Philip J. Deloria

as so often seems to be the case with these books, i don't know if it's actually the book or just my lack of bandwidth, but i had some trouble with this one. it's definitely interesting but it read overly academic in large parts, making it hard for me to relate to it. i saw at the end that this was written as his dissertation, so it is appropriate and unsurprising that it is written in this way, but it does make it less accessible (in my view). but it's given me things to think about, so in that sense it's done its job.

"The indeterminacy of American identities stems, in part, from the nation's inability to deal with Indian people. Americans wanted to feel a natural affinity with the continent, and it was Indians who could teach them such aboriginal closeness. Yet, in order to control the landscape they had to destroy the original inhabitants. ...American social and political policy toward Indians has been a two-hundred-year back-and-forth between assimilation and destruction."

"Here, then, lies a critical dilemma of American identity: in order to complete their rite of passage, Americans had to displace either the interior or the exterior Indian Other. As long as Indian Others represented not only us, but also them, Americans could not begin to resolve the questions swirling around their own identity vis-a-vis Indians and the British. Yet choosing one or the other would remove an ideological tool that was essential in propping up American identity. There was, quite simply, no way to conceive an American identity without Indians. At the same time, there was no way to make a complete identity while they remained."

"They desired Indianness, not Indians."

"Indeed, admitting the existence of living Indians called vanishing ideology into question. Likewise, the presence of real native people revealed serious cracks in the idea that one could solidify a postrevolutionary national identity by assigning troublesome aspects of the Revolution to a commemorative Indian-American past."… (meer)