What do you think?
Rate this book
Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, America finds itself on the brink of a new racial consciousness. The old, unquestioned confidence with which individuals can be classified (as embodied, for instance, in previous U.S. census categories) has been eroded. In its place are shifting paradigms and new norms for racial identity. Eva Marie Garroutte examines the changing processes of racial identification and their implications by looking specifically at the case of American Indians.
250 pages, Paperback
First published July 31, 2003
10 people are currently reading
162 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
June 7, 2018
Really excellent. This looks like a history book, but it turns out to be an exploration of perceptions of Native American identity ultimately used as a springboard for discussion of broader issues of racial identity in the US, and to top it off, Garroutte provides an utterly proposal for revolutionizing the way the Western academy operates. A brilliant book for anyone interested in Native American affairs, humanity, or scholarship (read: every US college kid should read this).
July 4, 2019
Overall I feel conflicted with the work presented in Real Indians: Identity and Survival of Native America by Eva Marie Garroutte. There is a sense that in trying to establish the identity of Native Americans, offering insight through research and testimony, health service backgrounds, and together with a cadre of included works by American Indian “experts,” Garroutte loses her point. Because of the sociological standing, the eroding of the bloodline through mixed marriage, and disinterest from the youth, Garroutte might as well be kicking a dead horse. I grew up in New York State, within the Upstate area. According to my mother (the most unreliable of sources), my grandfather was half-blooded Onondaga Native American. Somewhere within the family tree that ferreted over during the French Indian Wars and the Revolution, my namesake took to marriages outside the European lineage to forge new paths. As an adolescent, I had mixed feelings about this information because one didn’t take time to have cultural studies in the school system.
Learning about American Indians came from Saturday afternoon black and white westerns. The Indian was always presented as the enemy to the cowboys. Once I reached adulthood, other forms of racism came and went; forming opinions about people didn’t mean to include their heritage. If didn’t judge someone by the color of their skin; though my mother will deny it today, she is a racist. It comes; still, the N-word falls from her mouth mater-of-factually, and I cringe at the sound of the word. It used to be a perfectly acceptable word at one time. The times when my mother grew up, seeing segregation first-hand. And yet, did it ever occur to her that someone might pull the race card against her? She was a small-statured “white” woman with raven-black hair and high, defining cheekbones. There were signs in her school, she recalls, that had “white only” water fountains, and “black only” water spigots that were outside the school and likely froze in the winter months. She never considered the secondary culture that ran through her veins. She was as far removed from a reservation as any middle-class white American was in the 1950s and 60s.
“In some places and times, non-Indian spouses were allowed to become citizens of Indian nations. Even in instances where an adopted white spouse was subsequently widowed, remarried, and had children by a non-Indian, the children (who had no tribal ancestry at all) were sometimes recognized as tribal citizens.” This is no different than same-sex marriages afforded the rights of the traditional married couple. People use their resources to stay alive. Some will exploit the system; some will turn their back on their culture and embrace something that fits their personal beliefs. In American, we are supposed to live by forefather values that are documented in a nifty parchment that was presented to a king some years ago that afforded us some rights and privileges and the opportunity to govern ourselves.
Garroutte is seeking to understand the “genealogical relatedness” of Native Americans and balancing the federal government affiliation with tribal laws. I do not attempt to understand the author’s vision since it reads like a convoluted rant. Much like what was presented above; however, people afforded choice, the opportunity to choose a path that is right for them is an ethical and ethical option they must make alone.
Learning about American Indians came from Saturday afternoon black and white westerns. The Indian was always presented as the enemy to the cowboys. Once I reached adulthood, other forms of racism came and went; forming opinions about people didn’t mean to include their heritage. If didn’t judge someone by the color of their skin; though my mother will deny it today, she is a racist. It comes; still, the N-word falls from her mouth mater-of-factually, and I cringe at the sound of the word. It used to be a perfectly acceptable word at one time. The times when my mother grew up, seeing segregation first-hand. And yet, did it ever occur to her that someone might pull the race card against her? She was a small-statured “white” woman with raven-black hair and high, defining cheekbones. There were signs in her school, she recalls, that had “white only” water fountains, and “black only” water spigots that were outside the school and likely froze in the winter months. She never considered the secondary culture that ran through her veins. She was as far removed from a reservation as any middle-class white American was in the 1950s and 60s.
“In some places and times, non-Indian spouses were allowed to become citizens of Indian nations. Even in instances where an adopted white spouse was subsequently widowed, remarried, and had children by a non-Indian, the children (who had no tribal ancestry at all) were sometimes recognized as tribal citizens.” This is no different than same-sex marriages afforded the rights of the traditional married couple. People use their resources to stay alive. Some will exploit the system; some will turn their back on their culture and embrace something that fits their personal beliefs. In American, we are supposed to live by forefather values that are documented in a nifty parchment that was presented to a king some years ago that afforded us some rights and privileges and the opportunity to govern ourselves.
Garroutte is seeking to understand the “genealogical relatedness” of Native Americans and balancing the federal government affiliation with tribal laws. I do not attempt to understand the author’s vision since it reads like a convoluted rant. Much like what was presented above; however, people afforded choice, the opportunity to choose a path that is right for them is an ethical and ethical option they must make alone.
November 19, 2012
A friend's post led me to this post on another blog, which happened to recommend the relevant book:
So that’s how I wound up with this book in hand, I’m guessing this was a thesis or dissertation or something.
Sadly, I’ve already forgotten chunks of it (should have written review last week!), but I don’t think she came to any specific conclusions about identity, although It was certainly enlightening and worth a read. The author brings up many excellent points about identity and internal/external perceptions and what the values or lack of values inherent in each may be, as well as providing several Indian perspectives on each issue she addresses.
She also briefly brought up the ever-present “Cherokee princess” myth, which I’ve always found incredibly annoying. That shit needs to be beaten into the ground.
The main thrust of the paper/book seems to be her idea for a new form of scholarship embracing Indian methods of knowledge acquisition as legitimate within the bounds of academia. She calls this “Radical Indigenism” (I think!) – not radical in the sense of rebellion, but radically different from previous positions. What this means basically is (I think) treating Native perspectives and methods of knowledge gathering (which include traditional ceremonies) in the same way we treat the scientific method of knowledge acquisition. Well, not quite the same, but perhaps “respecting the knowledge as true”? Hopefully that’s not mis-stating her too poorly.
It also sets the wishes of the tribe above those of the scholar – ie if there is some secret ritual that they really don’t want documented DON’T DOCUMENT IT. This boils down to basic “respect issues” and should be common sense, but “greed” for knowledge often overrides.
While to my “bleeding liberal heart” these things this sounds swell (actually I agree 100% with the second point, my disagreement is with the first – if a culture does not wish to be documented, fuck off documenters!), my rational scientist has to disagree. Not to say I disagree with the mentality behind it – because I do concede that there are means of knowledge acquisition outside the bounds of ration (religious experience included – no matter where I think those things come from, people do occasionally come back with “new” ideas – or at least with the inspiration to follow through on an old one sincerely). But rather to say that no, that should not fall within the bounds of “western” scholarship simply because it does not fall within those bounds….circular logic I know BUT
if we did allow something like that, then we would have to allow every religious tradition the same thing. This doesn’t mean I don’t give credence to things “discovered” via Indigenous sources (via divine inspiration, tradition, or anything else) – it just means I think that once that knowledge is known it should be tested with the same rigorous criteria we use for everything else. You can see this slowly happening with “Eastern” medicine in the last 10 years (acupuncture, etc.) – the Western establishments have noticed that these things actually work. They may not accept the reasons for the working, but they are beginning to acknowledge that some of these treatments do work, and are seeking out a scientific way of understanding why. This is the way to go IMHO – it would then allow that knowledge to be re-applied to other scientific issues. Limiting yourself to accepting it works based on a non-scientific explanation critically limits the reach of application of said new knowledge.
Now, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a valid place for this perspective in the realm of higher education. This perspective could be beneficially applied to Native American Studies (or whatever they call it) I think – but of course many would resist because they want to document everything in the Western way, but I suppose the two ideologies could split into two different departments, lets call them “Indigenous Studies” & “Native American Studies” or whatever, and if you were a member of the latter, tribes just might not want to work with you because they know you won’t be respectful of their ways.
Ok, so I may have horribly botched an understanding of her proposal, but I hope not.
I highly recommend this book as reading for anyone with an interest in the question of ethnic identity, especially as specifically applies to Native Americans. The thrust for Radical Indigenism may fall outside the interest bounds of most non-academic readers, but it does not dominate the book, and even with those sections there are plenty of things to interest the curious reader.
If anyone has actually read this book and has a better way of explaining the Rad. Indig. thing, or wants to tell me that I’ve horribly botched the understanding – please do. This vein of lit. isn’t exactly my forte.
Publishers or reviewers could ask, point blank, “are you….” of authors who claim Native heritage or identity. But they don’t ask that of other writers, so, is it appropriate to do so here? These are very complex matters, but they are important, and they require a lot of reading and thinking to understand these complexities.
One good text to read to begin exploring the identity question is Eva Garroutte’s Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America.
So that’s how I wound up with this book in hand, I’m guessing this was a thesis or dissertation or something.
Sadly, I’ve already forgotten chunks of it (should have written review last week!), but I don’t think she came to any specific conclusions about identity, although It was certainly enlightening and worth a read. The author brings up many excellent points about identity and internal/external perceptions and what the values or lack of values inherent in each may be, as well as providing several Indian perspectives on each issue she addresses.
She also briefly brought up the ever-present “Cherokee princess” myth, which I’ve always found incredibly annoying. That shit needs to be beaten into the ground.
The main thrust of the paper/book seems to be her idea for a new form of scholarship embracing Indian methods of knowledge acquisition as legitimate within the bounds of academia. She calls this “Radical Indigenism” (I think!) – not radical in the sense of rebellion, but radically different from previous positions. What this means basically is (I think) treating Native perspectives and methods of knowledge gathering (which include traditional ceremonies) in the same way we treat the scientific method of knowledge acquisition. Well, not quite the same, but perhaps “respecting the knowledge as true”? Hopefully that’s not mis-stating her too poorly.
It also sets the wishes of the tribe above those of the scholar – ie if there is some secret ritual that they really don’t want documented DON’T DOCUMENT IT. This boils down to basic “respect issues” and should be common sense, but “greed” for knowledge often overrides.
While to my “bleeding liberal heart” these things this sounds swell (actually I agree 100% with the second point, my disagreement is with the first – if a culture does not wish to be documented, fuck off documenters!), my rational scientist has to disagree. Not to say I disagree with the mentality behind it – because I do concede that there are means of knowledge acquisition outside the bounds of ration (religious experience included – no matter where I think those things come from, people do occasionally come back with “new” ideas – or at least with the inspiration to follow through on an old one sincerely). But rather to say that no, that should not fall within the bounds of “western” scholarship simply because it does not fall within those bounds….circular logic I know BUT
if we did allow something like that, then we would have to allow every religious tradition the same thing. This doesn’t mean I don’t give credence to things “discovered” via Indigenous sources (via divine inspiration, tradition, or anything else) – it just means I think that once that knowledge is known it should be tested with the same rigorous criteria we use for everything else. You can see this slowly happening with “Eastern” medicine in the last 10 years (acupuncture, etc.) – the Western establishments have noticed that these things actually work. They may not accept the reasons for the working, but they are beginning to acknowledge that some of these treatments do work, and are seeking out a scientific way of understanding why. This is the way to go IMHO – it would then allow that knowledge to be re-applied to other scientific issues. Limiting yourself to accepting it works based on a non-scientific explanation critically limits the reach of application of said new knowledge.
Now, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a valid place for this perspective in the realm of higher education. This perspective could be beneficially applied to Native American Studies (or whatever they call it) I think – but of course many would resist because they want to document everything in the Western way, but I suppose the two ideologies could split into two different departments, lets call them “Indigenous Studies” & “Native American Studies” or whatever, and if you were a member of the latter, tribes just might not want to work with you because they know you won’t be respectful of their ways.
Ok, so I may have horribly botched an understanding of her proposal, but I hope not.
I highly recommend this book as reading for anyone with an interest in the question of ethnic identity, especially as specifically applies to Native Americans. The thrust for Radical Indigenism may fall outside the interest bounds of most non-academic readers, but it does not dominate the book, and even with those sections there are plenty of things to interest the curious reader.
If anyone has actually read this book and has a better way of explaining the Rad. Indig. thing, or wants to tell me that I’ve horribly botched the understanding – please do. This vein of lit. isn’t exactly my forte.
April 8, 2025
I have read a few books exploring Native American identity and this is the best I have read so far.
This is not just for treating the normal issues well, but also for pointing to an original path forward that considers the past history of adoption and how that affected kinship ties and gives new options for kinship and epistemology.
This is not just for treating the normal issues well, but also for pointing to an original path forward that considers the past history of adoption and how that affected kinship ties and gives new options for kinship and epistemology.
January 12, 2019
Excellent book for anyone interested in American Indian identity or in sociology of identity generally.
Has some similarities to Decolonizing Methodologies in the last chapter. Very interesting and insightful. #2booksunder50reviews
Has some similarities to Decolonizing Methodologies in the last chapter. Very interesting and insightful. #2booksunder50reviews
February 28, 2019
Full review here: https://charmainelimen.wordpress.com/...
February 10, 2009
Great book and a great read. Contains a lot of useful and engrossing information about Native America. For Natives, it really gets to the bare truth about Identity and who you are as an individual. It doesn't magically help you out and answer all your questions but it gives you a great place to take off from. Highly recommended.
November 29, 2008
Its a book that looks at Native American Identity. It brings up so many issues that policies never focus on.
May 29, 2011
Thought-provoking. Would have been a useful text concurrent to museum studies!
May 20, 2014
Poignant and descriptive illustrations of the identity struggles facing indigenous peoples in the US. Frames the issues rather well.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews