Our discussion about Four Souls during class yesterday was interesting because we talked a lot about whether or not it was a happy ending for Fleur. Besides the fact that she got her land back and ended up with a son that she really loved, one reason that I want to stick with yes is because I feel like even though she was not completely happy in the end of the book, I feel like she is still alive to change her fate.
Which brings me to the distinction between victim and survivor. One distinction that I didn't hear during class, but I guess that it is pretty obvious, is that a survivor is always physically and emotionally able to continue and not be defeated. I think it depends on the ability to move on from an event. This is why I feel like it is a happy ending for Fleur somewhat because she is still alive and she has the ability to start over if she chooses to, which she kind of did. She got a new name and she listened to Margaret's "healing" ritual.
Not only that, but I also feel like Fleur is a pretty determined character. She was determined to get her land back, which she ended up doing. The land opens up opportunities for her to be happy. So I think that if she was determined to become happy, she could achieve it also.
Also, I question if she was even happy before she went on her journey. I mean, her daughter hated her already. She was also pretty bitter about losing her land that I think it was a must to try to get it back. If she didn't go looking to get it back, she may not have been happy either. If she was never really that happy before, she might just be happy in the ending when she had more.
I also said it was a happy ending because Margaret and Nanapush seemed to have worked things out. :)
There is that aspect of not knowing everything in fiction that is kinda hard to decide on this. The story is just written that way, it most likely isn't continued so the audience just has to decide on their own. So I feel like the ending could lead to her happiness eventually.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
A few things about The Warriors
I wanted to mention a couple of things I thought about Anna Lee Walters' The Warriors.
First, the quote that I noted for Daily Writing on Thursday was, "'You Indian ain't you? Ain't You?' she screamed. 'We your people!'" As said already, this was a pretty powerful part of the story. To see this little girl expressing this. The fact that she is little and does not really know much kinda shows her innocence. In a way, she hasn't been corrupted by the world like the hobos or Uncle Ralph. The quote just seems so innocent and pure, as if there is no other answer. It seems like there is a subtle theme of preserving innocence in this story, as we see Uncle Ralph's life wither.
The other thing I wanted to talk about was how Uncle Ralph was portrayed as a great uncle in the beginning and then he begins to fall. I sort of think about the point of view of the little girl and how we might not be getting the whole story. That is, it might not just be that Ralph WAS great in the beginning and then he became an alcoholic, but maybe he has always been, but her innocence just never saw that in the story because she grows up as the story progresses. I think that the point of view from a girl that is growing up also fits for the theme of loss of innocence. As readers, we only see what this girl tells us, so what happens when she was too innocent to see "behind the scenes"?
Uncle Ralph has always believed in living beautifully, but he never did it himself. It seems like he gives in to the wrongs (for lack of a better word) of the world and eventually his happy spirit disappears. The fact that he is the "warrior" also seems to be that he is fighting those wrongs of the world off too. He tries to pass on his wisdom to the two sisters so that they don't become someone that is like him. When I first read that he was becoming an alcoholic, I thought that he was a hypocrite because he would be preaching beauty, but then not do it himself. But eventually I realized that there was almost this hopelessness/helplessness to it; as if he could not help it at all.
I think Walters definitely uses pathos in this story. It definitely reached out to the emotions of the readers. We see this positive man that his nieces really look up to begin to deteriorate. Being that it was told by one of the girls also appeals to the emotional aspect.
First, the quote that I noted for Daily Writing on Thursday was, "'You Indian ain't you? Ain't You?' she screamed. 'We your people!'" As said already, this was a pretty powerful part of the story. To see this little girl expressing this. The fact that she is little and does not really know much kinda shows her innocence. In a way, she hasn't been corrupted by the world like the hobos or Uncle Ralph. The quote just seems so innocent and pure, as if there is no other answer. It seems like there is a subtle theme of preserving innocence in this story, as we see Uncle Ralph's life wither.
The other thing I wanted to talk about was how Uncle Ralph was portrayed as a great uncle in the beginning and then he begins to fall. I sort of think about the point of view of the little girl and how we might not be getting the whole story. That is, it might not just be that Ralph WAS great in the beginning and then he became an alcoholic, but maybe he has always been, but her innocence just never saw that in the story because she grows up as the story progresses. I think that the point of view from a girl that is growing up also fits for the theme of loss of innocence. As readers, we only see what this girl tells us, so what happens when she was too innocent to see "behind the scenes"?
Uncle Ralph has always believed in living beautifully, but he never did it himself. It seems like he gives in to the wrongs (for lack of a better word) of the world and eventually his happy spirit disappears. The fact that he is the "warrior" also seems to be that he is fighting those wrongs of the world off too. He tries to pass on his wisdom to the two sisters so that they don't become someone that is like him. When I first read that he was becoming an alcoholic, I thought that he was a hypocrite because he would be preaching beauty, but then not do it himself. But eventually I realized that there was almost this hopelessness/helplessness to it; as if he could not help it at all.
I think Walters definitely uses pathos in this story. It definitely reached out to the emotions of the readers. We see this positive man that his nieces really look up to begin to deteriorate. Being that it was told by one of the girls also appeals to the emotional aspect.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Poor Sarah, who wrote it?
Oh dear, another blog about Elias Boudinot...can't get enough of this guy.
Poor Sarah, such a strange and depressing story. We had a lot of discussion in class about whether or not Elias Boudinot actually wrote it. Here I am sharing my insights on the author of Poor Sarah.
Let's just begin by saying that as I was reading this story, I was completely confused because the "author" stated was Elias Boudinot but it completely seemed like a woman wrote this. It actually got to the point where I was just like "What does Misse mean?! Isn't that like a woman or something?!" because I kept seeing Sarah refer to the narrator as "Misse" (or am I wrong on this and she was actually talking to another woman?). Not only that though, the whole reading just gave me this vibe that a woman wrote it and I'm really not sure why.
But I'll say some things about the class discussion (or what I can remember of it).
During class, many students believe that Boudinot wrote the English version because it had the aspect of assimilation. Also because it kind of foreshadowed the things that Boudinot ended up doing later on in his life. I'd actually have to disagree with that idea. I mean yeah, it does show Sarah's assimilation to Christianity which reflects his signing of the treaty, but this was 13 years before he actually signed the treaty and wrote those papers/speeches!
I just feel that maybe this "Poor Sarah" was written by someone else. And to argue against how this story portrays something that Boudinot "would do", I'd just like to point out the morals of stories. People would think that he wrote it, he thinks that way, it's something he would do. I think that this story is the one that he might have referred to when he was deciding to sign the treaty; maybe he was thinking "what's the lesson I can get out of this?" Similar to old folk tales and fairy tales, they all have lessons, we all somewhat learn those lessons and act that way, but it doesn't mean that we wrote the tales, right? We just have keep lessons in mind.
Not to mention that 13 years is a pretty long time, who's to say that Boudinot didn't start off totally against assimilation and eventually had to give in? Most people wouldn't agree that they have the same mindset as they did 13 years ago (I realize that is before adolescence for most of us, but I think you guys get what I mean).
But then again, I have this thought in the back of my mind that it doesn't matter if he wrote it, but he DID choose to translate it. Now I haven't really thought too much into why he might have done that yet. Well, Sarah's case in the story did seem a little sad and pathetic, I mean who would want to spend their lives praying and putting themselves down all the time? Who wants to spend their lives, waiting for an afterlife? It does have that pathetic aspect to it, and maybe Boudinot translated it to show this; kind of like "assimilation is bad!"? Just a thought, anyone else care to share what they think?
Poor Sarah, such a strange and depressing story. We had a lot of discussion in class about whether or not Elias Boudinot actually wrote it. Here I am sharing my insights on the author of Poor Sarah.
Let's just begin by saying that as I was reading this story, I was completely confused because the "author" stated was Elias Boudinot but it completely seemed like a woman wrote this. It actually got to the point where I was just like "What does Misse mean?! Isn't that like a woman or something?!" because I kept seeing Sarah refer to the narrator as "Misse" (or am I wrong on this and she was actually talking to another woman?). Not only that though, the whole reading just gave me this vibe that a woman wrote it and I'm really not sure why.
But I'll say some things about the class discussion (or what I can remember of it).
During class, many students believe that Boudinot wrote the English version because it had the aspect of assimilation. Also because it kind of foreshadowed the things that Boudinot ended up doing later on in his life. I'd actually have to disagree with that idea. I mean yeah, it does show Sarah's assimilation to Christianity which reflects his signing of the treaty, but this was 13 years before he actually signed the treaty and wrote those papers/speeches!
I just feel that maybe this "Poor Sarah" was written by someone else. And to argue against how this story portrays something that Boudinot "would do", I'd just like to point out the morals of stories. People would think that he wrote it, he thinks that way, it's something he would do. I think that this story is the one that he might have referred to when he was deciding to sign the treaty; maybe he was thinking "what's the lesson I can get out of this?" Similar to old folk tales and fairy tales, they all have lessons, we all somewhat learn those lessons and act that way, but it doesn't mean that we wrote the tales, right? We just have keep lessons in mind.
Not to mention that 13 years is a pretty long time, who's to say that Boudinot didn't start off totally against assimilation and eventually had to give in? Most people wouldn't agree that they have the same mindset as they did 13 years ago (I realize that is before adolescence for most of us, but I think you guys get what I mean).
But then again, I have this thought in the back of my mind that it doesn't matter if he wrote it, but he DID choose to translate it. Now I haven't really thought too much into why he might have done that yet. Well, Sarah's case in the story did seem a little sad and pathetic, I mean who would want to spend their lives praying and putting themselves down all the time? Who wants to spend their lives, waiting for an afterlife? It does have that pathetic aspect to it, and maybe Boudinot translated it to show this; kind of like "assimilation is bad!"? Just a thought, anyone else care to share what they think?
Friday, February 5, 2010
We Shall Remain
In the last class, we watched a movie that documented the American Indian Movement occupation at Wounded creek. The film was very moving in that it explained the inspired and strong character of the American Indians.
The video had a lot of information and history, but here are a couple of things that stood out to me and also my thoughts on it:
There was one part of the video where an Indian being interviewed stated that his parents told him and his siblings to "lose the Indian ways--'be Christian'--go to school and learn English". The fact that he was told this by his parents definitely contradicted the American Indian Movement. I think that this prompted him to be involved in the American Indian Movement. There definitely is a sense of survival in what his parents said, but he decided to resist instead. What his parents said actually got to him and he joined the AIM in order to preserve the culture that he is proud of; somewhat "disobeying" his parents. The AIM was an act of survivance for this man; he wanted his native tongue, religious beliefs, and culture to survive and he was part of the resistance.
Another big thing that really stood out to me was the fact that the "hostages" were not in fact "hostages". That they were actually on the Indians' side. It is a bit surprising, but it was great to realize that there was not as much hatred for the Indians as was assumed. This shows that what they have done has been working, so much that the white people understood where they were coming from. Also, the fact that most Americans sided with the Indians helped them in their purpose. Here comes my opinion on this. If I was there when they realized that they were not hostages, I definitely would have been taken aback and reconsidered why the Indians were resisting. If even "my people" were agreeing with this AIM, then there must be a reason.
Whether or not the AIM got what they wanted, I don't think it would have mattered too much. I feel like it is incredibly more meaningful that they reached many many people with their goals and purposes. They inspired many Indians as well. They were able to show that they were proud of their culture and that they were willing to fight for it; they did not just 'be Christian' and accept losing their Indian ways like the man's parents told him to do.
The video had a lot of information and history, but here are a couple of things that stood out to me and also my thoughts on it:
There was one part of the video where an Indian being interviewed stated that his parents told him and his siblings to "lose the Indian ways--'be Christian'--go to school and learn English". The fact that he was told this by his parents definitely contradicted the American Indian Movement. I think that this prompted him to be involved in the American Indian Movement. There definitely is a sense of survival in what his parents said, but he decided to resist instead. What his parents said actually got to him and he joined the AIM in order to preserve the culture that he is proud of; somewhat "disobeying" his parents. The AIM was an act of survivance for this man; he wanted his native tongue, religious beliefs, and culture to survive and he was part of the resistance.
Another big thing that really stood out to me was the fact that the "hostages" were not in fact "hostages". That they were actually on the Indians' side. It is a bit surprising, but it was great to realize that there was not as much hatred for the Indians as was assumed. This shows that what they have done has been working, so much that the white people understood where they were coming from. Also, the fact that most Americans sided with the Indians helped them in their purpose. Here comes my opinion on this. If I was there when they realized that they were not hostages, I definitely would have been taken aback and reconsidered why the Indians were resisting. If even "my people" were agreeing with this AIM, then there must be a reason.
Whether or not the AIM got what they wanted, I don't think it would have mattered too much. I feel like it is incredibly more meaningful that they reached many many people with their goals and purposes. They inspired many Indians as well. They were able to show that they were proud of their culture and that they were willing to fight for it; they did not just 'be Christian' and accept losing their Indian ways like the man's parents told him to do.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Elias Boudinot, survivance?
Elias Boudinot, such a controversial guy! Seems like we could continuously discuss whether or not his decisions were good decisions. But anyway, were his speeches/papers an act of survivance?
I think that his papers definitely expressed the surviving part. Like many of the people in our class said, he was "selling out" and he was not really fighting the whites, but more like persuading them to like the Cherokee Nation.
What about resistance? I guess he resisted in his papers, somewhat, but not so much. He did point out that Indians are assumed to be savages and that should not be the case. But it is important to point out that right after he states that, he begins to defend himself, saying that he has been educated and that he is the perfect representative for the Cherokees. At that point, it seems like he is just selling himself to the whites and not really defending his nation. In trying to prove that he is the best person to speak for the Cherokees, I feel like he is selling them out.
As James pointed out in class, he does show resistance in the newspaper because they have certain columns and articles in their own language. But I think that his "selling out" overpowered any of his attempts to resist and it has me questioning if it was his intention to resist in that way. Perhaps the content of those articles would make it more clear.
I think that his papers definitely expressed the surviving part. Like many of the people in our class said, he was "selling out" and he was not really fighting the whites, but more like persuading them to like the Cherokee Nation.
What about resistance? I guess he resisted in his papers, somewhat, but not so much. He did point out that Indians are assumed to be savages and that should not be the case. But it is important to point out that right after he states that, he begins to defend himself, saying that he has been educated and that he is the perfect representative for the Cherokees. At that point, it seems like he is just selling himself to the whites and not really defending his nation. In trying to prove that he is the best person to speak for the Cherokees, I feel like he is selling them out.
As James pointed out in class, he does show resistance in the newspaper because they have certain columns and articles in their own language. But I think that his "selling out" overpowered any of his attempts to resist and it has me questioning if it was his intention to resist in that way. Perhaps the content of those articles would make it more clear.
Friday, January 15, 2010
First Blog
Well, first of all, I don't really know much of anything about Native American history (which I hope changes after this class). I'm pretty much ignorant about Native American history. So I wasn't really sure of what to title this blog. But I just decided to title this blog "America before 'America'" because when I was in elementary school, I vaguely remember my teacher telling us about Christopher Columbus and how there is the misunderstanding that most people see him as the one who "found the Americas". Then she went on to explain that there were already Native Americans living there before he came along. So I guess that's why I named it this, because there is much history to the place before it was so-called "founded".
I guess I'll talk about Elias Boudinot's papers that we read. I just wanted to say that I thought his papers were a little ironic and contradictory. I feel that he strongly identified himself as one of the Cherokee nation. The fact that he called himself a Cherokee and that he was representing the Cherokees, it seemed as though he wanted to distinguish that his nation is special, different, and unique. But on the other hand, in order to preserve or "save" his culture, he ended up conforming to the way of the whites and seemingly lost some of Cherokee cultures in the process. I guess he was doing it in order to help the Cherokee nation survive, but I feel it wouldn't be worth much if you're living for something that you don't really believe in.
I guess I'll talk about Elias Boudinot's papers that we read. I just wanted to say that I thought his papers were a little ironic and contradictory. I feel that he strongly identified himself as one of the Cherokee nation. The fact that he called himself a Cherokee and that he was representing the Cherokees, it seemed as though he wanted to distinguish that his nation is special, different, and unique. But on the other hand, in order to preserve or "save" his culture, he ended up conforming to the way of the whites and seemingly lost some of Cherokee cultures in the process. I guess he was doing it in order to help the Cherokee nation survive, but I feel it wouldn't be worth much if you're living for something that you don't really believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)