Captivity and Conversion: William Apess, Mary Jemison, and Narratives of Racial Identity

Abstract

The question of who defines the Native, and how, becomes complicated when Natives actively participate in a discourse that historically has defined them in their absence. Euro-American definitions of Native Americans have long been rooted in specific genres of written discourse-the captivity narrative, the travel narrative, European eyewitness accounts of authentic Native communities-diverse forms that nevertheless complement each other in their attempts to explain Native Americans to a Euro-American audience. Natives are regarded as authentic only as they fit into the preconceived generic constructions constituted by Euro-American observers. Jana Sequoya, a contemporary Native American scholar, emphasizes the frustrations of this situation: In order to be perceived as speaking subjects, American Indians must adopt categories of meaning and codes of representation that convey an implicit set of goals in many ways contrary to those that articulate their own stories.' To be heard in the dominant culture, then, Natives must often negotiate story lines written about them with little regard for their particular experiences. The problem of representation is further exacerbated by individuals whose