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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good points here on showing that Boudinot through his papers is committing to Survivance, but I think that his overall tone in the "Address to the Whites" is one of pleading and overall a shameful attempt at reconciling with the Whites by begging them for their money and acceptance. To me that doesn't sound like resistance, but more like an attempt to soothe an ethnic identity crisis that he's undergoing. At least that's what it seems like to me from reading about his defaming statements and put downs of his own peoples faith and ways.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the selling out part. As the best suitable member to represent the Cherokee's, I think that Boudinot could have presented his stance before the white audience without making his people seem weak. His address, like A.Jomaa pointed out, was an attempt to soothe an ethnic crises. If he spoke on behalf of the Cherokee, do you think all the cherokee's felt the same way he did?
ReplyDeleteThey say actions speak louder than words, but here it's not so simple. The concept of a "sellout" perplexes me. It is clear that Boudinot was not interested in the money for personal gain or many of the other perks involved with the deal he made with the whites. And in his writing he displays a great amount of survivance. He plays the game he knows he has to play. From his writing, I am led to believe that Boudinot truly wanted the best for his people. I don't understand why "selling out" is so negative. Was Boudinot a "sell out" because he wanted to play the white man's game? His intent is there, isn't that worth more than "selling out"?
ReplyDeleteThe content of those articles would be really interesting. I do find it hard to believe that no one has translated and cataloged the articles. On the other hand, the inattention to Native American language makes it more believable. I do not think Boudinot was "selling out." I hate that phrase, people make decisions the moment opportunities lend themselves. In other words Boudinot didn't buy anything to sell out of. He was always trying to way the best options, who knows if he was wrong or right.
ReplyDeleteYou all bring up great points, but I may have misused the phrase "selling out" now that I think about it. What I really wanted to say was that it just didn't seem like he was fighting for what he believed in anymore. Not to mention what the Cherokee people believed in. I was going more for the idea that he was selling himself out, I suppose. But I might still be using it in the wrong context.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the notion that Boudinot was not essentially writing in an act of survivance for his people, despite the fact that he included few articles in his native language. I believe that Boudinot more directly targeted a white audience with his paper. By targeting a white audience his gives of a more pleading vibe than a survivance vibe, it is as though he is simply asking or begging for their support rather than standing up for his people.
ReplyDeleteYou're right that Boudinot's legacy will be continually debated. It's hard to reconcile his earlier writings with his later decisions. One thing to keep in mind too is that while me may vilify Boudinot and the Treaty Party, are they really the bad guys? Isn't the government who set up the sham treaty really the enemy? It reminds me of the story we read the first day, "Only Approved Indians Can Play."
ReplyDeleteThough I do agree that he really turned his back on and "sold out" his tribe when he left without them, I think that in his eyes, it was survivance. I think he knew that the only way to literally survive as a people, they would have to somewhat give into the whites. He had been immersed into their culture and had a better understanding of them than the rest of his tribe and probably knew that they would be forced out of their land one way or another. If he explained all this to his tribe, however, and they still wished to remain on their land, he should have stayed with them.
ReplyDelete