Imposing a split between men and women that corresponded to a separation be-tween the public arena of the autonomous, competitive, possessive in-dividual and the private, selfless world of familial domesticity was as essential to the colonizing process as it was to the organization of the expanding nation-state and its market-oriented economy.

She taught her to "take land before you ever take money" and not to "fall in line with the white peoples' demands that we should blend in with civi-lized people."47 Even into the 198os women passed "the power down from generation to generation" that came from sustaining a tradi-tional relationship to the land.

Christine Galler told the assem-bled delegates, "I am a woman and you might think it funny that the Colvilles elect a woman ... but the capacity of an Indian woman's head has the same amount as a man or a white man."

Within the Department of the Interior more powerful agencies successfully pressed for the erection of dams along the Columbia River that would flood Native American lands and interrupt the salmon runs.

Collier's di-rector of Indian education reorganized the curriculum to teach girls some farming skills, but the Bureau· of Indian Affairs continued to em-phasize women's primary role as domestic. Like other New Deal agen-cies, it placed the need to restore men's jobs and men's place in the economy before any feminist concerns about women's economic independence.

Administrators condemned the backwardness of Native Americans as the major reason for their failure to become self-supporting agriculturalists and housewives, yet their own policies reflected a rigid adherence to gender ideology that limited the possibility of success.

They in-sisted that Native Americans undertake the risks of small farm agriculture at a time when white farmers were struggling to survive. Having denied women the education and skills necessary for farming, they proceeded to define women as unable to farm. In drawing up reg-ulations "relating to the Indians and Their Lands," Oscar Lipps, the chief official of the Northern Idaho Agency, included among those too disabled to cultivate their own land "unmarried women," "widows who have no sons of suitable age," and "all married women whose husbands and sons are not in a condition to cultivate." Only adult males were defined as "able-bodied."31 As a consequence, land owned by women readily passed into white hands.

"citizenship and Chris-tianity should go hand in hand" with individual land title.

these women justified their activism in the public realm on the basis of the special qualities they had acquired through their location in the private world of home, family, and moth-erhood.

In the I 88os legislation was proposed to "help the Indians to become independent farmers and stockmen by making them individual land holders," loosen "the fatal tribal bonds," and open the way "for their entrance into citizenship.1

Sixty years later, their successors were still trying to teach female converts to "dress better, to put aside the blanket, and to make bread" so they would become "refined, talented, learned American ladies.I/

Indeed, a fluid notion of gender identity enabled some men and women to assume the activities

Among these peoples women played a major role in the production and trade of subsistence items, principally through gathering roots, berries, and other edible plants. Women also shared in the collective work of fishing that sup-plied most of the protein in their diets, caught small animals for food, and joined the buffalo hunts that ventured across the Rocky Moun-tains into the Great Plains. By virtue of their contributions, women controlled the distribution of the food, the dwellings their labor had built, and all the products of their labor.

women were to be sheltered within the private space of the home while their husbands were to "be allowed a man's rights and privileges and be held to the performance of a man's obligations" and enjoy "the autonomy of the individual.

As elsewhere, the colonizing process by which the United States es-tablished control over indigenous peoples involved the "domestica-tion" of women

She must be recognized, with affection and respect, as the center of domestic life.

Nothing will be more apt to raise the Indians in the scale of civilization than to stimulate their attachment to permanent homes

"We live just like white folks," a Native American husband was quoted as saying in a 1933 report issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, "since my wife joined the extension club.1

Although all women in American society have had to justify their abili-ties and fight for legitimate rights, native women have had to work double-time in their efforts. Like women of other ethnic minorities, Indian women have had to confront the effects of sexism in its most insidious form. They face a peculiar kind of sexism, one that is grounded in the pernicious and ever-present ideologies of racism. Native women are judged not only as females but as Indians. They are oppressed not only by their gender but by their class and ethnic status as well. The stereotypic images from which the larger society draws its picture of Indian women clearly reflect the double-barreled character of their oppression

Disclaiming and dismantling false perceptions from the past has been a necessary step in developing a more accurate awareness of women's present con-ditions and their place in history.

While it is recognized that men and women have been impacted in different ways by such problems as poverty and unemployment, most American Indians maintain that their problems must be tackled through the united efforts and interests of men as well as women.

Increasingly, they are moni-toring research and insisting that studies have direct relevance to the pressing needs of their own com-munities.

Despite the recent surge of publications on women in different cultures, writings on American Indian women have lagged behind.

Through the gathering of new information and the rein-terpretation of old data, scholars are beginning to remedy the oversights and prejudices of their prede-cessors by incorporating women into the analysis of total social formations.

Many ethnographic descriptions, for example, portray the work of Plains Indian women as menial and monotonous--a view clearly originating from Euro-American ideas on the value of household labor ( see Kehoe in this volume)

n this century, only a hand-ful of books and articles have been written about Plains Indian women, and most of these are auto-biographical

n keeping with the pervasive European idea that women constitute the passive, inferior, and hidden side of humanity, Plains Indian women are rarely visible as individuals or a category of people in the early journals of tra-ders, missionaries, explorers, and government agents

Typically, the native woman is portrayed as a "Princess" (chief's daughter) who mediates the conflict between Redmen and Whi temen, or else she is cast as a "Squaw" who has been used and abandoned by a philandering trader or soldier

Where are Plains Indian women in the mass media? They are present but hidden in the background of popu-lar images. In most Hollywood movies (with the recent exception of Walks Far Woman), Plains Indian women are mere backdrops on stages dominated by the actions and dialogue of men. They are seen fleeing burning ti pis while the men are fighting off the U.S. cavalry. Women are located on the sidelines scraping hides or gathering roots as the camera focuses in on a line of warriors returning from battle. Inside the tipi, women sit in the background making moccasins or cooking a meal while the debates of an all male coun-cil dominate the picture.

is portrayed clashing with the U.S. cavalry, swooping down on wagon trains, or fighting off the attacks of enemy tribes. The image of the warrior appears as an emblem in advertizing, as a mascot for sports teams, and as a major subject in the bronze statuary of city parks and squares. Equally popular in media myth-making are the hunters. Whether depicted surrounding herds of buffalo or stalking the lone antelope, the hunter shares equal billing with the warrior in the creation of popular symbols and myths.

Chiefs constitute the most dominant symbol in this image-making. Commonly shown wearing a Plains Indian costume of fringed buckskin and a full-feathered headdress, the chief has dominated classic characterizations of Indians in the mass media. Scores of factual and fictional accounts have focused on the lives of such well-known men as Sitting Bull, Quanah Parker, Red Cloud, and Geronimo. Photographs and paintings of these and lesser known Indian men fill the pages of coffee-table picture books on Native Americans, and they are printed on widely distributed posters, greeting cards, and post cards.

Since the end of the nineteenth century, the cultures of the Teton, Blackfeet, Comanche, Pawnee, and other native peoples of the Great Plains have formed the basis for popular stereotyping of Indian life in the United States and Canada.

As Kathleen Bahr has noted in her study of Apache families, grandmoth-ers held the ultimate responsibility for the well-being of their grand-children. As bearers of cultural heritage, they played a vital role in sustaining their families well into their old age.5

n Navajo society, to speak well and per-suasively is a highly lauded skill and a sign of exceptional intelligence. Traditionally, male leaders were called naat'áanii, or ones who speak persuasively. In contemporary studies, only men have been associ-ated with leadership roles in which the ability to speak persuasively and with eloquence is central.47 In contrast, Juanita is associated with oratory skills, suggesting that some abilities in Navajo society are not limited to the male gender.

Traditionally, Navajos have established kin relationships before any communication could be initiated. Furthermore, as historian Theda Perdue notes, women have been central to establishing kin relationships between tribal groups.33

Although those of us present, storyteller and listeners, did not witness the events or see the actors in the story, there is faith that the events occurred at some time and that the actors were living beings.30

The fact that indigenous identity is presently a topic of discussion reflects contemporary preoccupations with biological identity and blood notions of authenticity. Studies that discuss these issues also demonstrate that identities are cultural constructions that differ across time, culture, and race.2

t was possible for slaves to change their status to become full-fledged members, either by marriage,

It was under American rule that began in 1846 that war and con-flict escalated. By the 1860s, slave raiding had reached an all-time high since the American military encouraged such enemies of the Navajos as the Utes, Comanches, and New Mexicans to attack Navajos, which they eagerly did because Navajo women and children were very valu-able in the slave markets

For example, although non-Indian accounts claim that Juanita was a Mexican slave whom Manuelito married and favored among his wives, Navajo oral accounts depict her as a Navajo woman. Mostly, her descendants say they have not heard stories that she may have been a Mexican slave adopted into a Navajo clan.20 Indeed, sometimes when I return to Tohatchi, I inevitably come across some relative who has heard of my research project and asks, “So, was Juanita a Mexican?” It is interest-ing to note what pieces of information and knowledge linger, whereas others receive little if any attention. No doubt, Navajos’ knowledge of Juanita is informed by non-Navajo accounts. Our grandmother’s identity is shrouded in the history of the slave trade, in which indige-nous women and children were targeted. Taken as captives and forced to become part of their host society, many crossed cultural boundar-ies. Being adopted into a host society in the Southwest during colonial

When he became insistent, Changing Woman told him that she would consider his request, but that she must think about it; if it suited her, she would comply. Such narratives indicate Navajo women’s sense of self and the autonomy that they enjoy in their society

ust as Changing Woman sustained her children, so do Navajo women today. All things that sustain life, including the earth, agricultural fields, corn, sheep, and even men who are nurturing, are called mother.15 Furthermore, moth-erhood is the role from which Navajo women speak with authority.1

When Changing Woman reached womanhood with her first men-ses, the first Kinaaldá was performed for her. She was dressed cer-emonially and thereafter known as Yooł gai Asdzáán. The Holy People came to the ceremony and blessed her with prayers and songs that today are part of the Blessingway Ceremony. Her birth, coming of age into womanhood, and the birth of her own sons, Naayéé Neezgháni (Monster Slayer) and Tó Bájísh Chíní (Born for Water), furnish the template for women’s roles in Navajo society.13 As Gary Witherspoon recounts, the ceremony and the accompanying prayers and songs enabled Changing Woman to have the power to create a new people who would transmit this power to the next generations.14 Today the Kinaaldá remains an important ceremony for many Diné girls who reach womanhood.

The next generation, the great-grandchildren of Manuelito and Juan-ita, also experienced boarding schools and were sent away for long periods. In the 1930s, other ancestors saw the beginning of reliance on wage labor, when livestock could no longer provide independence. Because of such historical experiences under federal Indian policy, which sought to exterminate the Navajos culturally, the oral tradition was profoundly disrupted.

His retention of these documents impressed upon me how Navajos are concerned about the past and how they hope to learn more about their history, including family stories.

Dághá Chíí, shown in figures 10 and 13, was a Navajo scout who served with the U.S. military in the 1880s. In the late 1930s, when he was elderly, he was awarded a pension for his services.4

Anthropologist Gary Witherspoon in his study of Navajo kinship and marriage notes that the mother and child relationship determines all others among Nava-jos. This is the relationship upon which concepts of K'e, or kin rela-tionships, are based.2 This is true of Hastiin Ch'il Hajin and Asdzáá Tł'ógi’s descendants, who acknowledge K'e based on Asdzáá Tł'ógi’s maternal clan, the Tł'ógi.

The impetus to record narratives of my ancestors is moti-vated by the same reasons as those expressed by other Native scholars, who note that the history of Indian education has meant a loss of tra-ditional knowledge and Native languages and little if any access to our own histories.

ThorntonestimatesthatthetotalCherokeepopulationlossduetoforcedremovalwasmorethantenthousandpeople.

Women,children,andtheelderlywereroustedoutoftheircabinsanddirectedatgunpointbysoldiers.Menwereyankedfromthefields,withmanyunabletolocateandjointheirdisheveledfamilies.

Women,children,andtheelderlywereroustedoutoftheircabinsanddirectedatgunpointbysoldiers.Menwereyankedfromthefields,withmanyunabletolocateandjointheirdisheveledfamilies.

Thetheftanddestructionoflives,lands,andcultureslinktheseeventsasholocausts,andinthespecificcontextofCherokeehistory,slaveryandremovalareintimatelyconnected.TheexpulsionofCherokeepeopleclearedthewayfortheexpansionofAmericanslaveryintothoseabandonedlands;theexpansionofslaverythencontributedtotherapidgrowthofcottonproductionthatwoulddramaticallyboosttheU.S.economy.

in1835thestateofGeorgiaenlistedtheGeorgiaGuardtoseizetheCherokeeprintingpressandthusdisablethepublicationoftheCherokeePhoenix.

TheAmericanIndians,nowlivinguponlandsderivedfromtheirancestors,andneveralienatednorsurrendered,haveaperfectrighttothecontinuedandundisturbedpossessionoftheselands....TheserightsofsoilandsovereigntyareinherentintheIndians,tillvoluntarilysurrenderedbythem;andcannotbetakenawaybycompactsbetweencommunitiesofwhites,towhichcompactstheIndianswerenotaparty.”

Doubtlessitwillbepainfultoleavethegravesoftheirfathers;butwhatdothey[do]morethanourancestorsdidorthanourchildrenarenowdoing?Tobettertheirconditioninanunknownlandourforefathersleftallthatwasdearinearthlyobjects.

TheSupremeCourtdecidedinfavorofCherokeesemisovereignty,definedas“domesticdependentnation[hood]”anddeemedGeorgia’sactionillegal.

TheratificationoftheCherokeeConstitutionin1827furtherincensedGeorgiaofficials,whoinsistedthatthenotionofasovereignCherokeerepublicviolatedthestate’srightstocertainlands.

Twiceshewasforcedoutofherhome,madetorecoverandrebuild,firstatthehandsofslavecatchersandthenatthehandsofAmericansoldiers.

thelessonshehadlearnedfromhersixtyyearsaslaveandtenyearsfree:thattherewasnobadluckintheworldbutwhite-people