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.

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?

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.