Dialoging with Ho-Chunk Tricksters on AlterNative Masculinites
Angel Hinzo (Winnebago/Ho-Chunk)
The anthropologist and ethnographer, Paul Radin’s definition of Trickster as “creator and destroyer, giver and negator, he who dupes others and who is always duped himself” is commonly held as the standard (The Trickster ix). Radin can be considered a pioneer in his field for documenting and acknowledging Native American philosophies and belief systems through his work, but his theories and methodologies are not without flaws. Scholars have begun to acknowledge Trickster theory as a potential source for navigating the topics of feminism, sexuality, and gender politics. This paper will build on the work of Franchot Ballinger, Ellen B. Basso, and Shane Phelan who have engaged Trickster theory in this academic conversation. A departure from these scholarly works is that this paper will focus on the Winnebago/Ho-Chunk tricksters, Wak’djunk’aga and Wašjingéga (Hare). This is to prevent the homogenization of all Tricksters and Native nations. Although many Trickster stories share similar motifs within the Americas, the Winnebago/Ho-Chunk and their Tricksters will be the primary focus of this paper to present a more accurate view of how gender, sexuality, and masculinities are discussed through the Trickster. The framework of Trickster theory and discourse, the Winnebago/Ho- Chunk trickster cycles, and episodes of the Trickster cycles will be discussed with the intention of recognizing the contributions of Native American tricksters in understanding alterNative masculinities, genders, and social constructs.
What’s In A Name? – Decolonizing, Reclaiming and Naming “Coyote”
Cutcha Risling Baldy (Hoopa Valley Tribe) (Yurok, Karuk)
In the Indigenous Americas Coyote often appears in oral histories passed from time immemorial. Most commonly referred to as “he”, Coyote’s stories can also reflect a feminine roll or even a genderless roll depending on region or tribal nation. Coyote stories are typically misinterpreted as animal stories, most specifically as stories about the Canis Latrans which delineates Coyote as an “animal.” But “Coyote” is merely a translation of the name given to this “First Person” by different tribal nations. This translation does not fully account for the nuanced nature of Indigenous languages. In all Indigenous Nations, Coyote has a name. His name is often a reflection of his character. In some cultures Coyote is given multiple names, or referred to in multiple ways, depending on his actions in the story. But scholarship and research focused on “Coyote” has neglected preserving or referring to him by his given name. Highlighted within these names are Indigenous epistemologies and context. This paper will look at two examples of Indigenous names for “Coyote”, from the Karuk Tribe and the Hoopa Valley Tribe, both located in Northern California. It will also analyze the translations of these names to discuss the cultural significance and how they inform the character and understanding of Coyote. Finally, it will present an argument in favor of using Coyote’s Indigenous name in stories or in research to maintain, respect and speak to the Indigenous viewpoint of the Coyote “First Person.”