The character of Winnetou, in all his romanticised glory, is established by Nicole Perry to be an inauthentic representation of North American Indigenous peoples. The integrity of his Native American identity extends insofar as to serve the nostalgia of the German people.
I see an uncanny parallel between this character and the result of undertaking research on a group or community with a “downward gaze,” as Tracey McIntosh cautions. This is particularly evident in Indigenous research with a patronising nature. It often lacks Indigenous substance, like Winnetou himself. People are experts of their own condition, and this expertise matters. As amateur researchers, there is genuine value in acknowledging this.
Whether intentional or not, the power dynamic between the researched and researcher fundamentally affects whose narrative colours the research. If significantly skewed towards the latter, it can contribute to the erasure of power for those they may be trying to empower, by taking away the ability for them to define their own narrative. Research becomes a vessel for a dominant ideology to confirm the existing paradigm of knowledge.
There are certain fields of study which counter this. Postcolonial literature, Indigenous knowledges, critical theories and even the work of Perry on Indianer create an active presence for alternate discourses. These works share the similarity of being subversive to the dominant discourse. There is a radical element to this kind of research, and I contend its existence is necessary. Does its non-conformity make them ‘great’ works in their own right?
