Lyons – Rhetorical Sovereignty

Lyons argues in this piece that Native Americans have lost their sovereignty as a people, both political and rhetorical.  He uses rhetoric to suggest that Native Americans were once thought of as politically sovereign, but that gradually eroded, despite some people’s best of intentions.  Now, the colonizing force of the United States culture has even taken away their rhetorical sovereignty by choosing which stories get told, and how, in order to “reclaim” their past.  Even though many who are telling these stories have the best of intentions, they still greatly misrepresent the ideologies behind Native sovereignty, such as their focus as a people (explained below) rather than a government.

Definition of rhetorical sovereignty:  “The inherent right and ability of peoples to determine their own communicative needs and desires in [the attempt to revive not their past, but their possibilities], to decide for themselves the goals, modes, styles, and languages of public discourse” (449-450).

Used to see Native Americans as sovereign – the United States once referred to Native Americans as “nations” which they would make treaties with.  This suggests that they saw Native Americans as being on an even playing field when it came to political sovereignty.  Despite the fact that these treaties were exploitative, they still assume that the Native peoples had to right to the land that they lived on and thus were able to give it away.

This vision eroded – Later the Native Americans were referred to as “tribes” (assuming savagery and lack of government, hence lack of political sovereignty) and the treaties became known as “agreements.”  Lyons explains, “the erosion of Indian national sovereignty can be credited in part to a rhetorically imperialist use of writing by white powers, and from that point on, much of the discourse on tribal sovereignty has nit-picked, albeit powerfully, around terms and definitions” (453).

Procedure vs. People – Lyons draws from Kant in defining sovereignty in western “civilized” thought: “sovereignty became essentially procedural, the exercise of reason and public critique generated by the bourgeoisie who as ‘the people’ construct the nation-state through the act of making coercive laws, and subsequently as ‘sovereign’ coerce through them as a nation and are coerced by them as individuals” (454).  To highlight here – for the United States, sovereignty was a system of government that had rule over individuals through a procedure of reason by the group of individuals.  The thing that keeps the system working is this sense of reason and critique, the idea that the nation is always able to change and thus the current system must be making sense until we reason it not to.

With the Native Americans, on the other hand, they saw sovereignty as belonging to peoples – groups that “always conducted out of regard for the survival and flourishing of the people” (454) through “a privileging of its traditions and culture and continuity” (455).

Different than multi-culturalism: Multi-culturalism isn’t enough because it tends to abstract the struggles of real people.  It denies the link between rhetorical sovereignty and self-governance/political sovereignty.

What we can do instead:  Look at the real cases of Native Americans fighting for their rights to sovereignty and the ways that they have reclaimed their stories.  This includes political actions.  The article gives resources for teaching these issues such as the Tribal Law and Government center in Kansas and the Indian Nations at Risk Task Force.

Political Action and Education termed “The New Ghost Dance” – “calls Native and non-Native people to join together and take action” to promote “a basic understanding, respect, and appreciation for American Indian and Alaskan Native cultures… [and would work for] a revival of tribal life and the return of harmony among all relations of creation.”  (464)