Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Review of Alexandra Harmon's Rich Indians


In her 2010 book Rich Indians: Native People and the Problem of Wealth in American History Alexandra Harmon addresses the historical and anthropological stereotype that Indians in American have always become poorer due to interaction with non-Indians primarily due to a value system that shuns material excess. She argues instead that at every point in American history, some of the wealthiest people in the country have been self-indentified Indians. Since they were the overwhelming minority, they faced criticisms from both other Indians and non-Indians who accused them of greed, hypocrisy, and even of not being real Indians. On the other side, these wealthy individuals usually insisted that they were using their money morally by distributing much to the poor and not spending any more than they needed. Faced with incredible obstacles on either side, their wealth seldom lasted more than a generation or two. Using a combination of anthropological research, newspaper articles, and personal papers, Harmon successfully demonstrates that the relationship between Indians and economic advancement is not as clear as many historical accounts suggest.
            Harmon begins her text with an account of the economic state of the Powhatan confederation in Virginia at the founding of Jamestown in the early seventeenth century. This chapter, though interesting was one of the more troubling in her book. Harmon, in her introduction, suggests that “the attention of this book to Indian views of Indians”[1] is rare and one of its most important contributions to existing literature. By insisting on beginning her narrative at Jamestown, she almost guarantees that she will fail at this particular goal. Due to a lack of written sources, she relies mainly on colonial writings combined with general anthropological theory on the Indians of this region. Though this makes this chapter slightly less credible than her later ones since her assertions regarding Indian ideas of wealth are primarily speculative, she does show that the Powhatan had definite concepts of wealth and power. She uses colonial writings to show that while the Powhatan did of course value food, metal tools and pelts, they also stock piled more recognizable forms of wealth like high quality animal skins, pearls, antimony, and copper. These goods, usually offered as tribute to leadership would ensure that the people were provided for during times of need. The leader, Wahunsonacock, seemed to benefit immensely from his first interaction with settlers, receiving tribute of furniture, cloth, copper and pearls, while sending gifts of food to the starving colonists. In fact, his wealth was so great compared to the settlers that he was frequently accused of greed. Though settlers sent tribute only intermittently, between the dozens of Anglo-Powhatan wars, Wahunsonacock remained extremely wealthy his entire life. His daughter even married an English gentleman, an acknowledgement of his own high standing. However, his son was not able to maintain relations with the settlers who no longer dependant on the Powhatan drove them from their land.
            Harmon’s second chapter was perhaps the most interesting. She takes biographical sketches of a few very wealthy and powerful Indians and uses them as lenses to examine the problems associated with wealth. She shows that for people like Joseph Brant, Molly Brant, Alexander McGilliray and Mary Bosomsworth, their English education and literacy combined with their wealth and appreciation for luxuries put them in an unusual place during the eighteenth century. All of these people of course had close associations with non-Indians early in their lives which may have impacted their economic goals. Bosomsworth and McGilliray had non-Indian fathers; Molly Brant was married to a non-Indian who helped foster her younger brother Joseph. However, they insisted that speaking as leaders of their nations, they were owed funds by the English which they distributed for the sake of their people. They were accused of overstepping in many instances. Though all were criticized by non-Indians, McGilliray also faced resistance from his fellow Creeks, who did not approve of those “crassly concerned with accumulating more wealth.[2] Additionally, due to their education, parentage and Bosomsworth’s spousal choices, they were accused of not really being Indian, hence their interest in wealth. However, in each of these cases, an individual became wealthy, powerful and influential, but their position did not really extend past their children.
            Harmon’s next two chapters each address the Five Tribes, first antebellum, then during the gilded age. She discusses how before relocation some wealthy members of the Cherokee Nation have very large tracts of successful farmland. These men generally supported the rest of their community but also accepted money from the US Treasury. As part of his strategy to force federal involvement in Indian affairs, Jackson claimed that the wealthiest people among the Five Tribes were mostly “White citizens of the tribes” who were not protecting and supporting the “poor, unsophisticated Indians.” [3] However, Cherokee leaders such as John Ross and Elias Boudinot countered Jackson’s accusations and in their pleas for further financial support assured non-Indian audiences that they lived by “ethical standards that White Americans promoted but did not always observe.”[4] In her chapter on the gilded age, Harmon asserts that around the country more and more Americans became obsessed with wealth accumulation. In the Oklahoma Territory, the Cherokee and Creek nations experienced unprecedented wealth particularly due to cattle ranching and railroad speculation. Though these men never were as wealthy as many New England millionaires, they still have annual incomes of over a million dollars. However they were again accused of greed by fellow Indians and by non-Indians who still observed many Indians in poverty. Their solution was allotment and some formerly wealthy and educated men who did not register found themselves out of all of their land and money.
            Staying in Oklahoma, Harmon next addresses the Osage Oil Owners from the beginning of the nineteenth century. During the 1920’s the Osage were actually the wealthiest people per capita in the world with an average annual income of about forty thousand dollars. This presented a problem as typical of any population who suddenly receive a great deal of wealth, the Osage began to spend it on what seemed like frivolous things like cars, jewels and other extreme luxuries. This orgy of spending was criticized widely by newspapers who accused Indians of not “Planning in advance”[5] as well as not understanding what to do with money. They viewed the large parties-held outside, cars-used to carry pigs, and jewelry-worn with traditional clothes as evidence that wealth did not make Indians civilized. Likewise, more and more Osages were becoming wealthy as mixed bloods soon over populated the full bloods. This created arguments among several Indians and whites together about how Indian one must be to reap the benefits of Osage oil. However, this wealth did not bring them power as equally the US BIA decided to restrict the amount of money that that the Osage could receive in order to stop their immoral spending behavior.
            Harmon’s final two chapters address reclamation and then casinos. “Riches Reclaimed” is perhaps the most puzzling chapter in this book as did does not really address that sort of wealth from the rest of the book. This chapter instead addresses the growing realization that Indians in the twentieth century were generally quite poor and that reservations were generally impoverished with low life expectancy. It also addressed the war on poverty in the 1960’s and the initial hopes that Indians would be one of the targeted populations, before leading into the sovereignty movement. Indians nations began receiving tracts of land, larger oil revenues, as well as water, fishing and hunting rights. Though controversial among many non-Indians, again making accusations of greed these actions, while somewhat enriching the nations, did little to actually create personal wealth. Indeed, though many nations benefited from these changes, few individuals actually became wealthy as a result. Her chapter on casinos again addresses how, in the 1970’s tribes began to build casinos, skirting around state law. These casinos, since they were not subject to the same sorts of taxes and regulations as non-Indians one in Atlantic City or Nevada, were extremely successful. However, echoing the arguments of history, non-Indians have accused the owners of greed and misspending. Indians have likewise made the same accusations. Many point out that those who benefit most from casinos look more white than anything else. Harmon shows that the conflict over Indians and casinos is not a new problem.
            Harmon’s text is very interesting on many fronts. First, she is telling generally familiar stories to the reader, simply examining then in the light of the morality associated with wealth for Indians and non-Indians. She shows that for Indians, attaining wealth was complicated. If they remained poor, they were condemned for non-assimilation, ignorance and laziness, yet in these cases, when they became wealthy they were accused of being greedy and not even really being Indian. They were also accused by fellow Indians of these same things. They on the other hand, insisted that they were only taking what they had a right to, that they were generous with their neighbors and that they were not, unlike white Americans, concerned with stockpiling wealth for its own sake. This attitude reflects similar morality preached by wealth white Americans. What person would insist that they did not deserve their wealth and that they were not generous to the poor? After all, most white Americans in history have been Christian, a religion which likewise urges people to reject materiality. However the most interesting point in her books comes in the conclusion. Harmon suggests that most people think that Indians should be too noble and connected with non-material things to want wealth. However, there is not much noble able passively starving and dying of illness. Additionally, Indians are not fools-of course they will not reject something that is beneficial to them. Otherwise, even in the beginning with the Powhatan in Jamestown or the Creeks in GA, Indians would have not bothered to even bring food to the intruding colonists.


[1] Harmon, Alexandra. Rich Indians: Native People and the Problem of Wealth in American History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010. Print. p.10
[2] Ibid 87
[3] Ibid 125
[4] Ibid  129
[5] Ibid 184

No comments:

Post a Comment