Black Elk Speaks; John Niehardt Doesn’t:The Lack of Information in the 1932 Preface to Black Elk Speaks
...onsiderations for readers. Even though they aren’t as detailed as I think they should be, the brief prefaces do give the reader at least some base of knowledge concerning the writing process that is invaluable when evaluating the entire book. In this paper I’ll analyze the preface from the 1932 edition and see what attentive readers might learn from it, and also how they might have been misled – whether intentionally or not – by Niehardt. The 1932 edition of Black Elk Speaks enjoyed positive reviews from literary critics, but limited success as far as sales (D’Oney 102). Early on in the preface of that accompanied this edition, Niehardt states that his “acquaintance with the Indian Consciousness (was) fairly intimate for more than thirty years” (xix). In this statement Niehardt gives himself some credibility in evaluating what kind of person Black Elk was, and whether or not he would act as a good representation of groups of other Indians. This is when Niehardt begins to explain his intent in relaying the story he attributes to Black Elk: As a hunter, warrior, practicing holy man, and indubitable seer, he seemed even then to represent the consciousness of the Plains Indian more fully than any other I had ever known; and when I became well acquainted with his inner world, I knew this to be true. (xx) A reader really shouldn’t graze over this section. The above quotation implies that the story told represents “the consciousness” of a large group of Indians. I don’t think this is a fair statement to make. True, at times individuals are good representations of other groups of people. But saying that Black Elk represents “the consciousness of the Plains Indian more fully than any other (Niehardt) had ever known” (xx) probably misled some readers. The misconception that most Indians were similar in culture, religion, values and other ways is something this implication by Niehardt only feeds into. Granted there were common cultural threads and other similarities shared by the nearly 300,000 Indians in what would become the United States of America, but with several hundred different tribes the differences between many were quite extreme (Vine 133). A keen reader paying attention to this statement by Niehardt will probably become a little apprehensive when they realize he’s implying Black Elk might exemplify thousands of other Indians. Easily the most interesting thing I learned about Black Elk – other than what I read in the book – was that he became a Christian. His intention in doing so isn’t clear, and Clyde Holler discusses why this is such an important issue: That we do not know Black Elk until we know of his relationship to Christianity seems clear; given the overwhelming importance of the issue of the relationship of traditional religion and Christianity for Native American religious leaders of Black Elk’s generation. This was an issue that Black Elk had to confront, if he was to remain a leader of his people. Yet even the obvious facts concerning Black Elk’s relationship to Christianity are not widely known. Neither Black Elk Speaks nor The Sacred Pipe … mention Black Elk’s acceptance of Catholicism or his role as a Catholic catechist on the Pine Ridge Reservation. The reader of these works is led to conceive Black Elk as an unreconstructed traditionalist, untouched and unaffected by Christianity. (Holler 28) Again, I don’t necessarily see Black Elk’s Christianity in a negative light by any means. In fact, Holler points out that Black Elk’s decision to embrace the religion was an example of adaptation, for “a religion that ceases to change is a religion that is already dead or in danger of extinction” (37). Niehardt almost ironically writes that “In the intimate every day family life Black Elk may fairly be described as a saint in the deeper meaning of the term, as signifying a rare form of genius,” (xxi). Perhaps I’m reading too literal of an interpretation, but Niehardt’s choice of the word “saint” stands out to me because of his decision to avoid the issue of Christianity. I highly doubt, however, that Niehardt consciously used the term in order to imply any kind of message to the reader, but is noteworthy nonetheless. Since Niehardt writes Black Elk Speaks as though it contains the words of Black Elk, it could be argued that the avoidance of the Christianity issue wasn’t a major deal. After all, Christianity cam...