NarratiVe WorLD oF NatiVe americaNS SeeN From the aDaPtatioN oF ohiYeSa iN BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE

Native American narratives are often presented through media presenting native American figures. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (BMHWK) is a non-fiction history-based film that tells the fate of Native Americans against white colonialism. The key figure in the film, Ohiyesa, is an adaptation of Native American figures from the The Indian Boyhood (TIB) written by Charles Eastman. This article reveals the meaning of the character Ohiyesa in the film Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. This research used an adaptation approach. Data obtained from the exploration of the figure of Ohiyesa in TIB and BMHWK. Data analysis was performed by conducting a comparative analysis of Ohiyesa at TIB and BMHWK. The results of the analysis show: (1) Ohiyesa character was adapted and dominantly raised by the name of Charles Eastman, (2) this character revealed the memory of deprivation of Native American culture, (3) the character functioned as an assimilation agent, and voiced the concept of cultural assimilation by white Americans. Ohiyesa was made an assimilation agent by the American government. With a strong presentation through his success through his role as a doctor and lobbyist, the American government offers a new life expectancy to American society, which is a cultural assimilation. Ohiyesa has become a symbol of the helplessness and evaluation of the future of Native Americans.

Kata kunci: Ohiyesa, pribumi Amerika, narasi, simbol ketakberdayaan iNtroDuctioN Because of the great role of memory in transforming commitments and responsibilities from earlier eras (Poole, 2008), the study of memory has been excellent in cultural studies. The belief that memory is increasingly useful in studying humans and culture is getting stronger (Hermann, 2009;Harris, 2010). This makes many experts agree that the memory of an event can be built by the appearance of the work. The memory of human work manifests in the form of narratives and myths that are believed by both individuals and groups (Ferry, 2009).
The study of film based on historical stories is a study of narrative world of a community. Understanding the history of a people can be understood by searching in the film which parts telling about the people. Film, in fact, can be a site that invites viewers to remember and even repeat history with representation techniques (Sonja, 2007). This technique, according to Paul Grainge (2003: 1), places the study of cinema in the study of modern culture. Because the technology used in film production is believed to be capable of photographing past events, the film is considered as a work that contains the politics of memory (Grainge, 2003: 97).
The relationship between the American government and Native Americans is hegemonic, i.e. one controls the other. The American government regards itself as the ruler of indigenous life so that it justifies itself to regulate the natives. In other words, the American government was placed as the party that colonized and the natives were the colonized party. The process of interaction of the colonizer and the colonized are in a space between. This space shows the differences of the two parties, marking their position, their relationship, and at the same time becoming a place of negotiation (Bhabba, 2000).
Although the study of American history is increasingly developing and discussing the broad alignment of the rights of people in America, the memory of certain groups still leaves problems. For example, the emergence of stereotypes of Native Americans which Cothran (2015) calls the concept of cultural continuity. Cothran (2015) shows a strong example of the present, namely the incident when Osama Bin Laden was killed by a special American soldier. The code used when informing the death was, 'Geronimo, Geronimo, E.K.I.A (Enemy Killed in Action). The use of 'Geronimo' for murderous expressions reinforces the stereotype of the relationship between the American government and Native Americans in terms of violence. The visualization of the example of violence continues on the American concept of empire of innocence, namely America which was built with the story of white people who are always the victims or the white victimhood.
In the above case, the memory of Native Americans is still struggling with violence and murder. Moreover, related to the memory of Native Americans, the Native American massacre at Wounded Knee was commemorated with a site that read, Wounded Knee was officially designated a heroic of brave soldiers over hostile, fanatical, and treacherous Ghost Dancers (Harjo, 1997: 13). Read by generation after generation, this is one of the efforts to build memory for Wounded Knee. This article presents an analysis of the narrative world of native American seen from the character of Ohiyesa who is adapted as Charles Eastman in the film titled Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (BMHWK).
Ohiyesa is a native of the Lakota Sioux tribe. His father, Many Lightning, thinks that his child's future is only in the school. Ohiyesa successfully completed her medical school and returned to the Native American community under the name Charles Eastman.
The BMHWK film is an adaptation of the final two chapters of the book with the same title written by Alexander Dee Brown. The initial appearance of the book caused a debate. Even this debate is part of the construction of memory by the book. The book is considered to be firmly standing behind the fate of Native Americans and voicing the injustice of the American government towards Native Americans, especially related to the massacre of the Wounded Knee (Fixico, 2009). Although agreeing that the BMHWK book is a work that voiced the interests of Native Americans, the book was deemed unfit to enter the academic table due to the inaccuracy of the facts displayed (Prucha, 1972). Apart from the strong spirit of advocating the book against Native Americans and the inaccuracy of the writer in compiling historical facts, memory politics has played its role. Richardson (2005) calls it a contradiction in framing and narrative analysis.
The memory of Native Americans has changed. However, the change in memory of Native Americans still places the stereotype of inhumanity. Ferry (2009) proposed the concept of memory change in Native American history. He formulated three major tribes, The Tongva, The Mohegan, and The Pequot initially as a memory of community. The arrival of white people with all the problems that occur, land grabbing and murder, makes the memory of the individual who survived, which he called a cultural bearer. Then the cultural bearer becomes an asset, which activists have revived in the form of a museum. This museum is a collective memory of Native Americans. Collective memories built with artificial buildings force people into the stages of collective imagination (Borer, 2010). Collective imagination tends to build perceptions of artifacts that it sees but is oriented toward the future, not the past. In this case, the existence of native Americans is oriented towards certain perceptions. Unfortunately, in many media (films) the image of Native Americans is more of a rough and uncivilized nature (Basham, 2012). The politics of future orientation and avoidance of divisions seem to be a tool of the American government in controlling Native Americans' memories of their past.
American scholars help construct memories of Native Americans. Their theorization contributed to the perception and belief in Native Americans. Slotkin (2000) describes his study of literary and media texts from colonial times to the 20th century. Interestingly, in his race war exposure, he stated that Colonel George Armstrong Custer was immortalized as a martyr after the massacre of the Lakota and Cheyenne tribes at Little Bighorn on June 25 , 1876. On the other hand, Jacoby (2008), in his book Shadows at Dawn: A Borderlands Massacre and the Violence of History, reveals that the Apache tribe has adapted to Spanish colonialism by adopting an economic usurpation, which creates hatred among Hispanics and O'odham. Because white people were accused of embezzlement at the Camp Grant Affair, there was war and massacre in the area. The way to commemorate the slaughter varies. The Apache dictated their memories to ethnologists, built a cultural center to tell their stories, and inaugurated an annual memorial event to honor the victims.
The BMHWK filmization is inseparable from memory politics. At least, the book becomes part of the politics of memory. As an artifact, film has the same function as a museum that tells the events of the past (Wiersma, 2009: 15). Writing historical facts will not be able to be at a neutral point, always influenced by the author's orientation. Writing history often does not include victims who are not well known. Writing and artifacts tend to feature famous figures (Wiersma, 2009: 18). The BMHWK film is also considered successful in showing those who died in the war. However, the book was not able to display those who did not go to war (Iverson, 2001). The adaptation of Ohiyesa in this film is important. Ohiyesa appeared predominantly in the film as Charles Eastman, a Native American who had been an academic success. He was incarnated as someone who deserved or seemed idolized by the next generation of Native Americans. The transformation of these key characters can clearly capture the world of Native American narratives, from the history of violence to the expressed hopes.

methoD
This research used an adaptation approach. The Data resources were the memoir The Indian Boyhood (TIB) and a film entitled Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (BMHWK). Both of them depicted the character of Ohiyesa, a Native American. This study used descriptive qualitative method. The data needed is obtained by close reading of Ohiyesa's character in books and films. Data related to Ohiyesa characters were collected from observations of these characters in the film. This study treated BMHWK film as a text. The first step in analyzing the characters in the text was in-depth reading. Ohiyesa character was examined by looking for historical sources in the book and compared with the appearance of the character in the film. The next step was interpreting the findings related to Ohiyesa character. Meaning was linked to the concept of native American narratives. The analysis of these findings was the attitude of the text in presenting Native Americans reSuLt aND DiScuSSioN result There were changes in Ohiyesa character presentation in The Indian Boyhood and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. These changes can be in the form of narrative elimination or addition. Reduction of childhood narratives and indigenous traditions occurs in the film version. Little Ohiyesa is not told. Friction with white civilization also includes additions. BMHWK in detail shows how Ohiyesa met, accepted, and played a role in civilization. This does not appear in TIB. Changes of Ohiyesa's narration in the two works are in Table 1. Ohiyesa character is so important. He hovered between two civilizations that never meet reconciliation. He is never being fully identified as an Indian and never being fully identified as a white. He is the symbol of the conflict, which still exists between these two civilizations. The appearance of Ohiyesa in BMHWK is important, because it acts as a narrative symbol of native American life. These appearances are in table 2.

Discussion
The experience of Ohiyesa went through has symbolic of the native Americans of that period. He was taken from his native land by his father who converted to Christianity while in prison. He was taken to Christian community and converted to Christianity. He was educated in white schools and sent to boarding school. This experience is a portrait of many Native Americans. The discussion on the adaptation of Ohiyesa are as follows.

Ohiyesa to Eastman: Deprivation of culture
One of the principal figures in the BMHWK is Charles Eastman, a Lakota Sioux also known as Ohiyesa. He was assimilated into white culture and did very well through schools. Ohiyesa began formal education when her father enrolled her in a missionary school in Flandreau. He was an intelligent Native American, who managed to study at Dartmouth and finally, he completed medical school in Boston, graduating in 1890. Eastman then fought for the rights of Native Americans, became a Washington lobbyist for the Dakota Sioux, and was commissioned by Teddy Roosevelt, and Calvin Coolidge to handle some matters related to Native Americans.
He writes about his childhood as a Native American, as well as his medical and political experience, providing a perspective of two extraordinary and unique worlds. Eastman is known for his appearance in the film Bury My heart at Wounded Knee. In the book BMHWK, Eastman did not appear at all. Incorporating Eastman's character into the film provides a different perspective space. Eastman is no longer known as Ohiyesa. He is narrated as a figure as well as an object of the success of the white civilization process of the natives.
Charles Eastman is one of the Sioux tribesmen who became the central figure in the BMHWK. Having the first name Ohiyesa, Eastman was taken from the indigenous community and schooled in white educational institutions until he could become a doctor. Eastman's role in the film began when he was introduced to the white American public. Eastman is considered a model of civilization that is being offered to natives as well as an assimilation agent used by the American government.
In the BMWK, the memory of cultural appropriation manifests in two institutions, namely school and religion. The school was the initial institution of deprivation of Native American culture. Schools are used as agents to educate indigenous children, but with norms that are believed by whites. Deprivation of culture begins with this institution and begins with children. Ohiyesa is a native of the Lakota Sioux tribe. By his father, Many Lightning, he was taken from the Native American community and placed in a white school. Lightning thinks that his child's future is only in the school. However, several scenes in the film show that the indigenous culture of the Sioux has been deprived.
The meeting with Lightning at 08:40 showed that Ohiyesa rejected the new culture brought by her father. He refused to be hugged by his father. That courage was also strengthened by the visualization of the red shirt he was wearing. The scene of Ohiyesa's haircut at 37:39 is very powerful exposing the deprivation of Indian culture. Ohiyesa's appearance was arranged in a way that was in line with the norms adopted by whites. This scene is a flashback when adult Ohiyesa (Charles Eastman) sadly tells the story of the discovery of the name Charles. At minutes 26:18 to 28:08, Ohiyesa was in the school room with a woman who was teaching. The first question asked by the teacher was the identification of the names of American Presidents. Only those who already have Christian names are allowed to answer.
Sioux beliefs have no place. The entry of Christianity marked the deprivation of their beliefs. The religion entered in conjunction with the schooling process of the children of the Sioux tribe. Lightning, at 10:01, started to introduce Christianity to the Lakota Sioux community. He proudly showed the cross necklace to his friends and assumed that his helper was a religion with the cross. What's more, at 30:39 when Ohiyesa felt depressed because of the burden at her school, Lightning motivated her by giving Ohiyesa a cross necklace.

Ohiyesa as an agent of assimilation
Ohiyesa grew up and managed to become a doctor. Ohiyesa is more personal with Charles Eastman who is proud of whites as the success of the assimilation process. Eastman appeared with a white appearance. His acceptance began in the 33:10 to 36:44-minute scene when he was introduced to the white community. Completely wearing a suit and not forgetting to show the cross necklace, He was admired by the community with a round of applause. The opportunity to make a speech was used by him to convey the philosophy of Indian language and its translation in English. Extraordinary welcome with applause after he made a speech. At that time, He met with Elaine, a woman who studied Native Americans. He put his trust in Elaine. From 36:45 to 38:45, He told his life story to get the name 'Charles' to Elaine.
Eastman was directly involved in the plans for the reservation and purchase of Black Hill land. Together with senator Dawes, in the minutes 46:57 to 48:57, He participated in designing the plan. In fact, he did the hatching directly to the land projected as a Sioux reservation. From 50:26 to 50:36, members of Congress congratulated Dawes and Eastman on their plan for approval by all members of Congress. The plan is referred to as a white plan with a touch of Indians.
Eastman acts as an assimilation agent. He was used by whites as a model. The success in Eastman's life, being an intellectual and a doctor, was an example that the film wanted to present to the audience. The memory of the Sioux became clear with the emergence of this assimilation agent, that Native Americans could only live in a white way. In addition, the emergence of Eastman's assimilation agents also reinforces the memory that the failure of native Americans due to traditional lifestyles, and the plans of the American government regarding native and Black Hill are mature plans that also consider the fate of the natives. This memory is strong with Eastman being involved in it.
The past of Native Americans presents trauma. The battle against whites gave birth to memories of the death of the ancestors, and even the disappearance of certain tribes. With such trauma, the cultural assimilation program offered by the American government. This assimilation was wrapped up in a reservation project in which whites could smoothly enter the ideas of their civilization. The text of BMHWK presents past trauma through the telling of the rehabilitation and the programs in it.
The theme of cultural assimilation is not very visible in the BMHWK book. In 19 chapters, this book more often portrays the cruelty of American soldiers towards the natives. Indulgence in native life was presented as a result of white greed and the defeat of the natives in various battles. The only description of assimilation in the two texts is the inclusion of the school program in the reservation. Furthermore, the two texts do not provide an explanation of how the assimilation took place.
The BMHWK film actually presents the theme of assimilation as the dominant theme in its telling. By taking the character Charles Eastman, this film seems to advocate the US government assimilation project. This can be seen from the description of the figure of Charles Eastman and his involvement in assistance programs for Native Americans in the reservation. At the end of the story, the film strongly features Charles Eastman who received the project of renaming native children. On the contrary, Eastman character is not displayed in the BMHWK book.
As a model of the success of the white civilization process, Eastman affirmed the alignment of indigenous identity with whites. Appearing in the white public as intellectuals, Eastman was physically dressed in a white American style. As if to emphasize that he is a native, he used native language in starting his speech. In other words, this film confirms that a Native American can be equal to white Americans. This became the same as the spirit of the native character (not in the film) Charles Eastman who campaigned for the total alignment of Native Americans with white citizens through his work entitled From the Deep Woods to Civilization (1961). Eastman's involvement in determining the Act with Senator Dawes seemed to strengthen his position before the white Americans. What's more, this character is shown directly to the indigenous community through his involvement in the reservation. He came to give treatment. Together with an educator, Ealine Godale, he was busy treating sick natives and even witnessed the ferocity of the Wounded Knee massacre. Eastman is a role model for natives.
Eastman's identity rift is presented through a description of the past that he always remembers. War violence and separation from the indigenous community became a traumatic space for him. The trauma felt stronger when he had to adapt to the educational environment. The scene of how he got the name Charles was strongly presented. Even this scene appeared when Eastman was talking about his identity. The habit of holding a weapon (knife) must change with a stationery and a cross. The change of trust is not easy and always a memory for Eastman. He also had a debate with Senator Dawes over the planned purchase of Black Hills. His position was firm that Dawes's plan had never benefited the natives and would instead destroy them. Eastman's defense was due to his direct involvement in observing native life in reservations. However, in the end, he was unable to stem the efforts of Dawes and the American government. After the massacre at Wounded Knee, Eastman and Elaine returned to Washington. At the congress building, Dawes rescued him for carrying out a new task, the census of Native Americans. He had to find a Christian name and give it to all Native American children. He was described as very frustrated with the task because the search for Christian names was a traumatic thing for him.
The BMHWK film presents a strong ending that affirms the complexity of Eastman's feelings while offering a future for the natives. This film shows Eastman returning to the river where he played as a child. He then took out a bird's feather and a cross wrapped in animal skin. He will throw these items into the river. However, he finally saved it. Items such as crosses and bird feathers that are stored are the embodiment of the mission that will be carried by him.
The future of the natives is represented by the union of these goods in the hands of Charles Eastman.
The BHMWK presents historical trauma for Native Americans. Defeat against white expansion resulted in having to be eliminated and uprooted from their culture. The trauma underwent a transformation in the BMHWK spacecraft. Both works present trauma through a series of historical native-white relationships displayed through the theme of battle. The BHMWK film shows the trauma more strongly as a personal experience of a native figure who was not involved in battle. Personal trauma is framed by the appearance of success. A mixture of successful and traumatic imagery was presented as a future offer for natives. It appears that both books eliminate the character Charles Eastman, even though he is also a perpetrator of history. The BMHWK film included him as the main character. The attempt to place Eastman's character in the film affirms the mission of the American government regarding cultural assimilation. No matter how bad the trauma felt to the natives, their future is in the process of assimilation.

Telling the pain
Eastman managed to become an assimilation agent by whites. He was directly involved in handling the Native American problems in the reservation. In the scene 1:07:54, Eastman began his role in the reservation and saw firsthand the conditions of the Native Americans. Beyond the concept of assimilation that is used as life expectancy for Native Americans, disappointment and pain can be seen in Eastman's character.
He seemed to reflect the pain of his people. The reservation policy also had a violent impact on Native Americans. In addition to poor shelter conditions, Native Americans are limited in carrying out their religious and cultural activities, and are introduced to the white American judicial and law enforcement system. The shelter is considered the beginning of a difficult life. All the land for herding cattle has been taken by white Americans.
Eastman's disappointment at the facilities obtained by Native Americans made him write a letter asking for medication aids. In scenes 01 After the massacre at Wounded Knee Creek, Eastman and Elaine returned to the city. In scenes 01:57:52 to 01:59:37, Eastman with a formal suit met Dawes at the congress building. Dawes greeted him and said that he had a new mandate. Eastman then was given an assignment in a census project of Native Americans. He had to find a Christian name and give it to all Native American children.
In the scenes 01:59:50 to 02:02:41, He felt unacceptable with the assignment, he was angry and kicked a pile of papers for the project. However, He continued to work. In the scene 02:02:42 to 02:05:03, which is also the final scene from the film, He was in the river where he played as a child. Riding, he pulled out feathers, animal skins, and cross necklaces. He plans to throw these items into the river. However, he ended up storing the items and returning home riding across the river.
Eastman has a strong role as a cover of memory for Native Americans. After the massacre, this film presents a scene that does not sympathize with the massacre. Eastman was asked for a special mission, and he lived. The film builds the Native American 'defeat' memory. Native Americans were 'exhausted' after the events at Wounded Knee, and what continued was Native Americans who lived according to white norms.

Ambivalent attitude toward Indianness
Eastman was dominantly presented as a symbol of the life expectancy of Native Americans. In other words, Eastman has become a model for the future of Native Americans. There was an ambivalence of treatment to Indianness when Eastman was made a role model. All things cultural in Ohiyesa's life were significantly not shown in the BMHWK film. Childhood times filled with struggles in the forest and Indian myths do not appear in the film. Ohiyesa character was adapted to be far from indigenous American traditions. In fact, the peak of the conflict in the film was marked by the killing of Ghost Dance dancers. The dance is a form of tradition and hope of Native Americans to be free from white shackles. Eastman's character is not told close to the traditional scene. He only came into contact with the victims of the Wounded Knee massacre. This reinforces the image of him who is always close to white trust. The symbol of the cross that tries to be combined with bird feathers is a manifestation of ambivalence in looking at Native American traditions.
Native American identity has always been associated with pride in their traditional beliefs and objects. The identity is blurred in Charles Eastman. His Christianity had created the ambivalence of the Indianness order. Furthermore, he was required to complete the task of indigenous Americanization by converting their names to white names. This is the future of Native Americans offered through the character of Eastman. Although he also presented two cultural symbols (feather and cross), indigenous traditions had been successfully mated with white culture. This ambivalence is offered as a hope for the future of Native Americans.

coNcLuSioN
The memory of Native Americans was built through the figure of Ohiyesa. The original figure of the Lakota Sioux tribe was taken and made an assimilation agent by the American government. With a strong picture of his success being a successful person, the American government offered a new phase of life to the natives, namely living in accordance with white norms. The memory of the natives through the figure of Ohiyesa still struggles as the traditional weak and rejects progress. Ohiyesa, who changed her name to Charles, became a powerful actor in building memories of indigenous defeat, especially the Sioux. With the continuation of the naming project in accordance with Christian religious norms, the Sioux tribe is up. Native American life is finished. What remains is life defined and normalized by whites. Ohiyesa described all of these things. The dominant mention of Charles Eastman is one of the offers of cultural assimilation. Native American narrative world, by the character of Eastman, is voiced as a world that is supposed to follow the offer of assimilation even though it feels painful.

acKNoWLeDgemeNt
This paper is a part of writing projects on cinema studies in doctorate program of Universitas Indonesia. Expressions of gratitude are devoted to Dr. Suma Riella Rusdiarti, M.Hum, and Dr. Joesana Tjahjani, M.Hum who have guided this writing.