Native Americans solicited by historians during the 19th century and, later, by anthropologists concerned with amplifying the cultural record, Arnold Krupat examines the Indian autobiography as a specific genre of American writing

Reply to Dennis Tedlock

The editor of the American Indian Culture and Research Journal has kindly given me the opportunity to reply to Dennis Tedlock's response to my essay-review of his book, The Spoken Word and the Work of Interpretation. I have been asked only that my "counter-comment should not be longer than his paper, [that I] . . . should avoid any personal comments, and should try to remain as close as possible to the points of contention that are discussed in his paper." I can surely be briefer than Tedlock, because there are very few real points of contention between his positions and my own; it is only his representation of what I wrote in my "Mythography and Dialogue . . . '' that produces the appearance of contention. Personal comment is another matter. My review article treats Tedlock's work with consistent praise, in a tone that is respectful throughout; there is nothing of the "innuendo and irony" of which I am accused. Tedlock responds to my work, however, by impugning not merely my scholarship but my motives, assuming that I am consistently engaged in "moves" familiar or recognizable, in a variety of "games" all of which are to be taken as aspects of "academic politics" (p. 70, 72, and passim). It is virtually impossible to defend oneself against a charge as vague and insidious as playing "academic politics," especially since Tedlock never does say what he actually means by the phrase. He and I are not members of the same department, nor even in the same discipline (he is an anthropologist, I am a professor of literature); we are not affiliated with the same institutions. I have no doubt he has something specific in mind, but what? I continue to believe that what I wrote can be judged entirely on its own terms, and that no speculation about motives is necessary to explain it. If one nonetheless feels compelled to look for outside explanations, it seems to me that the notion of a desire to play "academic politics" is among the more fantastic. It is much more reasonable to conclude that Tedlock has, here, quite simply projected his own concerns as mine

The voice in the margin: Native American literature and the canon

In its consideration of American Indian literature as a rich and exciting body of work, The Voice in the Margin invites us to broaden our notion of what a truly inclusive American literature might be, and of how it might be placed in relation to an international - a "cosmopolitan" - literary canon. The book comes at a time when the most influential national media have focused attention on the subject of the literary canon. They have made it an issue not merely of academic but of general public concern, expressing strong opinions on the subject of what the American student should or should not read as essential or core texts. Is the literary canon simply a given of tradition and history, or is it, and must it be, constantly under construction? The question remains hotly contested to the present moment.Arnold Krupat argues that the literary expression of the indigenous peoples of the United States has claims on us to more than marginal attention. Demonstrating a firm grasp of both literary history and contemporary critical theory, he situates Indian literature, traditional and modern, in a variety of contexts and categories. His extensive knowledge of the history and current theory of ethnography recommends the book to anthropologists and folklorists as well as to students and teachers of literature, both canonical and noncanonical. The materials covered, the perspectives considered, and the learning displayed all make The Voice in the Margin a major contribution to the exciting field of contemporary cultural studies