Native Indians By Tompkins

Although Tompkins’ stated goal in her essay Indians: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History is to recount a specific instance in her life where post-structuralism made historical research difficult, the fundamental theme is the discussion of the divergent approaches that come from academic inquiry and pragmatic social progress. Through a narrative about her life as a child in New York City, Tompkins begins her essay discussing the problems faced by modern Native Americans and the dehumanized perspective of them held of them by non-Native Americans. After Tompkins supplies a brief overview of her own view of Native Americans before her research, she moves into an academic discussion of the flaws she sees in historical accounts and

Tompkins describes her younger self being taught stories about the Native Americans that allowed her to have “someone to feel superior to”, while “[n]ever [minding] where they were or what they were doing now” (Tompkins 2). The Native Americans are portrayed as romanticized versions of themselves and completely removed from any sense of reality, set, simply, as being a fancy for children who imagine themselves leading those exciting lives. Tompkins does not shrink from admitting that she was one of those children and asserts that her story “stands for the relationship most non-Indians have to the people who first populated this continent” (2). Similarly, as Tompkins moved into adulthood, she continued to be too preoccupied with her own life and problems as an academic to seriously consider and learn about the modern issues Native Americans face (2). After Tompkins recounts her academic journey through historical texts, which she calls the purpose of her essay, and analyzes the epistemological consequences of this narrative, the conclusion of her essay returns, partially, to the pragmatic and moral importance of modern Native American issues. Despite being fully aware of these issues by this point in her

Tompkins displays, in her essay’s conclusion, the necessity to “piece together the story… as best I can,” because diverging perspectives inhibit a person’s ability to find, with confidence, a purely unbiased fact about any situation (9). These kinds of quandaries exist in many modern social spheres. Although much more objective, an issue, such as climate change, relies on an individual researching and uncovering facts from various sources, just as Tompkins did. Similarly, the individual must then “[believe] this version up to a point, that version not at all, another almost entirely,” so they may move forward toward a conclusion. If they fail to move toward a conclusion, they will tarry too long at the epistemological gateway and fail to effectively address the issue, by voting in misinformed politicians or not recycling. While the environment relies on more objective and easily accessible information, it exists in clear relation to Tompkins’ dilemma. Academic uncertainty halting the important flow of social progress. However, while academic uncertainty appears to be at fault, without academic uncertainty, science and fact would not achieve the proper rigor for it to call itself fact. And, without social progress,