I normally don't read academic journals such as Western American Literature. I read the Fall 2008 issue because the editor used PEACE PARTY #2's cover as an illustration for the Peter Pan article.
I'm not sure why. The PP #2 cover is in decidedly mixed company. The other illustrations are three Indian images from Disney's Peter Pan and two Allan Houser sculptures.
The Peter Pan images make sense, since they represent the movie. The Houser images--Navajo Runner and We're Here--make sense, since they represent D'Arcy McNickle's book and the Native reality today. But what about the PEACE PARTY cover? There's no mention of my comics or any comics in the article.
Here's what I figure: The cover is roughly halfway between the two extremes represented by the other images. Like Disney's movie, it's a non-Native representation of Indians. Like the movie, it shows white boys hunting Indians. Symbolically it's a reasonable representation of Anglo-Indian history.
But these Indians wear modern clothes, not "leathers and feathers." Although they're surrounded, they're not giving up. That's a reasonable representation of Anglo-Indian relations today.
Roughly speaking, J.M. Barrie and Walt Disney should've taken the same approach toward Indians as PEACE PARTY does. I.e., make Indians the protagonists, not the antagonists. Feature real, modern-day Indians, not phony, stereotypical ones. Show Indians controlling their own fate, not wallowing in poverty or kowtowing to the Great White Father.
Or not. Maybe the editor just thought the cover looked cool. That also would be a good reason to use it as an illustration <g>
For more on the subject, see Tiger Lily in Peter Pan: An Allegory of Anglo-Indian Relations.