Humor and Sentiment

I enjoyed the discussion this week about humor. I agree that humor has a way of softening the delivery, while still sending a message. However, the debate was over whether or not the message is compromised in any way because of humor. I think invariably the message is going to be altered slightly, but the basic idea is still there. Humor not only makes the message more accessible for the reader, but in a way also makes the burden of presenting the information more conceivable for the author. I've always thought there was a fine line between laughing really hard and crying. It makes sense to me that such emotional, heavy issues can also be flipped into humorous stories. I agree with what Gina said in class, about how you'd go crazy if you didn't find some redeeming value in such terrible situations.

The two short stories we read for Thursday were very emotional and both had a theme of the difficult task of self identity in the face of multiple cultural influences. I related to them so well and I think there is a universal element to these stories than anyone can connect to. In the story "The Warrior" I first thought of Ralph as a tragic character, someone who could not quite live up to the way of life that he wanted for his family. While that fact is tragic, he was actually an inspirational character. He may not have been able to live the way he wanted, but he passed on traditions and important messages onto the younger generation. To me, this is very much survivance, to resist, "not to become what everyone else is." (197) and to pass along important messages to the young. The hobos throughout the story seemed to parallel the struggles of natives. Hobos too had previous lives, they had homes and roots. Hobos, like natives were hit by some unfortunate life circumstances and are forced from their former way of life. The situation reminds me of the phrase, "I don't care where you go, but you can't stay here."

Old Lady Week

I found the Greg Sarris piece, "The Woman Who Loved a Snake" extremely thought provoking. in particular, it made me reconsider how I was approaching the readings we are doing in class. It also really solidified the issues that arise when we read select texts and learn portions of a particular culture. It's easy to fall into the mindset that you think you have a good grasp on what that culture "is about." I think on a level, people know that they really don't, but as Gina said in class, we take so many things for granted, we forget limitations to understanding. "The Woman Who Loved a Snake" makes me want to go back and read Lucy Thompson more carefully to reconsider how I was interpreting the information before. The piece made me think about the function of oral tradition and how writing down oral stories is far different that telling and listening to a story. The essence of somethings simply cannot be captured fully when transfered from one medium to another.

The other piece we discussed in class was "Poor Sarah." I do not think that Boudinot wrote the story because I feel the overall tone of the story is from a woman's perspective and voice. However, I do think that it is significant that Boudinot elected to publish this work. Because of what we've previously discussed about Boudinot, I think he selected the piece because on some personal level, he identified with Sarah, wanting so badly to be accepted by whites. I also think that Boudinot selected the story because he believed there was wide appeal to a white Audience. It portrayed Indians in a deeply sympathetic light and showed that Indians can be just as, if not more pious and understanding that white Christians. This is why I think Boudinot selected this piece for a white audience. However, as evidenced by our class discussion, there are a number of ways to interpret the intention and effect of the piece. I understand why Boudinot would have chosen the piece for a white audience, but I cannot imagine being a native reading the piece and feeling good about it's message. In fact, reading it as a native, would have a completely opposite meaning to that of a white reader. Rather than encouraging Christian conversion, it would serve more as a cautionary tale to resist white influence.

Most depressing week yet

This week we watched the documentary "We Shall Remain: Wounded knee". As we were told and as I had expected, the film was very powerful. It's certainly one thing to sit in a classroom and hear about these injustices and quite another to see footage of people dying. Even though we were warned about how current Wounded Knee was, I was struct by how contemporary the footage was. The clothing styles were so similar to what we wear today, and I still see some of those car models from the film on the road today.

Previous to this film I had never heard of AIM. This is especially shocking to me as I am also currently taking a history class about American political and social movements. AIM seems to fit in as a movement just as well as the other civil rights, feminist, anti-war...etc movements. I pondered as to why whites were almost more inclined to discuss deals with the blacks than with Indias. Then I read the article "We aim not to please" by Mary Brave Bird. She explained that, "The blacks want what the whites have, which is understandable. They want in. We Indians want out." (112) This act of defiance, or survivance is a critical point for AIM.

I also thought it was particularly interesting to read another piece for the perspective of a native woman during this movement. There were a few things that I was surprised by by in this reading. Indian women were very involved throughout the movement. And some wielded considerable influence. Brave Bird describes one outspoken woman confronting goverment officials, "Enough of your bullshit...This is our building she told him. Then she gave him the finger. And in the film, we saw a woman pushing for the progression of the movement. We see a people backed into a corner, left with little choice. And echoing some of the philosophies of the other movements at the time, sometimes violence was necessary.

Week One!

This first week had some very interesting readings. in particular, I found the Boudinot readings very interesting. This man seems to be shrouded in controversy. Many members of our class were vocal about him being a traitor to his people, selling them down the river for the sake of white acceptance.

I would have to disagree. While I do not defend him, I do see that his actions as very survival oriented and with a minimal amount of resistance. For the vast majority of the address, Boudinot does frequently put down his own people in favor of the white way of living and Christianity. These can be perceived as cowardly and perhaps are, but it's difficult to judge someone who acts when they are in the face of danger or when their security is at risk. Who is to say that we wouldn't react the same way? I feel like I would not, but then again I have never been placed in that difficult situation. His actions struck me as somewhat panic stricken. I can only imagine that he had heard of the horror stories of what the whites did to other natives that refused to comply. And he does exhibit some minimal resistance when he briefly defends his people by explaining, "But here let me say, that however guilty these unhappy nations were, yet many and unreasonable were the wrongs they suffered..." (70) But he then quickly returns to praising whites. I found one class mates comment that his actions may have been driven by his own personal desire to be accepted. I had not considered this direction of psychological impact and it emphasizes the exclusivity of whiteness, something that even today's society is indicative of prestige, wealth and power.

I also found the Lucy Thompson reading very interesting. For what we've read in class so far, the book does not seem to be so much of a biography as it is documentation of tradition. I see her work as very much a work of survivance. Even though she is married to a white man, she does not hesitate to openly criticize whites. And just having documented these traditions is a strong statement of longevity and survival. She also brought up some interesting points about her tribe. She explains that there were/ is a social hierarchy. In addition, there was private property ownership. These things I have commonly associated with European societies. There is also a point in the book where she discusses when Indian doctors argue over who is the best/better doctor. This kind of boastfulness seems to go against the humble teachings of the Popol Vuh. Then again, many people act contrary to religious text across many religions.

Testing,Testing 1 2 3

I chose the the title "Earth, Sky and everything in Between" because I feel like organic elements will be a huge part of the Native American literature we will explore this quarter. More over, after having read parts of the Popol Vuh, I realized just how integral these elements are in everyday life and how they are given meaning and life in these creationist stories. But perhaps, the title also revels some of my biases or misunderstanding of native American culture. It is often perceived as natural, unchanging and always at one with the earth. My perception of Native culture has been shaped by media depictions and the brief chunks of history that I've picked up in school throughout the years. I look forward to seeing how my notions will measure up to reality.

This week, I found the lessons emphasized in the Popol Vuh particularly interesting. There are many messages of humbleness sprinkled throughout the text. Often we see characters with inflated hubrises and greed that often meet less than ideal ends. At first the concept of this "underworld" was a bit difficult for me to grasp, but the more I read, I soon came to just accept it. Throughout the passages, there is extensive interaction and communication between the beings and animals. This perhaps shows the connection and closeness that Natives have towards animals and the earth. Also, the animals are often clever and are capable of outsmarting each other and even the beings. I think that this encourages respect for animals because they are also thoughtful creatures.