Unscripted America (2017)

Rivett, Sarah. Unscripted America: Indigenous Languages and the Origins of a Literary Nation. Oxford, 2017. 

"The untranslatable aspects of indigenous languages have a disruptive impact on universal truths of either Scripture or Enlightened taxonomies...I refer to this disruptive impact as a process of unscripting." (Rivett, p. 11)

On the whole, this research speaks more about non-indigenous missionaries, fathers, philosophers, scientists and writers than about indigenous peoples. In the first six chapters, it traces chronologically the efforts of Anglo-Protestant missionaries and French Jesuits harvesting souls from their own fields in North America; in the last two chapters, President Thomas Jefferson's indigenous language project and Author James Fenimore Cooper's literary creation about Native Americans feature as themes.

Perhaps that's why the book is labeled 'literary criticism', and I felt I was back at the Department of Foreign Language and Literature when reading it.

Having said so, what's there for a reader like me looking for specific publication about indigenous peoples?

First and foremost, the bibliography runs as long as 502 entries, in which I find many exciting books about indigenous peoples published in this century. A Red Atlantic (2017); The Indigenous Experience (2006); Queequeg's Coffin (2012); The Voice of Dawn (2001) ......No sooner had I closed Professor Rivett's Unscripted America than I placed another order on Amazon. Though primarily an Americanist, Professor Rivett certainly plays cross-disciplinary well for this research; her references are the proof. She obviously reads French besides English.

(John Eliot, 1604-1690, Missionary to Wampanoag in Massachusetts Bay Colony)

Second, Professor Rivett's longue-duree comparison sheds light upon English-French mission rivalry as well as upon European-Native American seesaw battle in early modern North America.

She pairs Roger Williams (English)  with Paul Le Jeune (French) in early 17th century, John Eliot (English) with Christien Le Clercq (French) in late 17th century, and Experience Mayhew, Josiah Cotton, Jonathan Edwards and Jonathan Jr. Edwards among others (English) with Sebastian Rale, Joseph-François Lafitau and François Picquet among others (French) from the 18th century until early 19th century in order to show differences in (1) their philosophies about and attitudes towards native tongues; (2) their translation of Bible and other mission related materials; and (3) their relationship with local indigenous communities. 'Missionary linguistics' is the apt theme of the book.

Briefly throughout centuries and generations, English Puritans had changed attitudes towards native tongues.  First, they regarded indigenous languages as the way to salvation; later, they condemned the languages for being irreparably barren and turned to their aesthetic aspect. Consequently, Bible translation suffered from the change of philosophy; English became forced upon Native Americans instead of native tongues being forced upon English missionaries. This caused resistance from the natives and tension between the English and the local.

French Jesuits, however, paid no attention to pressures generating in France about standardizing the use of French especially after the establishment of Académie française (French Academy of Sciences). Instead, they continued to learn native languages and produced Bibles in local languages to better communicate Catholic truth with proselytes. Bearing in mind an ecclesiastical hierarchy, they guarded their knowledge well and shared (or taught) only knowledge they considered fit for the mind of the congregation with the help of hymnals and other activities. The fact that they spent hours in wigwams learning local languages and tolerated syncretic indigenous Catholicism  helped to secure a friendship/alliance, which proved very useful in battles of dominion over North America against the English. 

(Christien Le Clercq, 1641-1695, teaching Mi'kmaq children to read the Mi'kmaq symbols he created for their language)

Nevertheless, whether friendly or not friendly to native tongues, third, as Professor Rivett shows, both English Puritans and French Jesuits were not spared from the 'disruptive impact' or 'unscripting force' unleashed by the local. Resistance came in the form of linguistic sovereignty as many Christian concepts fell immediately into a whirlpool of meanings upon translation.

In Unscripted America, there are examples of Wanmpanoag manit or Mi'kmaq mn'tu (a spiritual power in any form; spirit? God? angel?);  the Mi'kmaq functional use of the cross; or the Abenaki nesesiharan (to know) and its conjugation with the change of voice. More directly, the Mohawk would rather convert than learn English because it was easier to return to their own way of life after conversion than pick up the language again after losing it. Even President Thomas Jefferson had no way of ensuring whether his Indian vocabulary project was uniform at all. His scientific ambition depended upon the cooperation of Native American informants. 

Thus, while missionaries, fathers, writers or President were trying to 'script' the nation, indigenous peoples like the Wanmpanoag, the Mi'kmaq, the Abenaki, the Mohawk and the Mohican were 'unsripting' it, forcing upon them "a sustained confrontation with the resilience and permanence of North American languages" (p. 14).

In 'Introduction', Professor Rivett reminds the danger of language endangerment/death/preservation discourse. She says, "The myth of language death...is perhaps the last horizon of the Enlightenment theory of American Indian natural extinction and the concomitant romanticization of an irrecoverable past" (p. 15).

I believe Professor Rivett means well. Just like people don't realize how loud Indian voice was in the initial stage of America's literary past (hence her research and book), the myth of language death may also blind them from the vitality of indigenous languages even at present. They existed in the past, continue to exist now and will prevail in the future, as long as we don't kill the languages first with our blindness and frail heart.

This will be how I take the advice. True, despite of resistance, indigenous peoples have lost not only language but even more land. While turning away from reality to eulogize past courage is not wise, pronouncing one's own death sentence when breath hasn't been taken away is not very smart either. Why not continue unscripting America?

Rather, let's push the fight and unscript the world.