Zeina Shtaih
History of Intolerance in the U.S.
April 30, 2003
Indian Killer
The skies are blue; the sun is shining; the birds are singing; the air is clean; the flowers are blooming; the grass is green; people are smiling; people are laughing; everyone is getting along: those with different skin colors, religions, backgrounds, ages, sizes… Where is this ideal world? In reality there is no such place. Even in fiction, it is difficult to create such an illusive environment. Listening to local and world news reports, we can see the hate and anger individuals carry within them, which eventually lead to violent eruptions such as war or other forms of violence.
In his novel Indian Killer, Sherman Alexie creatively presents a fictional story about Native Americans living amongst the whites in Seattle, Washington. Though the story line is fiction, the non-fiction truth of the treatment and struggles of the Indians is clearly apparent. Alexie addresses many issues in the book ranging from racism to whether or not those who are not Indian should teach and speak about Indian life and culture. In addition to these two broad ideas, I was struck by the prominent themes of stereotyping, interracial adoption, and revenge.
An Indian baby given up for adoption to a white infertile couple, raised in a white society with a great deal of effort on behalf of the adoptive parents to teach him about his true heritage, is this satisfactory? In his story of John Smith, Alexie sets the tone that such adoptions are destructive. As we follow John through his development we see how the adoption dramatically impacts his life. John is a quiet boy, teenager, and man. Never seems to express his feelings of love towards his adoptive family, but longs to learn about his birth mother. John continually dreams and imagines how life would have been had he remained with his birth family on the reservation. He describes his life as “A good life, not like all the white people believe reservation life to be. There is enough food, plenty of books to read, and a devoted mother…everybody plays Scrabble” (Alexie 43). He continues to describe grandparents, uncles, and a special girl. He was creating his own world through this story, a place he felt he belonged. As I was reading the book, I continually had a dry feeling when John and his adoptive family were discussed. The relationship seemed dark with no true bridges built between John and his parents. His parents treated him well and tried their best to elucidate the Indian tradition and culture to John, but that was not enough. His suicide at the end proves destruction.
“If John happened to be a little fragile, well, that was perfectly understandable, considering his people’s history. All the alcoholism and poverty, the lack of God in their lives” (Alexie 19). This is how John’s teachers viewed him. It was normal for him to be unstable given the history of the Indian people.
“David had expected to find something more illicit and foreign inside. From all the newspaper editorials, the public outcry, and his father’s ratings, David had assumed the casino would be filled with drunk Indian men, half-naked Indian women, and Italian mobsters” (Alexie 106).
David Rogers was shocked by how the public portrayed Indian Casinos and what he had found on the contrary, “David saw a couple dozen white farmers” (Alexie 106). Even John himself had a seed growing in his head about Indians, specifically homeless ones, “John had shared the common assumption that all homeless Indians were drunks. But he had soon discovered that many of them didn’t drink” (Alexie 144). These are only a few of the many stereotypical remarks presented in the book. The importance of such stereotypes is their danger. When we begin to stereotype individuals we begin to punish those who are innocent, we also become narrow minded. For example, considering the current situation with the “War on Terror,” if someone looked at me he would classify me as Middle Eastern, and if he wanted to be stereotypical then he can further subcategorize me as a terrorist. Such an extreme and ill based conclusion could lead to him taking violent measures against me or discriminating against me in public. This is what we see happening with the Indians in the book, they are being thought of as a whole rather than an individual. In the book, Marie Polatkin, the Indian activist and University of Washington student states, “In the eyes of the white world, any Indian woman was the same as all the other Indian women. Only white people got to be individuals” (Alexie 232).
Revenge was persistent throughout the book, whether it be from the Indians or the whites. Although the Indian Killer was never truly known, the Indians thought it was maybe a white man and the whites thought it was an Indian. From that point forward, with each individual’s interpretation on who the killer is, the saying “An eye for an eye” carried heavy weight and was taken literarily. We see Reggie getting revenge on the whites for their treatment of the Indians, Aaron getting revenge on any Indian because of his belief that an Indian murdered his brother, and John getting revenge on Wilson. The cycle is never ending, and Alexie leaves us with no resolution at the end.
Now for the big recurring question throughout the book: Is a non-Indian allowed to teach and elaborate about the experiences of Indians? Marie Polatkin seems to think not, and Alexie clearly presents us with her bluntness towards her professor and Wilson. Marie says, “When I take a chemistry course, I certainly hope the teacher is a chemist. Women teach women’s lit at this university, don’t they? And I hope that African-Americans teach African-American lit” (Alexie 312). In my opinion, I saw Marie a little too extreme in her reasoning. I think the only way we can learn is by assessing information from all realms and all views. Through utilizing critical thinking and analysis skills, we can individually piece the puzzle together and form an opinion of our own. Listening to one viewpoint would not be substantial in understanding the whole picture. If we focus in on one center or one source we might end up resembling Truck, the radio show host. For instance, Truck says,
“Despite all that we [whites] have done to help the Indians, they have refused to recognize it. They have refused to recognize how well we have educated them…fed them…treated them. To this day they have responded to our positive efforts in the only way they know: violence” (Alexie 346).
If, for example, an individual only listened to Truck, then she would form the same conclusions as Truck. I would agree, however, that an individual teaching a topic must have a strong base of knowledge in the area, in order to efficiently relay this information to others.
Sherman Alexie does a phenomenal job in his novel Indian Killer. He uses fiction to discus important social issues, which he clearly presents and explains through each character. Issues of race and the conflicts it raises drip from each page of the novel. He brings reality to fiction, and through his book we see how much further and how many more hurdles we, as the human race, must surpass before coming to a resolution. Since the beginning of time, violence and blood shed has dominated human life and instilled in us a sense of intolerance towards the different. There has never been an ideal world, and we can only work towards that goal. But when or will we ever reach?