"In the Shallows of a Lake that
Goes on Forever":
Reconstructing Native Becoming
in Stephen Graham Jones's Mapping the
Interior
ZACHARY S. LAMINACK
father of ash. father of a past without a mouth. he who ate
too much of / the sunset.
What is it to live, to suffer, and, above all, to love in an
emotionally inflexible world fashioned to produce men who eat "too much of the
sunset?" We are haunted by that turning point, brought back to it again and
again. But it doesn't once and for all consign us to a ravaged life. There is
more to be said; there is another mode of life to inhabit.
-
Billy-Ray Belcourt
In the introduction to Masculindians: Conversations about Indigenous Manhood, Sam McKegney
offers the title concept in an attempt to capture reductive representations of
Indigenous masculinities within settler culture.[1]
As McKegney explains, settler stereotypes produce images of Native men as "the
noble savage and the bloodthirsty warrior" and their offshoots: "the ecological
medicine man, the corrupt band councilor, and the drunken absentee" (1). Such figures, as Sarah Kent observes, have
always been marked for death. "The masculindian
is always dead before he arrives," Kent claims, because "there is no futurity
for the figure of the masculindian"
(123). Taiaiake Alfred likewise sees such figures as "meant to be killed" because
they fuel settler fantasies of violence that in turn perpetuate the violent
erasure of actual Native men (79). The line between the "actual" and the image
in these discussions reflects their grounding in the concept of simulations.[2]
McKegney sees the "masculindian" as a tool for revealing settler cultural
simulacra, akin to Gerald Vizenor's conception of the Indian as simulation from
Manifest Manners, and offers it as a way to meet the "urgent
need" to "grapple with both Indianness and masculinity" (3).[3]
Robert Alexander Innes and Kim Anderson, in their introduction to Indigenous Men and Masculinities,
contextualize the urgency of these critiques within statistical evidence of
health disparity, victimization, and violence and argue that negative and limiting
representations of Indigenous men stem from "the hegemonic masculinity that is
perpetuated through white supremacist patriarchy and conveyed by education,
news, and entertainment institutions" (9).[4]
"As a result of the colonization of their lands, minds, and bodies," Innes and
Anderson continue, "many Indigenous men not only come to accept these
perceptions but also come to internalize them" (10). As these arguments make
clear, Native masculinities as imagined within settler fantasies of violence and
erasure are unlivable. The question that rises to the surface among all of
these arguments, then, is how to repair masculinities in order to locate, as
Kent puts it, "a liveable ontology for Indigenous masculinity" (122).
However,
to the extent that questions of repair posit a "deficit model" of masculinity,
as Jessica Perea argues in her essay on Iñupiaq men and masculinities, they
reflect an animating sense of crisis that pervades the field of men's studies.[5]
The notion of a deficit within contemporary masculinities, Perea suggests,
tends to "assume that there was once one universal and honorable way to be a
man" (127). Expressive of the orientation of men's studies toward deeply
essentializing notions of gender that index masculinity to qualities supposedly
inherent to bodies understood as male, the universalizing discourse of men's
studies belies a fundamentally conservative orientation toward "past" models of
masculinity within which one might find an "honorable way to be a man" that
could be recovered and redeployed.[6] Such deficit
models arguably animate Innes and Anderson's thinking about how to break from
"cycles of dysfunction" that they see as endemic to "white supremacist
heteropatriarchal masculine identities" while retaining masculinity as a core
concept that can be disarticulated from narratives of "indigenous deficiency,"
in Daniel Heath Justice's terms (2).[7] McKegney's
"cautious commitment to the ongoing prescience of masculinity" likewise
suggests that deficit models animate some discussions of recovery throughout
the collection, particularly when such concepts are grounded in "traditional"
conceptualizations of gendered roles that one can recover or "dig up" (4).[8]
As
McKegney notes, however, such questions are fraught from the outset with
concerns over "the pull of gender essentialism, biological determinism, and
what Vizenor calls the 'faux science' of 'race'" (3). Added to these
problematics, in his recent Carrying the Burden of Peace, McKegney
further cautions "vigilance" against the threat of what he calls "corrosive
inheritances" of heteropatriarchy: "homophobia, misogyny, and/or
hypermasculinity" (xxii-xxiii). Considering McKegney's cautions, how might the
notion of "corrosive inheritances" further complicate efforts to recover past
masculinities or to reawaken gendered knowledges imagined as flowing through
one's blood? In the context of a discussion regarding recovering rites of
passage into manhood, Richard Van Camp, whose novel The Lesser Blessed
is often cited in conversations about Indigenous masculinities, explains "I
love to ask people . . . 'When did you know you were a man? When did you feel
that body wake up inside your blood?'" (188). Offered as an alternative to
settler stories of becoming gendered, Van Camp's sense of a body "waking up" in
the blood suggests a view of the body as what Lisa Tattonetti has recently
called a "somatic archive of Indigenous knowledge" (78). Drawing on studies of
trauma and affect, Tattoneti reads "N. Scott Momaday's trope of memory in the
blood" as an early encapsulation of more recent scientific studies of affective
inheritance that suggests "historical trauma persists within the body at a
cellular level" and that as a result we might also speculate that "survival
mechanisms" likewise persist and flow as "memories in the blood" (78-79). Van
Camp's sense of manhood "awakening" in the blood may suggest "blood memory" as
a kind of sociosomatic inheritance that one's body and oneself becomes. Though
Van Camp imagines the body waking up in one's blood as a "survival mechanism,"
in the sense of waking up to the potential knowledges carried in one's blood,
how might this way of imagining blood also work to solidify conceptual links
between masculinity as a "lived cluster of meanings" in McKegney's phrasing
(5), and "manhood" as a supposedly essential biological quality lying in wait
in one's blood?
The
"masculindian" or other ways of naming colonialist formations of Indigenous manhood,
imagined as simulacra of settler culture or as distracting and damaging layers
of settler history that have accumulated around and thus obfuscated core
notions of Indigenous manhood beneath, appear as different versions of Van
Camp's image of a masculine body in one's blood waiting to be awakened. Though
not always presented through such metaphors, arguments that one's experience of
life is an experience of aberration that has thwarted the potential to become
otherwise posit that an otherwise nevertheless exists but has not yet found the
catalyst that will precipitate its actualization. From a perspective oriented
toward deconstructing and dismantling the permeation of settler
heteropatriarchy and racialized formations within which Indigeneity becomes
"Indianness," such lines of critique are necessary interventions into the
continual barrage of misrepresentations and their effects on everyday ways of
living. But how might those same ways of thinking about gender, particularly
with respect to "manhood" and "tradition," flow alongside settler
chronobiopolitical narratives wherein "failure to become" is viewed as an
aberration that, to paraphrase Billy-Ray Belcourt, consigns one to a ravaged
life? How are the imagined "failures" variously configured within notions of
futureless Native masculinities also stories of "squandered potential" as
Junior, protagonist of Stephen Graham Jones's Mapping the Interior, imagines them (16)? And what happens when
such narratives are fused with notions of dormancy, and "squandered potential"
becomes a way of figuring masculine "failure" in terms of heredity and biology,
as something that "awakens" in one's blood? What lies in wait "inside" within
these ways of storying Native masculinities?
Mapping the Interior is a narrative of
"squandered potential," but not in the ways those terms are typically deployed.
Junior tells the story of his adolescence as being shaped around his father's
absence from his life and the stories of "squandered potential" (16) offered to
explain that absence. The main narrative sequences take place between Junior's
twelfth and thirteenth birthdays. Throughout them, Junior experiences
sleepwalking episodes during which he begins to see a silhouette figure he
believes to be his father returned from the dead. Junior theorizes
sleepwalking, however, in a way that destabilizes his—and
readers'—certainty as to the content of his vision:
To sleepwalk is to be inhabited, yes, but not by something
else, so much. What you're inhabited by, what's kicking one foot in front of
the other, its yourself. . . If anything, being inhabited by yourself like
that, what it tells you is that there's a real you squirming down inside you,
trying all through the day to pull up the surface, look out. But it can only
get that done when your defenses are down. When you're sleeping. (12)
The
"real you" Junior imagines bears striking resemblance to Van Camp's images of
dormant masculinity and through that image Jones situates Junior's experience
of the silhouette figure he sees as the beginnings of a "dim shape" he feels
himself becoming (99). That dim shape—a silhouette outline of a
fancydancer that recurs throughout the narrative (14,
52, 62, 69, 88-89, 91)—is drawn around details from
stories that color Junior's imagination of his father's life. As his aunts tell
it, Junior's father wanted to be a fancydancer as a boy but the world got in
the way. Instead of becoming a dancer, Junior's father kept "living [his] high
school years five years after high school" (30), and was found dead in a lake
on the reservation by the time Junior was four. Recalling his aunt's
description of his father as being "how you talk about dead people... especially dead
Indians," Junior notes that such talk is "all about squandered potential, not
actual accomplishments" (16). Junior's reflections frame the narrative of his
becoming-masculine as a process of becoming a silhouette story of "squandered
potential" and cast his adolescence as a period in which that "potential"
begins to wake up. Unfolded through metaphors of "life cycles" and chrysalides
(107, 46), Jones imagines Junior as living through determinist models of Native
masculinity that posit "potential" as a hereditable content that one will
perpetually fail to actualize as one "develops" into an adulthood shaped by
talk about "dead Indians" (16). Through Junior's story and the storyworld in
which Jones wraps Junior's experiences, Jones highlights the relationship
between story—how one narrates the possible and the impossible—and
becoming. Talk about "dead Indians" forecloses on futures in which one might live otherwise, Jones suggests, because
living otherwise appears impossible to actualize within stories of "squandered
potential" (16).
Although
Mapping may appear to follow the
general shape of critiques of Indigenous masculinities as overdetermined models
that nevertheless "produce very real men," in Brenden Hokowhitu's phrase
("Taxonomies" 81), the silhouette figure Junior imagines himself becoming challenges
notions of "internalized" colonial models of masculinity and deeply
problematizes the search for reparable and recoverable models of manhood. The
figure Junior imagines first as the fancydancer his father always wanted to be
in life eventually takes on monstrously vampiric form and feeds on Junior's
brother Dino's blood (88-89). Mapping
illustrates that this figure, decidedly not a figure of repair, likewise lies
dormant in stories of "blood." Stories in which possible masculinities are
narrated as "either penetrative or extractive," as Daniel Heath Justice
observes, represent a "catastrophic failure of the imagination and a huge
ethical breach" ("Fighting Shame" 145). It is out of this kind of "tradition,"
storied through narratives of "squandered potential" as a "life cycle," that
Jones suggests vampiric silhouettes emerge. Cast through a father who feeds on
his son's blood, Jones links the critical frame of an absent future to the
notion of potential as something one inherits through blood and then actualizes
into "accomplishments" or "squanders" into the next generation's inheritance. Mapping's dark portrayal of Native
masculinity as a vampiric cycle of self-destruction nevertheless holds out
peoplehood and kinship as possible alternatives to the self-sustaining cycles
of extractive violence that try to drain those concepts of their future.[9]
In
this vein, Mapping imagines living
and feeling through the conceptual knots of masculinity, Indianness, and blood
in ways that foreground the inescapable tethers of such concepts to
essentialist and biologically determinative racial constructs. Throughout the
narrative these constructs figure as a generic "Indianness" with which Junior
identifies and through which Junior apprehends the silhouette figure he believes
to be his father's rematerialized potential. As already dead or death-bound,
the silhouette figure Junior perceives suggests the
influences of "masculindian" constructs. The narrative's conceptualization of
generic Indianness as patrilineal inheritance, however, complicates such
readings. Junior remembers his father as a
man who "never
danced. He didn't go to pow-wows" was "neither a throwback nor a fallback. He
didn't speak the language, didn't know the stories, and didn't care that he
didn't" (14). In terms of relations to land, Junior recalls his father joining
fire crews "not to protect any ancestral land" but because he could sell the
fire service-issued pants to hunters in the fall (14). Of his father's
childhood, Junior imagines that "When you grow up in Indian country, the TV
tells you how to be Indian" (15). He recalls his aunts explaining that when
"his eyes were still big with dreams" Junior's father had been "really into
bows and arrows and headbands," "the exciting part of your heritage" that
Junior wryly observes "you can always find at the gift shop" (15). Of specific
stories or tribal traditions, Junior recalls them only in terms of stories from
the "old-time Indian days" (107), which
he often dismisses as childish in the same breath (101). Taken together, these
details suggest that the stories of "dead Indians" Junior inherits, and out of
which he tries to discern the shape of the man he feels himself becoming,
profoundly shape Junior's retrospective narration of his becoming-masculine.
Stories
that take shape within structures of assimilative erasure, as Jones
illustrates, foreclose on the ability to talk about the dead's "actual
accomplishments" because such accomplishments appear otherwise unremarkable
against "tradition"— speaking the language, dancing, and relating to
one's ancestral territory— as a horizon of expectation. However, that
Junior imagines these
traditions as uninheritable further underscores the narrative's critique of
blood metaphors in relation to masculinities and Indigeneity. Mapping here suggests that inheritance
and Indigeneity (at least as imagined through language and land as important
orientations of peoplehood) are not equivalent; but generic "Indianness" and
the discursive frame within which it becomes a way of talking about impossible
futures is imagined to flow through patrilineal lines of descent.[10]
What
gets in the way of the "future" and what creates the conditions within which
Junior imagines his father's return as a vampire who feeds on Dino is presented
in the narrative as simply "the world" that finds and "does its thing" to
Native men (98). At once an image of ambient and free-floating violence, "the
world" also suggests quotidian routines. In this vein, simply
living—growing into adulthood—"does its thing." Junior's world is
filled with detective shows (56, 81), bus stop and school violence (26, 39,
57-58), ferocious, rabid dogs (29, 42-55), an enraged and potentially homicidal
neighbor who Junior may or may not have murdered in self-defense (70-75), an
abusive sheriff's deputy (74-75), and the threatening rematerialization of his
father-as-vampire (80-89). "The world" thus presents Junior with a near
constant barrage of extractive and violent models of masculinity that become
the background against which he perceives his father's return and his
relationship to his father's silhouette form. The
background, as Mark Rifkin develops the concept in Beyond
Settler Time, "serves less as an
inert setting than as the condition of possibility for registering action,
change, survival... Absent a background, nothing can figure in or as the
foreground and be available for attention, perception, or acknowledgement"
(11). To the extent that violence is "the background," in this sense, of the
world in which Junior lives, his father's "squandered potential," suggested by
the fancydance regalia the figure appears to wear, figures in the foreground as
the shape of Junior's becoming. In contradistinction to the tendency to assume
"internalization" within critical discussions of Indigenous models of
masculinity, Mapping suggests settler violence is the background condition of
possibility against which masculinities in general can figure. Jones thus
critiques notions of "tradition" as a recuperative well for Native masculinities
because the concepts of "tradition" and "masculinity" appear inextricable from
the background violence against which they take form.
Part
of what the "world" of broader settler violence does, Jones suggests, is
reproduce a patriarchal orientation toward women and, in Mapping, toward stories of peoplehood, kinship, and land. Junior's
family lives in a modular home "down in the flats" off the reservation (100).
Noting the difference between a modular home and a "trailer," Junior explains
that a modular house "stays there, more or less" while "a trailer. . . can
still roam if need be" (18). Junior's mother, though, refers to "home" as the
reservation, explaining at one point that "if we
were back home, everybody would be saying" that Junior looks like his father
(37). Despite her fear for what her sons might become on the reservation, she
remembers it as a place of kinship and peoplehood. "Unlike Dad," Junior
recalls, "she wasn't still living her high school years five years after high
school. But she did have her own sisters, and one brother still alive, and
aunts and uncles and cousins and the rest, kind of like a net she could fall
back into, if she ever needed them" (30). "The rest" suggests a broad "net" of
relations and relationships. However, the background patriarchal violence
against which her sons' futures appear fated to follow their father's also does
its thing to her memories and sensations of kinship. As Junior narrates the
memory, his mother felt these relations to have become a form of currency she
was compelled to trade if she wanted to keep her sons alive: "But she cashed
all that in. Because, she said, she didn't want either one of us drowning in
water we didn't have to drown in, someday" (30). The scene suggests that the
broader world of settler violence in which Junior experiences himself is the
world in which his mother experienced her networks of relations as fungible for
her son's potential futures. The narrative ironically casts these choices as
likewise subject to "talk about... dead Indians" (16), though, because such
potentials as might have been possible on the reservation remain obfuscated
against the violence of dispossession.
Though
Jones is not explicit about Mapping's
relationship to specific stories or lands, the narrative action resonates with
Blackfeet story in ways that suggest an alternative "background" for the
narrative action, one that is obscured, or rendered in "silhouette" through the
"world" that "does its thing."[11] Junior recounts experiences within, between, and across what
Rosalyn LaPier describes as "three dimensions" of the universe within Blackfeet
knowledge: "the Above world, the Below World, and the Water world" (26). LaPier
explains that these dimensions are understood to be "parallel... existing side by
side and separate. But they were also interconnected and permeable" (26).
Junior's experiences in various spaces throughout the narrative including in a
lake on the reservation at the narrative's conclusion (91-92), a scene to which
I return below, may allude to Blackfeet conceptualizations of
multidimensionality. Further, it is also possible that Mapping's plot alludes to Blackfeet stories of supernatural beings
who, as LaPier writes, "transcended" the three dimensions, "such as Napiwa,
Kotoyissa, and Paie" (27). LaPier explains:
Napiwa, or Old Man, is a supernatural
being who as far as we know has lived forever. He was foolish, petty, and
greedy. He lived life in the extreme, always wanting too much or too little.
Katoyissa, or Blood Clot, was a superhero who travelled the Below world,
ridding it of monsters to make it safer for the Niitsitapi, or humans. And
Paie, or Scar Face, played a similar role in the Above world. He became a
superhero for his role in travelling the Above world, ridding it of evil beings
to make it safe for the beings in the Above world. (27)
The
superhero, whether as an image or as an action figure, recurs throughout Mapping (26, 32, 69, 82-83, 90-91, 106),[12] and is often figured as a bridge between moments set in
different "levels" of the house—whether below or above—as well as
being represented as a key element of Junior's transportation to the lake in
which he confronts his father (90-91). Additionally, Junior recalls his father
in terms similar to LaPier's characterization of Napiwa or Old Man through a
story of "the old-time Indian days" in which "a father died, but then he came
back. He was different when he came back, he was hungry, he was selfish, but
that's just because he already had all that in him when he died, I know. It's
because he carried it with him into the lake that night" (105). Junior,
likewise, suggests LaPier's characterization of Katoyissa because he imagines
himself as "the one who fought the monster" for Dino, "for all of us" (104).
Similarly, in a scene where Junior lays outside at night and feels for the
moment an urge to fly his brother Dino's superhero action figure against a
backdrop of stars (69), Jones may be alluding to Blackfeet stories of Paie, or
Scar Face that LaPier describes as a "superhero" of the above world.
To
the extent that Blackfeet notions of multidimensionality and entities within
Blackfeet story might make up the structure of Junior's experiences they
suggest the superimposition of competing backgrounds. Yet, when such
suggestions appear in the text, Junior dismisses them as childlike fantasy: as
when he resists the urge to fly Dino's superhero against the stars because he
"wasn't a kid anymore" (69); or when following Junior's description of
encountering his father in the lake, he imagines a conventional close to "a lot
of Indian stories"—in which his mother "gathers [the boys] in her arms"
and "the moon or a deer or a star" comes down "making everything whole
again"—as being from "a long time ago" "before we all grew up" (101).
Junior's consistent dismissals of the potential resonance of Blackfeet story
echo his earlier sense of the way one talks about "dead Indians" (16). Through
the suggestion that knowing Blackfeet story, or more generally the stories of
one's people, might help Junior re-narrate and reframe his sense of himself in
relation to his people, Jones offers dismissal of that potential as a kind of
deadness. Whether in the sense that something within Junior that would be
otherwise receptive to story has been killed by a world hostile to it or that
through growing into adulthood Junior was encouraged to become "dead to"
potentialities in excess of settler framings of "the world," Jones casts this
sort of deadness as the orientation of "properly" acculturated Native
men—"dead Indians" in the novel's idiom—who believe their potential
to become otherwise has already been "squandered."
To
the extent that such stories could have
provided a sense of the world as existing otherwise than as represented in the
broader settler imaginary, they represent talk of "squandered potential"
against the reality of "actual accomplishments" (16). The "actual" in this
sense refers to the "real world" (103) in which causal connections between
actions and outcomes appear self-evident and discrete. The contrast between
"real" and childlike ways of placing experience within a broader narrative
framework—such as Junior's sense of "reality" as an unfolding forensic
narrative juxtaposed to "Indian" story as childlike fantasy one grows out of as
"the world" "does its thing" (98)—points to the dramatic irony between
Junior's story and the storyworld Mapping wraps around him. Through Junior's ambivalent relation to
Blackfeet storying, Jones highlights the extent to which he experiences
becoming-masculine as a process that requires distancing himself from "story"
in ways that translate the potential of Blackfeet storying to help situate his
lived experience into a relic of outdated "Indianness" "from a long time ago"
(101).
Given
the suggestion of Blackfeet story as a possible background against which to
orient Junior's experience of becoming-masculine, his distance from those
stories stands out in sharp relief. He imagines that distance
spatially—as being "nearly a whole state away" from the
reservation—and temporally as stories emanating from a past long ago
(101). Junior's feeling estranged from place and story suggests the narrative's
presentation of masculinity and generic Indianness unfolds in part through a
critique of settler time. Within settler timelines, lived relations to place,
people, and land are often narrated as "of a past" incommensurable with a
present understood as "a neutral, common frame" against which other ways of
conceptualizing or sensing time appear either as aberrations or as different
ways of conceiving of what is ultimately the same temporal plane (Rifkin, Beyond 3).[13] Part of Junior's struggle to understand his father's
potential reemergence throughout the narrative and to reconcile it with his own
feelings of becoming the silhouette he perceives comes from his difficulty
reconciling the possibility of their occurring simultaneously in different
places and times. Viewed from a temporal frame of reference in which the
present always succeeds the past and moves toward the future, reemergent
figures such as the silhouette Junior experiences appear to "haunt" from a past
that breaks into or disrupts the present.[14] However, Junior's experience of space and time collapses
when he confronts the materialized silhouette and attempts to drown it by
plunging Dino's superhero action figure into the kitchen sink. "It slipped into
the cold water, and then—" Junior recalls, "—and then the water, it
was lapping all around us. Around both of us... We were on the reservation... We
were in the shallows of the lake" (91-92). Breaking the section on either side
of the em dash, Jones graphically illustrates Junior's experience of moving
through space and time. Notably, the water and the superhero
figure—suggesting allusions to elements of Blackfeet story and multidimensionality—combine
to transport Junior to a lake on the reservation where he experiences
mysteriously having become an adult confronting his father's conventionally
human form in the moments before he drowned (90-92). Within the temporal frame
of Junior's story, this sequence of events would have taken place at least nine
years earlier when Junior and Dino would have been four and one respectively.
At the time, Junior was in the hospital "nearly dying of pneumonia" (13). As
such, reconciling the experience through the rubric of the conventional present
appears impossible. However, the event is narrated as though it occurs in "real
time" in the same way as any other scene, and thus suggests that Junior
experiences this moment as a moment of multidimensionality.
From
this frame of reference, the events within the sequence in the lake become
possible turning points that present alternative ways of inhabiting one's
relationship to land and peoplehood. In the
lake he sees his father, "'Park' in this memory," who recognizes him as
"Junior" (92, 94). Junior is determined to drown Park in order to "save Dino.
No matter how much it hurt" (95). As Junior pummels Park, he is interrupted for
a moment by Park's striking question: "'What are you... What are we doing, Junior, man?'" Despite the
question, Junior presses ahead with the actions he believes to be fated, and
drowns his father "in the shallows of a lake that goes on forever" (103).
However, Jones leaves open the possibility that the question Park poses is part
of the central structure that tethers Junior to this moment and keeps the
determinative cycle going, a structure reproduced as Park's and Junior's
"spitting image," Collin (103).
The
feeling of being tethered to a place one is compelled to revisit and a moment
one is compelled to relive is another way of signaling the determinist
conjunction of racial formations and discourses of impossibility Jones
describes as "squandered potential" and the way one talks about "dead Indians"
(16). Through the image of a tetherball pole (33), which Junior years later
finds still standing near the site of their burned-down-years-ago modular home
when he returns with Dino in hopes of re-cycling the process (105), Jones
illustrates the scene of Junior's memories as an anchorage that ensures his
eventual return. Importantly, this anchorage is off reservation, and within the
terms through which the book presents something like landedness in relation to
peoplehood, it is "outside" the boundaries of the "net" of people and relations
Junior's mother imagines there (30). Thus, in geopolitical terms, Junior is
tethered to a place that appears to keep him away from his people. However,
despite not knowing the precise location of "the flats" where Mapping takes place, the extent of
Blackfeet homelands encompasses the better part of present-day northern
Montana, the majority of which was recognized by the U.S. as Blackfeet
territory in an 1855 treaty with the Blackfoot Confederacy.[15]
The contrast between "the reservation" and "the flats" highlights the clustered
effects and affects produced by the successive encroachments on and
dispossessions of Blackfeet territory since the 1855 treaty, including
especially the "ceded strip" that today makes up part of Glacier National Park.[16]
In this vein, figuring the reservation as "home" as opposed to imagining "home"
to extend beyond the reservation boundary suggests that the confluence of
settler geopolitics, jurisprudence, and dispossession has severed Junior's
experience of relations to family and kin from his experience of land and
territory. In other words, as a policy object and geopolitical boundary the
reservation is not equivalent to homeland, but the homelands on "the flats"
don't feel like home. The image of the tetherball pole that keeps Junior
anchored to a space he experiences as a home that is less than home figures
this disjuncture, and through it Jones suggests that among the "things" the
world does as it stories "dead Indians" into being is deaden the sense of
connection to land and place by tethering the notion of authentic and
authenticating peoplehood to the reservation in ways that allow for
re-narrating off-reservation space as devoid of relations that sustain
peoplehood.
Imagined
as, in Billy J. Stratton's terms, "a spectral frontier landscape" where the
neighbors are murderous and their dogs are even more so ("Habitations"), the
tetherball-poll-as-anchorage further suggests that this off-reservation space
has become an origin point from which models of vampiric masculinity emerge and
remerge. Try as he might to get away, the strings attaching bodies to unlivable
lives anchored to a landscape storied as a zone of erasure and disappearance
will always pull Junior back to the center. Temporally, returning to the scene
suggests a cyclical story in orbit around a fixed point, but the temporal
fixity I would argue actually straightens the temporality of the scene around
patrilineal descent in a way that sees "return" as successive rather than
cyclical. In this sense, Jones presents the two settings, "the reservation" and
the modular homesite, as different temporal backgrounds against which Junior's
experience of time likewise shifts. Jones thus illustrates the ways in which
the notion of the "background" as that which enables figures to appear in the
foreground can also be applied to time as, in Rifkin's terms, "the conditions
of emergence for particular temporal sensations" (Beyond 24). In the "shallows of a lake that goes on forever,"
Junior experiences multidimensional realities in which choices affecting the
sensation of duration ("forever") in relation to becoming can be made. At the
modular homesite, in contrast, Junior experiences a unidimensional present that
is "tethered" to a past which in turn determines the rhythms and sensations of
the future to the extent that a future can be imagined beyond the story of
"squandered potential."
Shifting
frames of reference thus shift the ways temporal sequences can be imagined, and
from which multidimensionality and multiple temporalities can be imagined as
coextensive but not co-determinative nor mutually exclusive. Jones illustrates
this possibility through expanding the notion of inhabitance Junior experiences
as sleepwalking earlier in the narrative. After being transported into the
water, Junior recalls: "And then it hit me: the same way that, when
sleepwalking, I was kind of inhabiting myself,
that's what I was doing here. Just, now I was inhabiting someone else. Someone before... I had access to
this truck owner's memories, too, and remembered them like they'd happened to me" (92). The lake and the
water enable Junior to experience forms of collective temporal sequence as
potentially expressive of a collective sensation of peoplehood. Jones imagines
this element of Mapping's alternate
temporality through Junior's sense of relation to "Every fourth person on our
reservation," who also is named "Junior," "like the same stupid person is
trying life after life until he gets it right at last" (94). From this frame of
reference, "life after life" suggests an expansive network of mutually
unfolding attempts to live otherwise that Junior experiences and seemingly
inhabits collectively. Through the moment of collective temporal experience,
Jones suggests that Junior senses a connection to peoplehood otherwise
unavailable to him from other frames of reference and against other temporal
backgrounds. Park's question, "What are we doing?"
stands out as a moment in which Junior could
have recognized the "we" as stretching beyond paternal lineage, and thus beyond
fathers and sons and blood, to encompass a broader "net" of people represented
in the narrative as "the reservation" but figured throughout as suggestive of
kinship that transcends the boundaries imposed on Native space.
To
the extent that something like a Blackfeet surround might be understood to form
an alternative temporal and phenomenological background in Mapping, Jones suggests that recognizing it depends on the stories
and memories to which one has access. As I have argued throughout, the language
of "squandered potential" is the story through which Junior apprehends and
imagines his father's absence and his relationship to it as he recalls
becoming-masculine. That story narrates Junior's life as a "cycle" that turns
within the racial formation of generic Indianness. Within that formation,
"potential" is imagined as inheritable through blood and inevitably
"squandered" through the ways the "world" "does its thing" in situating
masculinity against a background of settler violence where Native becoming
appears in silhouette, an outline suggestive of hopelessly obfuscated content.
Within such storyscapes, notions of "tradition" appear anchored to the past in
ways that cannot be actualized in the present and sensations of peoplehood and
land feel epiphenomenal. Figures such as McKegney's "Masculindian" appear as
already marked for death, signifying in Kent's terms a kind of
living-as-walking-dead inextricable from "colonialism's reliance on necropolitics"
or "the governmental determination of the disposability of certain subjects"
(122). The search for ways to live through such stories—to find liveable
ontologies, to recall Kent's phrase—appears bound to the genre
conventions of settler storytelling, as Junior's forensic search for clues that
might help him solve the mystery of his father's absence and yield new facts
with which to reconstruct his life illustrates. As Glen Coulthard notes,
discursive formations are "not neutral; they 'construct' the topic and objects
of our knowledge; they govern 'the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked
about and reasoned about.' They also influence how ideas are 'put into practice
and used to regulate the conduct of others.'" (103). Hokowhitu reminds us that
"the construction of masculinities through the discursive terrain of colonial
masculinity produces very real men, who inhabit history, who embody and thus
make real the discursive field, who bring to life the world of forms so to
speak" ("Taxonomies" 81), and that such constructs often "conceal [their]
genesis" as "cultural fictions" ("Producing" 31). When such fictions take as
their terrain heteropartiarchal "discourses and policies," Rifkin argues, they
"generate the impression of a sphere of life whose contours are biologically
determined (since they supposedly are necessary for human reproduction itself)
that exists independently of all forms of political determination, negotiation,
and contestation" ("Around 1978," 173). As Mapping
illustrates throughout, stories figuring Native masculinities through a
language of "squandered potential," including critical narratives in which
"death" is the outcome for the "simulations" that stalk settler imaginaries,
are inevitably stories of violence against becoming otherwise because such
stories aim to reconstruct becoming around the supposedly self-evident
neutrality of heteropatriarchy.
Violent
settler storyscapes like these are a part of how the "world" "does its thing"
through the language of "squandered potential," an everyday form of biopolitics
which Jones clearly couches as a critique of racist narratives of Indigenous
deficiency. Jones imagines the violence of such narratives viscerally through a
father figure returned to feed on his son's blood. Importantly, the son on
which the father feeds is imagined as "already slowing down, or, really,
topping out" (87). The silhouette figure needs Dino because, Jones suggests,
the figure's feedings have arrested Dino's cognitive abilities and as such he
has retained his childhood imagination against the world that has "done its
thing" to Junior and Junior's father. Dino's "blood" is thus pure potential, in
the narrative's frame, from which men who haven't become in life what they'd
hope to become as children, like Junior's father, can return to find energy for
a new beginning. Couched throughout as a heroic effort to save Dino from the
monster, Junior's choice to sacrifice Dino in hopes of bringing back his own
son Collin betrays Junior's intentions (106). Junior makes this decision at the
site of the modular home, anchored to the geotemporal location from which his
frame of reference forecloses on his ability to acknowledge notions of
connection or peoplehood that lie outside the lines of patrilineal descent.
Jones offers the scene through another indictment of the "world" that does its
thing. Junior explains:
in the movies, after you beat up the bad guy... then all the
injuries it inflicted, they heal right up. That's not how it works in the real
world. Here's one way it can work in the real world: the son you accidentally
father at a pow-wow in South Dakota grows into the spitting image of a man you
remember sitting in the shallows of a lake that goes on forever. Like to remind
me what I did, what I'd had to do. (103)
Junior's
sense of what he "had to do" is another way of representing the notion of a
phenomenal background of experience. Against the background of broader settler
violence, erasure, and dispossession, what presents itself in the foreground is
further violence construed as a painful and impossible zero-sum choice.
Focused
on "life cycles" as images of biological determinism, Mapping's imagined return of the father to feed on the son
illustrates the ways blood metaphors rely on the presumption of biological essentialism
for their meaning. Through a sustained cycle of emergence, violence, and
absence, the men in Mapping offer a
dark illustration of what it might be like to live through essentialist
narratives of "Indianness" as blood. The recurrent motif of "squandered
potential" likewise plays into rhetorical tropes of tragedy and the vanishing
Indian embedded in notions of blood and racialized forms of kinship and family.
The threat that one's blood will "run out" makes blood a valuable resource.
Imagining a vampiric father figure who needs Dino's blood, "something inside
him" (87), "inside of Dino's bones" (84), to get solid enough to live as he was
supposed to, Jones illustrates the ways in which bodies and blood can be
situated as resources whose "content" becomes "extractable" as sustenance for a
future that seems otherwise impossible without it. Junior recalls a moment when
he began to realize what the silhouette figure wanted and what it would
eventually take:
I
always thought—I think anybody would think this—that when you come
back from the dead like he had, that you're either out to get whoever made you
dead, or you're there because you miss your people, are there to help them
somehow.
The
way it was turning out, it was that you could maybe come back, be what you'd
always wanted to be, but to do that, you had to latch on to your people and
drink them dry, leave them husks. After that, you could walk off into your new
life, your second chance. With no family to hold you back. (80)
The
passage illustrates the conceptual translation of kinship into blood that is
part and parcel of the discursive production of "Indianness" as a racial
formation that abets processes of dispossession and removal. Part of the ways
the structures of dispossession perpetuate themselves, the passage suggests, is
through mapping colonial models of extraction onto paths to becoming "what
you'd always wanted to be" when whatever one wants to be appears impossible to
become in life (80). The sense of the impossible is sustained, Jones suggests,
through "cycles" of vampiric heteropatriarchal relationships configured as the
past returned to drain the future of life. Reconstructing the same set of facts
reproduces the same set of assemblages. To break from such "cycles," one has to
tell a different story. As Jones has written elsewhere, "If
you wrap yourself in the right story, everything makes sense" ("Werewolf" 7).
Mapping highlights the tension between
settler stories of futureless becoming and the potential of Blackfeet story to
ground narratives in an otherwise actualizable set of conditions within which
different stories than those of vampiric fathers and drowning sons might be
told. Junior's father "didn't know the stories, and didn't care that he didn't"
(14). "Stories," writes Louis Owens, "make
the world knowable and inhabitable. Stories make the world, period... Silence a
people's stories and you erase a culture. To have graphic evidence of this
phenomenon, all we have to do is look at a map" (210-211). Mapping the Interior closes with this sense of story as what makes
the world inhabitable and how the topography of one's map can detail the ways
dispossession shapes the contours of bodies and experiences. Junior's map
charts violence, dispossession, and dislocation as stories of erasure and
"squandered potential." Mapping the
Interior calls for different stories than those in which Native men appear
already marked for death. Jones suggests that these different stories are not
found in "tradition," nor in "blood," but in the way the water in a kitchen
sink might lead to the "shallows of a lake that goes on forever" (103).
[1]
For the first epigraph, see Belcourt, This
Wound is a World, p. 9. For the second epigraph, see Belcourt, A History of My Brief Body, p. 14.
McKegney has also developed and applied the notion of the "masculindian" in
other essays. See McKegney, "Masculindians"; "'pain, pleasure, shame. Shame.'";
and "'Beautiful Hunters with Strong Medicine.'"
[2]
McKegney's sense that the "masculinidian" is a simulation reflects Jean
Baudrillard's conceptualization of the simulation from Simulation and Simulacra as the "generation by models of a real
without origin or reality" (1).
[3]
For Vizenor's elaboration of simulations and hyperreality in relation to
settler representations of Native people(s), see "Postindian Warriors," in Manifest Manners, pp. 1-44; for
definitions of Vizenor's terminology, see Fugitive
Poses, pp. 14-17; for a useful reading of the complex philosophical
structure within which Vizenor deploys these terms, see Hume, "Gerald Vizenor's
Metaphysics."
[4]
"Hegemonic masculinity" as Innes and Anderson use the term refers to the
dominant representation of idealized masculinity within a given cultural
formation, in this case settler whiteness in the U.S. and Canada. Australian
sociologist R. W. Connell is widely credited with having coined the term in the
1980s. For Connell's articulations of the concept, see Masculinities and Gender and
Power.
[5]
Perea alludes to a lengthy body of scholarship that has since the 1980s
announced and theorized a "crisis" in masculinity, particularly (though often
unnamed as such) white heterosexual masculinity in the U.S. For selected
examples of this work, see Faludi; Kimmel, Angry
and Manhood; Kaufman; and Malin. For
a consideration of how U.S. fiction has represented white masculinity in
crisis, see Robinson.
[6]
For an example of this line of inquiry within studies of euromerican
masculinities, see Kimmel, Manhood.
[7]
In Why Indigenous Literatures Matter,
Justice gathers damaging settler narratives through which Native peoples have
been characterized under "the story of Indigenous deficiency" (2), which he
writes "seems to me an externalization of settler colonial guilt and shame"
(4). For an elaboration of the many narratives Justice gathers under the
phrase, see pp. 2-4.
[8]
Considering tradition as outside of or apart from the structures through which
settler superintendence is articulated raises difficult questions over the
meaning and "content" of tradition. As Mark Rifkin argues in When Did Indians Become Straight?, "The
citation of tradition does not itself guarantee that whatever is being
designated remains unaffected by or exterior to settler socialities and
governance; moreover, such formulations of tradition can function as a way of
legitimizing native identity in ways that ultimately confirm, in [Taiaiake]
Alfred's terms, liberal 'values and objectives.' Native feminists have explored
the ways that contemporary articulations of peoplehood can rely on
heteropatriarchal ideologies which are inherited from imperial policy but cast
as key elements of tradition" (21). For the further elaboration of the
critique, see pp. 17-25. Also see Barker, Native
Acts; Coulthard, Red Skin, White Masks, pp. 79-103; and Simpson, As We Have Always Done.
[9]
I use the term "peoplehood" to describe the novel's imagined alternative social
formation in response to the novel's explicit avoidance of tribally specific
markers. "Peoplehood" in its broadest sense also names social formations that
are not dependent on lineal descent, federal recognition, geopolitical
boundaries such as reservations, proximity to settler cultural imaginaries and
figurations of "Indianness," nor to ethnological or anthropological imaginaries
of cultural authenticity. For a discussion of peoplehood in this sense as a way
of theorizing sovereignty, see Holm, Pearson, and Chavis; for a discussion of
peoplehood as a hermeneutic for Native literary studies, see Stratton and
Washburn.
[10]
Though not explicitly framed or addressed as such, Mapping's critique of blood metaphors as ways to understand Native
masculinities may also offer an implicit critique of blood metaphors as
deployed within policy frameworks, especially blood quantum policies, used to
determine Native identity. The Blackfeet Nation, of which Jones is an enrolled
member, currently sets one-quarter Blackfeet blood as its enrollment criteria;
however, this requirement has been challenged in the mid-1990s and again in the
early 2010s as members of the Blackfeet Nation and "descendants," a term
designating those without sufficient ancestry to enroll under extant blood
quantum requirements, petitioned to change the policy from blood quantum to
lineal descent. For reporting of these protests, see Redman,
"Blackfeet—Fractioned Identity"; and Murry, "Tribe Split Over Blood
Quantum Measurement." In his history of Blackfeet political organization since
allotment, Paul Rosier notes that "blood" has been a key axis of factionalism
among tribal members; see Rebirth.
See also McFee, Modern Blackfeet. On
the broader relationship of "blood" and blood metaphors, race and racial
science, and Native peoples, see Tallbear.
[11]
Mapping does not reference a specific
location nor specific people(s). Some elements of the setting, however, suggest
references to the Blackfeet Reservation, the boundaries of which border
northwestern Montana to the east and south, the Canadian province of Alberta to
the north, and Glacier National Park, a part of Blackfeet homelands and a
continually contested boundary, to the west. Lakes within Glacier National
Park, as LaPier writes, are prominent spaces within Blackfeet story. On
Blackfeet lands and the political history of Glacier National Park, see Spence,
Dispossessing, especially pp. 71-100;
and Craig, Yung, and Borie, "Blackfeet Belong." Mapping's ambiguous
setting resonates with Jones's writing and comments regarding Indigenous
identity and the critical reception of his and other Native writers' work. In
"Letter to a Just-Starting-Out Indian Writer—And Maybe to Myself," Jones
is sharply critical of the ways Indigeneity can overdetermine a work's literary
value, foreclose on analyses of craft, and lock Native writers into exoticized
market constructions (xi-xvi). However, Jones has also said, as Billy J.
Stratton writes in "Come for the Icing, Stay for the Cake," that "because he is
a Blackfeet person, his writings are necessarily Blackfeet and, more broadly,
Native in their composition and literary significance. All of the stories he
writes and shares emerge out of and draw significance from just such a Native
understanding of the world, articulating a consciousness inextricably informed
by his ancestry, travels, and experiences" (11).
[12]
See also Jones's graphic novella, My Hero
(2017).
[13]
In Beyond Settler Time, Rifkin
explores the relationship between theories of time and duration and
conceptualizations of sovereignty and self-determination. In an effort to move
beyond the supposed impasse of "modern" and "traditional," as one such way of
naming temporal incommensurability, Rifkin argues for a conceptualization of
temporal multiplicity that allows for "discrepant temporalities that can be
understood as affecting each other, as all open to change, and yet as not
equivalent or mergeable into a neutral, common frame—call it time,
modernity, history, or the present." (3). For further elaboration of the
concept, see esp. "Indigenous Orientations," pp. 1-47.
[14]
Reviewers of Mapping have read the
text in terms of haunting almost exclusively. For example, Sean Guynes
reads Mapping as tracing
"cycles of poverty, violence, and colonialism; of place, space, and time; of
genre; of the expectations placed on contemporary Native authors—of being
(and being made to be) Indian" (71). John Langan sees the novella as a "ghost
story" as much as a "tale of haunting" and the "absences that bend and warp our
lives" including especially the paternal absence at the core of the narrative,
which Langan notes through reference to Junior's name, which "describes him in
relation to someone else." Mark Springer likewise situates Mapping as a ghost
story about "the ways in which the past forever haunts the present," and
couches such haunting in terms of intergenerational trauma and "old wounds"
that "never heal." Billy
J. Stratton,
in his review of the novel for the Los Angeles Review of Books,
sees the novella's "haunting" as central to its representation of the lines
between past and present and the inhabitances that such temporal clashes
engender, and reads its characters as living on "the margins of a spectral
frontier landscape" that suggests an "uncanny, almost Gothic American West."
[15]
On October 17, 1855, members of the Piegan, Blood, Blackfeet, Gros Ventre, Nez
Perce, and Flathead tribes and a delegation of U.S. officials and Indian Agents
signed the "Treaty with the Blackfoot Indians." Article 4 of the treaty
designates Blackfeet lands as follows: "the tract of country lying within lines
drawn from Hell Gate or Medicine Rock Passes, in an easterly direction, to the
nearest source of the Muscle Shell River, thence down said river to its mouth,
thence down the channel of the Missouri River to the mouth of Milk River,
thence due north to the forty-ninth parallel, thence due west on said parallel
to the main range of the Rocky Mountains, and thence southerly along said range
to the place of the beginning, shall be the territory of the Blackfoot nation,
over which said nation shall exercise exclusive control, excepting as may be
otherwise provided in this treaty." For the full text of the 1855 treaty, see
blackfeetnation.com/government/treaties.
[16]
On September 26, 1895, members of the Blackfeet nation entered into an
agreement to sell the mountain portion of their reservation lands, part of what
is today Glacier National Park, to the United States for $1.5 million. For the
full text of the agreement, see blackfeetnation.com/government/treaties. For a
history of the events leading to the agreement and its aftermath, see Spence
and Rosier.
Works
Cited
Alfred, Taiaiake.
"Reimagining Warriorhood: A Conversation with Taiaiake Alfred." Masculinidians: Conversations about
Indigenous Manhood, edited by Sam McKegney, Michigan State UP, 2014, pp.
76-86.
Barker, Joanne. Native Acts: Law, Recognition, and Cultural
Authenticity. Duke UP, 2011.
Baudrillard, Jean. Simulation and Simulacra. Translated by
Sheila Faria Glaser, U of Michigan P, 1994.
Belcourt, Billy-Ray. A History of My Brief Body. Two-Dollar
Radio, 2020.
---. This Wound is a World. U of Minnesota P,
2019.
Connell, R. W. Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and
Sexual Politics. Stanford UP, 1987.
---. Masculinities. 2nd ed., U of California
P, 2005.
Coulthard, Glen Sean. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the
Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minnesota UP, 2014.
Craig, David R.,
Laurie Yung, and William T. Borrie. "'Blackfeet Belong to the Mountains': Hope,
Loss, and Blackfeet Claims to Glacier National Park, Montana." Conservation and Society, vol. 10, no.
3, 2012, pp. 232-42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26393080.
Accessed 23 May 2022.
Faludi, Susan. Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man.
HarperCollins, 1999.
Guynes, Sean. "Rev. of
Mapping the Interior by Stephen
Graham Jones." World Literature Today,
vol. 91, no. 5, Sept./Oct. 2017, pp. 70-71. JSTOR,
https://doi.org/10.7588/worllitetoda.91.5.0070. Accessed 23 May 2022.
Hokowhitu, Brendan.
"Taxonomies of Indigeneity: Indigenous Heterosexual Patriarchal Masculinity." Indigenous Men and Masculinities: Legacies,
Identities, and Regeneration, edited by Robert Alexander and Kim Anderson,
U of Manitoba P, 2015, pp. 80-95.
---. "Producing Elite
Indigenous Masculinities." Settler
Colonial Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, 2012, pp. 23-48. Taylor and Francis Online,
https://doi-org/10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648840. Accessed 23 May 2022.
Holm, Tom, J. Diane Pearson, and Ben Chavis. "Peoplehood: A
Model for the Extension of Sovereignty in American Indian Studies." Wicazo Sa Review, vol. 18, no. 1, 2003,
pp. 7-24. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1409431. Accessed 23 May 2022.
Hume, Kathryn. "Gerald Vizenor's Metaphysics." Contemporary Literature, vol. 48, no. 4,
2007, pp. 580-612. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27563771. Accessed 23 May 2022.
Innes, Robert Alexander,
and Kim Anderson. "Who's Walking with Our Brothers?" Indigenous Men and Masculinities: Legacies, Identities, and
Regeneration, edited by Robert Alexander Innes and Kim Anderson, U of
Manitoba P, 2015, pp. 3-17.
Jones, Stephen Graham.
Mapping the Interior. Tor.com, 2017.
---. "Letter to a Just-Starting-Out Indian Writer—And
Maybe to Myself." The Fictions of Stephen Graham
Jones: A Critical Companion,
edited by Billy J. Stratton, U of New Mexico P, 2016, pp. xi-xvii.
---. "Werewolf at the Door." Mongrels, by Stephen Graham Jones, HarperCollins, 2016, pp. 2-8.`
Justice, Daniel Heath.
Why Indigenous Literatures Matter.
Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2018.
---. "Fighting Shame
through Love: A Conversation with Daniel Heath Justice." Masculindians: Conversations about Indigenous Manhood, edited by
Sam McKegney, Michigan State UP, 2014, pp. 134-145.
Kaufman, Michael.
"Men, Feminism, and Men's Contradictory Experiences of Power." Theorizing Masculinities, edited by
Harry Brod and Michael Kaufman, Sage, 1994, pp. 142-63.
Kent, Sarah. "'I Got This AB Original
Soul / I Got This AB Original Flow': Frank Waln, the Postmasculindian, and Hip
Hop as Survivance." Studies in American
Indian Literatures, vol. 30, nos. 3-4, 2018, pp. 121-150. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5250/studamerindilite.30.3-4.0121.
Accessed 23 May 2022.
Kimmel, Michael. Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the
End of an Era. Nation Books, 2013.
---. Manhood in America: A Cultural History.
The Free P, 1996.
Langan, John. "Rev. of
Mapping the Interior by Stephen
Graham Jones." Locus, 13 Feb. 2018,
locusmag.com/2018/02/john-langan-reviews-mapping-the-interior-by-stephen-graham-jones.
Accessed 23 May 2022.
LaPier, Rosalyn R. Invisible Reality: Storytellers,
Storytakers, and the Supernatural World of the Blackfeet. U of Nebraska P
and The American Philosophical Society, 2017.
Malin, Brenton J. American Masculinity Under Clinton: Popular
Media and the Nineties "Crisis of Masculinity." Peter Lang, 2005.
McFee, Malcolm. Modern Blackfeet: Montanans on a Reservation.
1972. Waveland P, 1986.
McKegney, Sam. Carrying
the Burden of Peace: Reimagining Indigenous Masculinities Through Story. U
of Arizona P, 2021.
---. "Into the Full
Grace of the Blood in Men." Masculindians:
Conversations about Indigenous Manhood, edited by Sam McKegney, Michigan
State UP, 2014, pp. 1-13.
---. "'pain, pleasure, shame. Shame.':
Masculine Embodiment, Kinship, and Indigenous Reterritorialization." Canadian Literature, iss. 216, 2013, pp.
12-33.
---. "Masculindians:
The Violence and Voyeurism of Male Sibling Relationships in Recent
First-Nations Fiction." Cross/Cultures,
no. 145, 2012, pp. 357-367.
---. "'Beautiful
Hunters with Strong Medicine': Indigenous Masculinity and Kinship in Richard
Van Camp's The Lesser Blessed." The Canadian Journal of Native Studies,
vol. 29, nos. 1-2, 2009, pp. 203-227.
Murray, David. "Tribe
Split Over Blood Quantum Measurement." Great
Falls Tribune, 18 Aug. 2016,
https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2016/08/18/tribe-split-blood-quantum-measurement/88962774/.
Accessed 23 May 2022.
Owens, Louis. Mixedblood Messages: Literature, Film,
Family, Place. U of Oklahoma P, 1998.
Perea, Jessica
Bissett. "Audiovisualizing Inupiaq Men and Masculinities On the Ice." Critically
Sovereign: Indigenous Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies, edited by
Joanne Barker, Duke UP, 2017, pp.127-168.
Redman, Hanah.
"Blackfeet—Fractioned Identity." Native
News: Vast Expanses, 2013, http://nativenews.jour.umt.edu/2013/. Accessed
31 Aug. 2021.
Rifkin, Mark. Beyond Settler Time: Temporal Sovereignty and Indigenous
Self-Determination. Duke UP, 2017.
---. "Around 1978:
Family, Culture, and Race in the Federal Production of Indianness." Critically Sovereign: Indigenous Gender,
Sexuality, and Feminist Studies, edited by Joanne Barker, Duke UP, 2017,
pp.169-206.
---. When Did Indians Become Straight?: Kinship,
the History of Sexuality, and Native Sovereignty. Oxford UP, 2011.
Robinson, Sally. Marked Men: White Masculinity in Crisis.
Columbia UP, 2000.
Rosier, Paul C. Rebirth of the Blackfeet Nation, 1912-1954.
U of Nebraska P, 2004.
Simpson, Leanne
Betasamosake. As We Have Always Done:
Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance. U of Minnesota P, 2017.
Spense, Mark David. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal
and the Making of the National Parks. Oxford UP, 1999.
Springer, Mark. "In
'Mapping the Interior,' Native Fathers and Sons, Haunted by the Past." Fiction Unbound,
fictionunbound.com/blog/mapping-the-interior, 23 June 2017. Accessed 23 May
2022.
Stratton, Billy J. "In
the Habitations of Specters: On Stephen Graham Jones's 'Mapping the Interior.'"
Los Angeles Review of Books, 21 April
2018,
lareviewofbooks.org/article/in-the-habitations-of-specters-on-stephen-graham-joness-mapping-the-interior.
Accessed 23 May 2022.
---. "Come for the
Icing, Stay for the Cake: An Introduction to the Fictions of Stephen Graham
Jones." The Fictions of Stephen Graham
Jones: A Critical Companion, edited by Billy J. Stratton, U of New Mexico
P, 2016, pp. 1-13.
Stratton, Billy J.,
and Frances Washburn. "The Peoplehood Matrix: A New Theory for American Indian
Literature." Wicazo Sa Review, vol.
23, no. 1, 2008, pp. 51-72. JSTOR,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30131246. Access 23 May 2022.
Tallbear, Kim. Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic
Science. U of Minnesota P, 2013.
Tatonetti, Lisa. Written by the
Body: Gender Expansiveness and Indigenous Non-Cis Masculinities. U of
Minnesota P, 2021.
"Treaties." Blackfeet Nation, 2022, blackfeetnation.com/government/treaties.
Accessed 20 May 2022.
Vizenor, Gerald. Fugitive Poses: Native American Indian Scenes of Absence and Presence.
U of Nebraska P, 1998.
---.
Manifest Manners: Postindian Warriors of
Survivance. Wesleyan UP, 1994.