Soft-hearted Warriors

“The Soft-Hearted Sioux” and”The Warriors” resonate the same message in completely different situations. The soft-hearted sioux centered on a man who was separated from his culture. He became a defeated version of the warrior he was destined to be. While the sisters and the uncle struggled to hold on to their ancestral roots and warriors in an urban and isolated community. The soft-hearted sioux was converted into a foreigner and could not provide for his family the way he was supposed to. By following the Christian religion he lost his ability to connect with his family. When he arrives back in his village later, he is a complete outsider and is unable to become the warrior he needs to be and provide for his dying father. At the end of his life he ponders his fate, will he go to heaven or will he finally be accepted by his father in the afterlife. This contemplation demonstrates his belief in an afterlife and possibly his lust for a new start. In Sioux culture the color red has been used to symbolize both wisdom or life. The use of red throughout the story woven into his village demonstrates his isolation and quest for knowledge that the other Sioux possess. He finally gains this at the end of the story when he tries to save his father and is drenched in another’s blood. He realizes that Christianity has not helped him, but rather led him down a path of ignorance and solitude. “The Warriors” also demonstrate that a sense of community and holding on to one’s roots are key to knowledge.

Poor Sarah?

This week we discussed the importance of oral traditions versus written versions of these stories. Moving into fictional stories has lead to an incredible amount of debate, which left me with many unanswered questions. Are either of these stories truly fictional? Could Poor Sarah be interpreted as survivance? What was Boudinot’s purpose for even publishing Poor Sarah?

I have always been weary of Boudinot and the Cherokee Phoenix. He originally suggested the instatement of the paper and insisted that syllabary be used, which no whites at the time cared to learn. There is a good chance that the story placed next to the english version might not line up. When his audience changes, so may his writing. When writing in english for whites, then he writes about the victimry of Native Americans, but when he “translated” the story for other natives he could have easily changed it to suit them. In this story he could appeal to either indians or whites. As we stated in class, each individual brings their own experiences and finds their own meaning in the stories they are exposed to. He could have realized this and created a story which respects both sides. He puts down Christianity saying that the character assimilated and still died, which projects the idea that assimilation means nothing. He also demonstrates to the whites that christianity gave her hope and the church acted as her safe haven resulting in a positive portrayal of whites. Boudinot also mentions that betrayal of other indians towards her: she was beaten by her family and no other native americans were even mentioned. It was a white, possibly, woman who befriended and tried to help her. I think that this story in thoroughly confusing and could be both pro-assimilation while staying true to his survivance ideals.

Seven Days of Survivance

The past week has been an eye opening experience. Much of what we discussed in class has been continually glossed over in American History courses. When I learned about the battle and Wounded Knee creek before, it was told from the point of view of a white american explaining why the massacre was necessary and just. The government has always been resistant to owning up to its mistakes. Just like the relocation of the Japanese during World War II was pushed under the surface, so has the massacre of the Sioux tribe.

Acknowledging the massacre as genocide could be politically crippling to the US. How can we slap others on the wrist for these actions, when it has happened right under the American public’s nose? It would hypocritical and I think that many politicians know that by renouncing the massacre at wounded knee creek as genocide, would make it impossible to help those in need now.

What upset me most about the video this week was just how much the government didn’t care about Native American position. They simply didn’t want to get bad press and merely wanted them off of wounded knee creek. What amazed me was just how close both sides were to reaching an agreement, but fell apart out of sheer arrogance. Neither side would admit defeat and in reality, it wouldn’t have been difficult for the government to meet the AIM movement’s demands. The lengths the government went to stop the AIM movement, but wouldn’t sit down and have hearing with them. They used spies to infiltrate wounded knee, brought massive amounts of military power, and all the Oglala Lakota wanted was to do point out the terrible things that were going on beneath the surface. Much of what they wanted to do was shed light on the corruption that most of the american public did not know of. The government took the take over as an attack, but violence was the only way to get the government’s attention at that time.