The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account Of Native People In North America

Paperback | August 13, 2013

byThomas King

not yet rated|write a review

Rich with dark and light, pain and magic, The Inconvenient Indian distills the insights gleaned from Thomas King''s critical and personal meditation on what it means to be "Indian" in North America, weaving the curiously circular tale of the relationship between non-Natives and Natives in the centuries since the two first encountered each other. In the process, King refashions old stories about historical events and figures, takes a sideways look at film and pop culture, relates his own complex experiences with activism, and articulates a deep and revolutionary understanding of the cumulative effects of ever-shifting laws and treaties on Native peoples and lands.
     This is a book both timeless and timely, burnished with anger but tempered by wit, and ultimately a hard-won offering of hope--a sometimes inconvenient but nonetheless indispensable account for all of us, Indian and non-Indian alike, seeking to understand how we might tell a new story for the future.

Pricing and Purchase Info

$15.00 online
$21.00 list price (save 28%)
In stock online
Ships free on orders over $25
Prices may vary. why?
Please call ahead to confirm inventory.

From the Publisher

Rich with dark and light, pain and magic, The Inconvenient Indian distills the insights gleaned from Thomas King's critical and personal meditation on what it means to be "Indian" in North America, weaving the curiously circular tale of the relationship between non-Natives and Natives in the centuries since the two first encountered each other. In the process, King refashions old stories about his...

THOMAS KING is one of Canada's premier Native public intellectuals. For the past five decades, he has worked as an activist for Native causes and an administrator of Native programs, and has taught Native literature and history at universities in the United States and Canada. He is the bestselling author of five novels, including Medicine River, described as "precise and elegant" by The New York Times; Green Grass, R...

other books by Thomas King

The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative
The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative

Paperback|Nov 1 2003

$19.92 online$19.95list price
Green Grass Running Water  Tpb
Green Grass Running Water Tpb

Paperback|Jul 15 1999

$17.23 online$19.95list price(save 13%)
The Back of the Turtle: A Novel
The Back of the Turtle: A Novel

Paperback|Dec 30 2014

$23.94 online$24.99list price
see all books by Thomas King
Format:PaperbackDimensions:336 pages, 7.98 × 5.19 × 0.92 inPublished:August 13, 2013Publisher:Doubleday CanadaLanguage:English

The following ISBNs are associated with this title:

ISBN - 10:0385664222

ISBN - 13:9780385664226

Look for similar items by category:

Reviews

Rated 5 out of 5 by from Brilliantly Crafted King's account of Native Americans is both thoughtful and engaging. He makes you laugh with intent because after each laugh you stop and say wait a minute this is serious. He masterfully manages to inform you of the entire history, since Europeans got involved, of North American Indians. While recounting the history he unveils what has been and is popular thought towards Native Americans. This is a must read for all people. I can't recommend it enough.
Date published: 2015-09-04
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Great Non-Fiction Read for Fiction Readers! Hilarious!
Date published: 2015-02-23
Rated 5 out of 5 by from This book is a "Must Read" I wish we had been taught this history when I was in school. I bought it because I felt I didn't know enough about aboriginal history and am delighted that I did. It is very well written and gives one a history lesson in very a readable and interesting way. It's not only Canadian History but American History as it affected native peoples. I was happy to read that it is still part of the school curriculum in Canada. I would definitely recommend it to all Canadians who are interested in the subject and those who who should be as well.
Date published: 2015-02-23
Rated 5 out of 5 by from I must read this book This book was strongly suggested to me for a must read. This is the first book by King for me to read. This is a book that I have been looking and waiting for years I was not disappointed. King's writing gave all the information and history on both sides of the Canadian and USA border His style shocked me when a page had many facts that were hard to take in but somehow I kept reading.
Date published: 2015-01-13
Rated 5 out of 5 by from This should be compulsory reading for every North American I simply couldn't put this book down. It's a rollicking lope through the history of Indian and European relations in North America -- one that is simultaneously hilarious and haunting. King's velvet glove of humour cushions a compelling anger. I've already given away two copies to friends -- it's that good.
Date published: 2014-03-11
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Just read it! This book is a welcome antidote to the long, uninterrupted line of North American histories in which aboriginal voices have been largely absent or muted.  It's funny, thoughtful, and thought-provoking.  It is also uncomfortable at times, as an account of colonialism only can be.
Date published: 2014-02-01
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Must Read for all! Enjoyable, hard-hitting book about North American history from the perspective of Native peoples. Thomas King writes in a no-holds barred book looking at the impact on Natives lives by European civilization and the quest for land and riches. It is not a linear factoid historical book but a conversational style account of 'Indian' life not just from yesterday but to present times. Excellent material! Every Canadian should read this book to have a better understanding of the issues and challenges confronting Canada's First Nations.
Date published: 2013-08-26
Rated 1 out of 5 by from A biased account of the realities of Native life in North America. Why are you showing 'no reviews ' for this book? Several were presented and posted on this site weeks ago. Very unprofessional and an explanation is needed.
Date published: 2013-05-16

Extra Content

Read from the Book

About fifteen years back, a bunch of us got together to form a drum group. John Samosi, one of our lead singers, suggested we call ourselves “The Pesky Redskins.” Since we couldn’t sing all that well, John argued, we needed a name that would make people smile and encourage them to overlook our musical deficiencies.We eventually settled on the Waa-Chi-Waasa Singers, which was a more stately name. Sandy Benson came up with it, and as I remember, waa-chi-waasa is Ojibway for “far away.” Appropriate enough, since most of the boys who sit around the drum here in Guelph, Ontario, come from somewhere other than here. John’s from Saskatoon. Sandy calls Rama home. Harold Rice was raised on the coast of British Columbia. Mike Duke’s home community is near London, Ontario. James Gordon is originally from Toronto. I hail from California’s central valley, while my son Benjamin was born in Lethbridge, Alberta, and was dragged around North America with his older brother and younger sister. I don’t knowwhere he considers home to be.Anishinaabe, Métis, Coastal Salish, Cree, Cherokee. We have nothing much in common. We’re all Aboriginal and we have the drum. That’s about it.I had forgotten about “Pesky Redskins” but it must have been kicking around in my brain because, when I went looking for a title for this book, something with a bit of irony to it, there it was.Pesky Redskins: A Curious History of Indians in North America.Problem was, no one else liked the title. Several people I trust told me that Pesky Redskins sounded too flip and, in the end, I had to agree. Native people haven’t been so much pesky as we’ve been . . . inconvenient.So I changed the title to The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious History of Native People in North America, at which point my partner, Helen Hoy, who teaches English at the University of Guelph, weighed in, cautioning that “history” might be too grand a word for what I was attempting. Benjamin, who is finishing a Ph.D. in History at Stanford, agreed with his mother and pointed out that if I was going to call the book a history, I would be obliged to pay attention to the demands of scholarship and work within an organized and clearly delineated chronology.Now, it’s not that I think such things as chronologies are a bad idea, but I’m somewhat attached to the Ezra Pound School of History. While not subscribing to his political beliefs, I do agree with Pound that “We do NOT know the past in chronological sequence. It may be convenient to lay it out anesthetized on the table with dates pasted on here and there, but what we know we know by ripples and spirals eddying out from us and from our own time.”There’s nothing like a good quotation to help a body escape an onerous task. So I tweaked the title one more time, swapped the word “history” for “account,” and settled on The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America. Mind you, thereis a great deal in The Inconvenient Indian that is history. I’m just not the historian you had in mind. While it might not show immediately, I have a great deal of respect for the discipline of history. I studied history as part of my doctoral work in English and American Studies at the University of Utah. I even worked at the American West Center on that campus when Floyd O’Neil and S. Lyman Tyler ran the show, and, over the years, I’ve met and talked with other historians such as Brian Dippie, Richard White, Patricia Limerick, Jean O’Brien, Vine Deloria, Jr., Francis Paul Prucha, David Edmunds, Olive Dickason, Jace Weaver, Donald Smith, Alvin Josephy, Ken Coates, and Arrel Morgan Gibson, and we’ve had some very stimulating conversations about . . . history. And in consideration of those conversations and the respect that I have for history, I’ve salted my narrative with those things we call facts, even though we should know by now that facts will not save us.Truth be known, I prefer fiction. I dislike the way facts try to thrust themselves upon me. I’d rather make up my own world. Fictions are less unruly than histories. The beginnings are more engaging, the characters more co-operative, the endings more in line with expectations of morality and justice. This is not to imply that fiction is exciting and that history is boring. Historical narratives can be as enchanting as a Stephen Leacock satire or as terrifying as a Stephen King thriller.Still, for me at least, writing a novel is buttering warm toast, while writing a history is herding porcupines with your elbows.As a result, although The Inconvenient Indian is fraught with history, the underlying narrative is a series of conversations and arguments that I’ve been having with myself and others for most of my adult life, and if there is any methodology in my approach to the subject, it draws more on storytelling techniques than historiography. A good historian would have tried to keep biases under control. A good historian would have tried to keep personal anecdotesin check. A good historian would have provided footnotes.I have not.And, while I’m making excuses, I suppose I should also apologize if my views cause anyone undue distress. But I hope we can agree that any discussion of Indians in North America is likely to conjure up a certain amount of rage. And sorrow. Along with moments of irony and humour.When I was a kid, Indians were Indians. Sometimes Indians were Mohawks or Cherokees or Crees or Blackfoot or Tlingits or Seminoles. But mostly they were Indians. Columbus gets blamed for the term, but he wasn’t being malicious. He was looking for India and thought he had found it. He was mistaken, of course, and as time went on, various folks and institutions tried to make the matter right. Indians became Amerindians and Aboriginals and Indigenous People and American Indians. Lately, Indians have become First Nations in Canada and Native Americans in the United States, but the fact of the matter is that there has neverbeen a good collective noun because there never was a collective to begin with.I’m not going to try to argue for a single word. I don’t see that one term is much better or worse than another. “First Nations” is the current term of choice in Canada, while “Native Americans” is the fashionable preference in the United States. I’m fond of both of these terms, but, for all its faults and problems—especially in Canada—“Indian,” as a general designation, remains for me, at least, the North American default.Since I’m on the subject of terminology and names, I should mention the Métis. The Métis are one of Canada’s three official Aboriginal groups, Indians (First Nations) and the Inuit being the other two. The Métis are mixed-bloods, Indian and English, Indian and French, for the most part. They don’t have Status under the Indian Act, but they do have designated settlements and homelands in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Many of these communities maintain a separate culture from their White and First Nations neighbours, as well as a separate language—Michif—which features components of French and Aboriginal languages.Terminology is always a rascal. I’ve tried to use “reservations” for Native communities in the United States and “reserves” for Native communities in Canada, and “tribes” for Native groups in the United States and “bands” for Native groups in Canada. But in a number of instances, when I’m talking about both sides of the border, I might use “reservation” or “reserve” and “band” or “tribe” or “Nation,” depending on rhythm and syntax. I actually prefer “Nation” or a specific band or tribal name, and I try to use this whenever possible.And Whites. Well, I struggled with this one. A Japanese friend of mine likes to call Anglos “crazy Caucasoids,” while another friend told me that if I was going to use the term “Indians” I should call everyone else “cowboys.” Both of these possibilities are fun, but there are limits to satire. Besides, “Whites” is a perfectly serviceable term. Native people have been using it for years, sometimes as a description and sometimes as something else. Let’s agree that within the confines of this book the term is neutral and refers to a general group of people as diverse and indefinable as “Indians.”There is an error in the text of the book that I have not corrected. “The Bureau of Indian Affairs” is the correct designation for the U.S. agency that is charged with looking after matters pertaining to Indians in that country, but for Canada, I have continued to use the “Department of Indian Affairs” even though the ministry is now called “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.” I simply like the older name and find it less disingenuous.In the end, I’m not so much concerned with designing a strict vocabulary as I am with crafting a coherent and readable narrative.One of the difficulties with trying to contain any account of Indians in North America in a volume as modest as this is that it can’t be done. Perhaps I should have called the book The  Inconvenient Indian: An Incomplete Account of Indians in North America. For whateverI’ve included in this book, I’ve left a great deal more out. I don’t talk about European explorers and their early relationships with  Native people. I haven’t written much about the Métis in Canada and, with the exception of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, I don’t deal with the Inuit at all. I touch on early settlement and conflicts, but only in passing. I spend a great deal of time on Native people and film, because film, in all its forms, has been the onlyplace where most North Americans have seen Indians. I talk about some of the resistance organizations and the moments that marked them, but I don’t spend any time on Anna Mae Aquash’s murder or on the travesty of Leonard Peltier’s trial and imprisonment.Nor do I talk about Native women such as Brenda Wolfe, Georgina Papin, and Mona Wilson, women whom Robert “Willie” Pickton murdered at his pig farm in British Columbia, or the Native women who have gone missing in Vancouver and along the highway between Prince Rupert and Prince George. Nor do I bring up the murder of Ditidaht First Nation carverJohn T. Williams, who, in 2010, was gunned down in Seattle by a trigger-happy cop.While I spend time in the distant and the immediate past, I’ve also pushed the narrative into the present in order to consider contemporary people and events. This probably isn’t the best idea. The present tends to be too fresh and fluid to hold with any surety. Still, as I argue in the book, when we look at Native–non-Native relations, there is no great difference between the past and the present. While we have dispensed with guns and bugles, and while North America’s sense of its own superiority is better hidden, its disdain muted, twenty-first-century attitudes towards Native people are remarkably similar to those of the previous centuries. Finally, no doubt, someone will wonder why I decided to take on both Canada and the United States at the same time, when choosing one or the other would have made for a less involved and more focused conversation. The answer to this is somewhat complicated by perspective. While the line that divides the two countries is a political reality, and while the border affects bandsand tribes in a variety of ways, I would have found it impossibleto talk about the one without talking about the other.For most Aboriginal people, that line doesn’t exist. It’s a figment of someone else’s  imagination. Historical figures such as Chief Joseph and Sitting Bull and Louis Riel moved back and forth between the two countries, and while they understood the importance of that border to Whites, there is nothing to indicate that they believed in its legitimacy.I get stopped every time I try to cross that border, but stories go wherever they please.

Bookclub Guide

1. Consider the evolution from the title Pesky Redskins: A Curious History of Indians in North America to the book's title The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Indians in North America. Why did King come to the conclusion that this book is not a history? What do you think is the significance of the terms "Redskins" and "Indians"?2. On several occasions King reveals the futility of writing a history. "One of the difficulties with trying to contain any account of Indians in North America ina volume as modest as this is that it can't be done" (xiv). He goes on to concede he prefers fiction to fact (xi), and that he is not keeping his biases in check (xii). Is bringing these issues to the forefront an effective strategy? How might shedding light on historical incongruity such as the Almo massacre and the story of Pocahontas impact the way you read historical accounts in the future? What does that tell you about how history is written and taught? 3. King writes, "Gazing through the lens that seventeenth-century Christisanity provided, most were only able to see the basic dichotomy that framed their world, a world that was either light or dark, good or evil, civilized or savage" (23). How has the lens through which White North America looks altered since the seventeenth century? How has it remained the same? If North American history is written froma White consciousness, as King suggests, in what ways is this book different, coming from a Native writer and perspective?4. What does King's statement, "the need for race preceeds race" (29) signify? The author goes on to note that while General Custer became a staple in American history, individuals like Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull remain minor figures. Why is it important to keep what history made of Custer in mind? In what ways is racism still, as King says, endemic and systemic in North America?5. King writes, "Most of us this history is the past. It's not. History is the stories we tell about the past" (2). What does this say about the oral and written traditions of telling stories? Discuss the implications and effectiveness of King's decision to tell anecdotes rather than limit the book to dates and statistics. 6. On page 20, King asserts that "Native history is an imaginative cobbling together of fears and loathings, romances and reverences, facts and fantasies" as portrayed on the silver screen by Hollywood. What was--and is--the impact of having this history promoted through the entertainment industry? How do film and television today reinforce stereotypes and an incomplete history of Aboriginals in North America?7. Discuss the differences between what King calls Dead Indians, Live Indians, and Legal Indians. How does the idea of the Dead Indian affect Live Indians today? Is it promoting a myth that is ultimately detrimental, or, as is said on page 74, serving a purpose by preserving a culture? 8. In the prologue of the book King states, "when we look at Native-Non-Native relations, there is no great difference betweenthe past and the present" (xv). In what ways has Duncan Campbell Scott's move to "get rid of the Indian problem" (72) evolved in Canadian government policy in the last 100 years? Is there evidence that this sentiment still exists? Canada is known as a cultural mosaic, widely appreciated for embracing cultrual and racial differences. In what ways does this hold true in the case of Indians? In what ways is it an untrue understanding? Is Stephen Harper's apology for residential schools still legitimate when he later denies a history of colonialism?9. The cover image of this book is taken from a mid-1900s promotional poster for a shipping company. What does this say about the era's marketing of the Dead Indian? What effect does today's marketing of "Native" crafts, medicines, and retreats have on Natives and Native history?10. Consider the incongruities of identity for a Native that King describes: on one hand is a culture of young Indian children who wished to dress up as cowboys (22), and on the other, a contemporary actor who seemed to acquire an "Indian identity" after acquiring a role as an Indian (45). What implications does this have on Natives' identities? In what ways has Indian policy, as King says on page 177, discouraged the retention of such identities? 11. King enlists satire and humour throughout The Inconvenient Indian. Does this make you consider things differently than you would in reading the same sentiments in a traditional history book? Why might maintaining a sense of humour be important to King in writing this book and persuading his readers? Is it an effective tool?12. An early intention of the residential schooling system was to "kill the Indian in order to save the man" (107). What are the immediate and long-term impacts of this assimilation on Native people? Consider the conditions and philosophies of the schools, and discuss whether they blur a line between "assimilation" and "extermination," as King explicates on page 101. In what ways is King's comparison  of Natives to the holocaust on page 114 a fair--or unfair--comparison? King associates the Trial of Tears to the twin towers (88); European colonialism to malaria; and Reservations to Alcatraz prison (141)--are these convincing analogies?13. Do you think taht sovereignty should be a right of Native people in North America? What impact would it hold compared to a more comprehensive tribal membership or resource development systems, which King promotes on page 202?  14. In the last chapter of his book King points to two positive developments for Natives in North America: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement and The Nunavut Land Claims Settlement. What impact do they have on the tribes who inhabit these areas, and on all tribes in North America? In what ways is it not, as King warns on page 249, an outright victory or triumph?15. King offers Bill-C31 and the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples as examples of government legislation which harmed Native people (167, 170). How do Bill-C45 and the Idle No More Movement or other recent government legislations relate to this? In what ways has the Canadian government evolved in its treatment of Natives since the colonial period, and in what ways is it similar?16. How has this book influenced your idea of how far North America has come and how much further it needs to go in regards to Native-Non-Native relations? What hope and what warning does King close his book with? What else do you think should be done to improve relations, rights, and reserves for Natives in North America?