Description: Redface unearths the history of the theatrical phenomenon of redface in nineteenth- and twentieth-century America. Like blackface, redface was used to racialize Indigenous peoples and nations, and even more crucially, exclude them from full citizenship in the United States. Arguing that redface is more than just the costumes or makeup an actor wears, Bethany Hughes contends that it is a collaborative, curatorial process through which artists and audiences make certain bodies legible as “Indian.” By chronicling how performances and definitions of redface rely upon legibility and delineations of race that are culturally constructed and routinely shifting, this book offers an understanding of how redface works to naturalize a very particular version of history and, in doing so, mask its own performativity. Tracing the “Stage Indian” from its early nineteenth-century roots to its proliferation across theatrical entertainment forms and turn of the twenty-first century attempts to address its racist legacy, Redface uses case studies in law and civic life to understand its offstage impact. Hughes connects extensive scholarship on the “Indian” in American culture to the theatrical history of racial impersonation and critiques of settler colonialism, demonstrating redface’s high stakes for Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. Revealing the persistence of redface and the challenges of fixing it, Redface closes by offering readers an embodied rehearsal of what it would mean to read not for the “Indian” but for Indigenous theater and performance as it has always existed in the US.





Access the chapter here.



Abstract: This article argues that Indigenous people were visible and agential participants in the American Left long before the explosion of Native activism in the 1970s. By situating Indigenous people in the interwar Communist Party, the article makes two major contributions to the histories of Indigeneity and socialism in twentieth-century USA. First, the article argues for a history of the Popular Front that is thoroughly attuned to the complex ways that settler-colonialism structures Left politics in the Americas. The interwar Left produced genuinely radical critiques of the USA as a colonial project and demonstrated a real appreciation of the US’s origins in the genocidal violence of European capitalism. But it failed to undertake a Marxist theorisation of Native oppression, leading to programmatic absences, problematic representations and persistent theoretical ambiguities. This mixed legacy helped set the stage for extensive debates later in the century about the compatibility between Marxism and Indigenous struggles for land sovereignty and cultural autonomy. Second, the article situates late-twentieth-century Native radicalism within a longer history of Indigenous affiliation with the organised Left, demonstrating how effective such alliances could be, even as non-Native communists betrayed their ignorance of Native culture and proved somewhat inconsistent in their ideas about Native sovereignty. The article invites more thoroughgoing assessments of the various and complex ways that the US’s settler-colonial character has historically structured – and been challenged by – the militant Left.