Tommy Orange decides to open his novel, There There, with a lengthy prologue. One that does not introduce any of the characters or events of the rest of the novel but instead encapsulates a truncated interpretation of Native American history.
The prologue demonstrates the history in two prongs: the first of which are those of massacre. In the section named "Massacre as Prologue", Orange specifically describes an incident where a Volunteer militia murdered a whole group of Native Americans. Orange renders it in a way that emphasizes the death of women and children, "They tore unborn babies out of bellies, took what we intended to be, our children before they were children, babies before they were babies, they ripped them out of our bellies. They broke soft baby heads against trees" (8). Orange specifically employs pronouns such as "we" and "they" to recreate the conflict in order to show the fact that the pain is still prevalent in the lives of modern day Native Americans. He elides all of the massacres and injustices to this one incident. Those inclusive pronouns expand the implied audience. These dead are not just these dead but are representative of all of the dead Native Americans that have died under the oppression of their colonizers. This implication is the essence of the Prologue. Because it precedes all the characters and actions of the novel itself, it is meant to demonstrate the hard facts to an audience that may not understand the history.
The second way Orange demonstrates Native American history is through how they have been subsumed by the city. Orange expands upon the stereotype that implies Native Americans are inherently connected with an wild, untamed nature and shows how they have instead moved to the cities, "Urban Indians were the generation born in the city. We've been moving for a long time, but the land moves with you like memory. An Urban Indian belongs to the city, and cities belong to the earth. Everything here is formed in relation to every other living and nonliving thing from the earth. All our relations" (11). An inverse expansion as was seen with the massacres is employed here. Instead of using one moment to represent a whole, Orange connects a relatively recent development (Native Americans moving to urban settings) as still being connected with a history that is deeply tied to a non-industrial world.
This is very interesting! I definitely "felt" this while reading, but I hadn't analytically thought about it like you did here, so thanks for that. I appreciate Orange's method of weaving past and present together in his book as a way to reflect the current Native condition as he sees it; it makes the novel feel whole in its themes and quite well-rounded. It is a simplistic yet very effective and valid technique.The entire book seems to be operating on multiple levels, first showing the Native identity and then deconstructing it to reveal the complexities within and underneath that label. This sort of thing is clear just with the first chapters and the examples that you just talked about--Native massacre vs Native urbanism. Past and present, Native identity and then a deconstruction of that identity into a new one. I think that this methodology reaches far beyond that of a white-guilt documentary or article about Native lives into the reality of that assigned identity; it's better than racist ramblings and even accurate history. To find the complexity that needs to enter into the conversation of, by, and for Native people, I doubt one needs to look further than this text!
ReplyDeleteThis post definitely captures what Orange was trying to do in his prologue. It makes sense that he used the pronouns that he did, in order to tie the past with the present. Bridging the past with the present is something which Orange does very well in this novel, as he constantly references ancient beliefs while depicting the life of modern American citizens, who just so happen to be of Native American descent.
ReplyDeleteThe repetition of the pronouns which you pointed out somewhat contradicts what I thought of the Native Americans in the novel. I was under the impression that Orange’s characters were attempting to live their own modern life without trying too hard to associate heavily with their Native American culture. I felt that the characters let their cultural connection come naturally (knowingly or unknowingly) to them, instead of making a concerted effort to connect themselves to their ancestors. Orange’s intentional, repeated use of the pronouns that you pointed out makes it seem like he made a specific effort to bring up his ancestors in a novel where his main goal is to portray Native Americans living a modern life.
Additionally, I like that you brought up the fact that this portion is placed first in the novel, as it meant to serve as historical context to some of the sentiments of the characters in There There.
I was thoroughly intrigued by the way Orange set up this novel and the way he illustrated the differences between Natvie Americans now and in the past. The way you described the use of “we” and “they” is interesting; I didn’t originally pick up on that aspect of the prologue but it definitely relates to the theme of ongoing pain in Native American societies presented in There There. I also noticed how Orange connected all of the characters, whether through Jacquie and Harvey and their children, or the other plot line including Octavio and the powwow robbery. These intricate connections show that even though Native Americans were forced out of their land and moved to a place that should have forced them to assimilate, they still managed to form communities and celebrate their culture. I also liked how you tied the movement to an urban setting to Native American history and its earthly origins in the prologue. One of the points Orange was trying to convey was how you can take people away from their land and their families but you can’t take away their culture and their history. They will still find a way to stay connected to their roots, whether through resistance or resilience.
ReplyDelete