In our last class, we discussed how John Neihardt was adding to Black Elk's testimony in order to bring justice to the Native Americans. At the time, this seemed like an okay thing to do because more information regarding the Native Americans can only be beneficial when most people do not know enough about their history and culture. However, when Neihardt starts adding in entire paragraphs, in what seems like every other page, I think it begins to harm the legitimacy of Black Elk's story. By adding in paragraphs and quotes that Black Elk never brought up, but relates to the history of the Native Americans, I think it takes away from the personal story Black Elk is trying to tell. I think it is frustrating Neihardt thinks it is okay to add to Black Elk's story when some of the things he brings up are not relevant to Black Elk. Even more, there are most likely going to be people who read this book and not read the footnotes. Therefore believing that everything Black Elk, or other Native Americans, say as being true.
Another thing that is frustrating me is the amount of people who do not know who Dan Rather is. Even more, there are people who do not know who Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, or Brian Williams are. I am frustrated by people who do not know who these men are because they are some of the most influential journalists of the 20th and 21st century.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteSuch passion! Hurray for that.
Now, take breath. What is the purpose of the book? If you read it without all those critical edition notes, would that purpose be accomplished? Might we be as frustrated with the editors who are compelled to draw attention to the collaboration as you are with Neihardt?
LDL