Introduction
This essay compares and contrasts the works of Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins and Zitkala-Ša, two prominent Native American women writers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in their advocacy for Native peoples. Winnemucca, a Paiute author, wrote Life Among the Piutes: Their Wrongs and Claims (1883), while Zitkala-Ša, of Yankton Dakota heritage, produced autobiographical essays such as those in American Indian Stories (1921). Both operated within dominant assumptions about Indian peoplehood, which often portrayed Native Americans as lacking civilisation and requiring white intervention. However, they subverted these notions to expose exploitation and violence in federal Indian policies. The essay will examine similarities in their representations of violence and criticisms of policies like reservations and boarding schools, as well as differences in their approaches. Furthermore, it will explore how their texts challenge the civilized/savage binary prevalent in American West mythology, as seen in popular culture like Western films. By paraphrasing key passages, the analysis highlights their shared advocacy while noting temporal and cultural divergences, ultimately demonstrating their contributions to Native resistance literature.
Similarities in Advocacy and Representations of Violence
Winnemucca and Zitkala-Ša both advocate for Native peoples by reversing stereotypes of savagery, revealing instead the barbarism of white agents and institutions. They work within assumptions of Indian peoplehood that denied Native social structures, using these to critique federal policies. For instance, Winnemucca exposes reservation exploitation, arguing that agents reinforced the myth of Native disorganisation to justify control. In her text, she paraphrases the agents’ corrupt practices, noting how they stole supplies meant for the Paiutes, leaving families starving while claiming to “civilize” them (Winnemucca Hopkins, 1883). She writes of agents who, under the guise of benevolence, exploited Native labour and resources, thus inverting the narrative: the so-called civilizers were the true uncivilized forces, driven by greed rather than goodwill.
Similarly, Zitkala-Ša critiques the boarding school system and allotment policy, which fragmented Native lands and cultures under the pretext of assimilation. In “The School Days of an Indian Girl,” she describes the violent cutting of her hair as a symbol of cultural erasure, paraphrasing the scene where pale-faced teachers force Native children into submission, stripping their identities to impose “civilization” (Zitkala-Ša, 1921). This act, she implies, reveals the systemic violence of policies that assumed Natives lacked inherent social order and needed white education to become human. Both writers thus represent violence not as random but as embedded in federal structures—reservations for Winnemucca and boarding schools for Zitkala-Ša—where exploitation is masked as progress. Their criticisms align in highlighting how these policies perpetuated economic and cultural domination, with agents and officials profiting from Native suffering. As Carpenter (2001) notes, such narratives by Native women authors collectively challenged the paternalistic rhetoric of the era, advocating for recognition of indigenous sovereignty.
Moreover, both offer similar depictions of psychological and physical violence. Winnemucca recounts Paiute families enduring starvation and displacement due to agent corruption, paraphrasing instances where Natives were falsely accused of laziness to withhold aid (Winnemucca Hopkins, 1883). Zitkala-Ša echoes this in her portrayal of allotment’s divisive effects, where land division fostered individualism over communal ties, leading to poverty and loss (Zitkala-Ša, 1921). These shared elements underscore their advocacy, positioning Native peoples as structured societies victimized by uncivilized intruders.
Differences in Approach and Criticisms of Federal Indian Policy
Despite similarities, Winnemucca and Zitkala-Ša differ in their temporal contexts, tribal backgrounds, and specific focuses, leading to varied criticisms of federal policies. Winnemucca, writing in the 1880s amid the reservation system’s expansion, emphasises immediate exploitation by individual agents. Her Paiute perspective highlights interpersonal corruption, such as agents’ theft of cattle and goods, which she paraphrases as a betrayal of trust, arguing that Natives possessed sophisticated social structures long before white arrival (Winnemucca Hopkins, 1883). This differs from Zitkala-Ša’s early 20th-century focus on institutionalized assimilation through boarding schools and the Dawes Act of 1887, which allotted lands to individuals, eroding communal ownership. Zitkala-Ša, drawing from her Dakota experiences, critiques the long-term cultural violence, paraphrasing the alienation of children who returned home as strangers, unable to reconnect with traditions (Zitkala-Ša, 1921). While Winnemucca seeks reform within the system—appealing to white audiences for better agents—Zitkala-Ša advocates broader resistance, influenced by her activism in the Society of American Indians.
These differences extend to their representations of violence. Winnemucca’s accounts are often direct and anecdotal, focusing on physical hardships like forced marches, where she paraphrases the Paiutes’ pleas for justice ignored by officials (Winnemucca Hopkins, 1883). In contrast, Zitkala-Ša’s are more introspective, emphasising emotional trauma, such as the “iron routine” of schools that crushed individuality (Zitkala-Ša, 1921). As Hafen (1997) observes, Winnemucca’s narrative is performative and oral-tradition based, differing from Zitkala-Ša’s literary style, which blends autobiography with political essay. Thus, while both criticize policy for reinforcing stereotypes of Native inferiority, Winnemucca targets reservation mismanagement, and Zitkala-Ša addresses allotment’s fragmentation, reflecting their distinct eras and peoples.
Challenging the Predominant Mythos of the American West
Both writers challenge the civilized/savage binary central to American West mythology, a trope perpetuated in Western films like The Searchers (1956) or Dances with Wolves (1990), which caricature Natives as barbaric foils to white heroes. Winnemucca subverts this by portraying Paiutes as peaceful, structured communities disrupted by savage white greed. She paraphrases encounters where agents’ drunkenness and theft expose their barbarism, contrasting with Native hospitality (Winnemucca Hopkins, 1883). This reverses the binary, showing whites as the uncivilized invaders.
Zitkala-Ša similarly inverts stereotypes, depicting boarding schools as sites of barbaric control. In her essays, she paraphrases the “paleface” teachers’ rigid discipline as more savage than any Native custom, revealing the violence behind assimilation (Zitkala-Ša, 1921). This challenges popular culture’s mythos by humanizing Natives and critiquing the “benevolent” Westward expansion narrative. As Senier (2001) argues, such texts disrupt dominant discourses, advocating for Native agency. However, differences emerge: Winnemucca’s challenge is grounded in frontier interactions, while Zitkala-Ša’s addresses urbanizing policies, yet both undermine the binary by exposing systemic hypocrisy.
Conclusion
In summary, Winnemucca and Zitkala-Ša share similarities in advocating for Native peoples by reversing civility notions and critiquing federal policies’ violence, such as exploitation on reservations and in boarding schools. They differ in focus—Winnemucca’s on immediate corruption versus Zitkala-Ša’s on cultural erasure—and in style, reflecting their times and tribes. Together, their works challenge the American West’s civilized/savage mythos, offering counter-narratives that remain relevant against ongoing stereotypes in media. This analysis underscores the importance of Native voices in English studies, highlighting their role in resisting assimilation and affirming indigenous peoplehood. By subverting assumptions, they not only exposed injustices but also paved the way for modern Native literature, with implications for understanding colonial legacies today.
References
- Carpenter, C. (2001) ‘Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins: Native American Author and Reformer’, in *American Indian Women: A Research Guide*. Greenwood Press.
- Hafen, P. J. (1997) ‘Zitkala-Ša: Sentimentality and Sovereignty’, *Wicazo Sa Review*, 12(2), pp. 31-41.
- Senier, S. (2001) *Voices of American Indian Assimilation and Resistance: Helen Hunt Jackson, Sarah Winnemucca, and Victoria Howard*. University of Oklahoma Press.
- Winnemucca Hopkins, S. (1883) Life Among the Piutes: Their Wrongs and Claims. G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
- Zitkala-Ša. (1921) American Indian Stories. Hayworth Publishing House.
