can the black elk speak?

When it was mentioned during discussion that Black Elk Speaks is not a firsthand account of Black Elk, but rather the result of spoken word tradition and translation, I was skeptical. It is difficult for me to imagine that an authentic encounter with American Indian culture could be mediated by a third party. Moreover, the author of a work that is not autobiographical has an incentive to structure narratives that are easily digestible by white culture. William Powers argues in an academic journal that historical evidence actually points to Black Elk as a historical figure converting to Christianity. However, this did not consist of an exclusive acceptance of Christianity. Rather, “Black Elk, like so many other medicine men, was participating simultaneously in both religious systems, drawing upon the protocol and ritual of traditional Lakota religion, as well as on Christianity to help meet daily problems as they arose” (Powers 46). This is vastly different from the dichotomy posited in Black Elk, where the “Wasichus have put us in these square boxes” (in reference to white influence) (319). As a result of this, American Indian “power is gone and we are dying, for the power is not in us any more” (319). It seems that this more accurate historical evidence indicates that Black Elk would have a far more ambivalent response to white influence, considering he identified with it in strategic instances.

black elk speaks

Perhaps most problematic is the claim that “Neihardt was clearly aware of the old man’s participation in the Catholic church” (Powers 49). Neihardt’s storytelling method is also troubling. Black Elk Speaks is focused around the visions that Black Elk encounters. In his “own words,” Black Elk recalls “a very great vision, and I should have depended only upon that to guide me to the good” (342). This is contrary to Lakota tradition. Powers argues that in real Lakota society, “there is no interest in Black Elk on the reservation as a philosopher or spokesman for the traditional way of life, at least not by his living contemporaries” (53). This calls into question the methodology of giving preference to one individual’s account of his or her experiences as a Lakota. Perhaps this singular narrative format is fundamentally incompatible with traditional Lakota understandings of recalling experiences. Moreover, the series of visions that Black Elk sees have specific morals tied to them. However, Lakota society would not focus on Black Elk’s visions as a universal lesson, but rather a personal ethical observation that is subjective.

subaltern studies

In light of this analysis, it becomes important to determine where this leaves Black Elk Speaks. Echoing Spivak’s original question, perhaps Black Elk has no voice within this text. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to believe that this means the text should be abandoned entirely. Rather, I look forward to the class discussing on Tuesday where these historical discrepancies leave us in relation to the text.


William Powers. “When Black Elk Speaks, Everybody Listens”. Social Text 24 (1990).