August 2nd-August 8th, 2010 Question 6

Question #6

Black Elk Speaks is the narrative of the life and times of a Sioux medicine man named Black Elk. This book was created as a dissertation study of the Sioux people by John Neihardt in the early 1930's. In order for Neihardt to conduct his research he either had to learn how to speak Lakota (a dialect of the Sioux language) or find someone who could translate Lakota into English. Neihardt found Ben Black Elk who was the son of Black Elk. Ben helped Neihardt to translate Black Elk's life's story into English. Neihardt then told his own daughter Black Elk's stories and she wrote down what he said. However, because the book shows John Neihardt as the author of Black Elk Speaks and not just the editor, there has been a controversy in academic circles and native circles as to the accuracy of the story from Black Elk's point of view. The primary argument made is that Neihardt, being the author and editor, was able to exaggerate or change some parts of the story and did so to make the story more interesting to a white "American" audience of the 1930's and thus more profitable. Thinking about the number of translations (John Neihardt asking Ben to ask his father Black Elk a question and Black Elk responding to Ben who translated to John the answer and then John telling his daughter to record Black Elk's response and then publishers' prerogatives added to the mix), do you believe the final product is effective in telling the world the story of the Battle of Little Big Horn and the Wounded Knee Massacre from the perspective of a Native American? Do you believe that if Black Elk read and spoke English that the book would have been much different? What is the role of an individual's voice in such a story?