House Made of Dawn

My favorite scene in House Made of Dawn was when Abel performed the burial ceremony for Francisco and then was able to run. This whole quarter we have seen characters and authors trying to reclaim their indigenous identities in the face of western culture and for the first time we see someone run away from it. Abel killed the eagle before it could be used for ceremony, didn't understand the tribal customs or language, killed the white man, slept with white women and went away to war to only become lost in alcohol and western culture. It was so satisfying to see him take the first step towards a better life and embrace his culture through the burial ceremony. It's sad that this change of events for Abel came too late for Francisco to really enjoy but I think that realistic sadness is what makes the novel so compelling. Abel went from running away from life figuratively (in the form of alcohol) to running towards a new life. The novel was hard to start, but the end was satisfying and I enjoyed the read.

Stereotypes

Watching the documentary clip about the stereotyping of indigenous peoples was eye opening. I think we're all aware of the current issues facing indigenous peoples in the Americas but I never really thought about the reasons. I'm doing my essay paper based on a poem about capitalism and it's effect on non white peoples so it has been very enlightening to think about all of the direct facets of our society that I never considered to be dangerous (such as the film industry or our economy) but in reality are contributing to the continuance of colonization.

Was He a Fool? by WithOut Reservation

So, regardless of whether Christopher Columbus was smart or did the right thing, I thought this was offensive and not the positive or productive energy needed for an indigenous movement centered around decolonization. I understand that there is a lot of anger and I respect the need to express that anger but when you have a direct confrontation between two very different societies and you're trying to find an acceptable compromise, throwing around insults is hostile and a waste of time. Comparing Columbus to a disgusting white and dirty pimple (and maybe even stretching the analogy to all white people?? I don't know) seems to cause unnecessary tension. There's a huge difference between fighting for historical accuracy and wanting the world to know the truth and being antagonistic and rude. I think this issue leads into the greater issue: what sort of compromise are we looking to make? Indigenous peoples want sovereignty and the rights that were taken away and are angry at the mistreatment that they suffered at the hands of western society, as they should be, but it's not right to take the land away from Caucasian descendants, kick them out and give it back to the indigenous peoples.  You can't punish someone for the mistakes of their fathers so I think the only fair solution is to look for a compromise between western and indigenous culture. I have no idea how a solution will be reached, if it ever will be, but I definitely know that the way we WON'T get there is by being nasty and disrespectful to each other.

Imperialism

As I was reading the article about imperialism and decolonization I thought a lot about was it means to be "history." First, I thought the point about feminism breaking the word down to his-tory was intriguing but it seemed like kind of a stretch to me. I think the fact that the word can be deconstructed that way is more a coincidence than anything. It's true that women have been treated poorly and misrepresented throughout history but so have a bunch of other people - basically every minority in every conflict. Don't they always say the winner writes history? This sort of transitions into the next thing I wanted to talk about. Can we really trust "history?" What is history? Is it the Monday night special on the History Channel? The textbook they assign for History 4A? The story of your family that your grandfather or grandmother tells you as a child? It seems like there are so many things in our culture that we take to be history, but when we examine it closely, how can we be sure that they are accurate? History is something that we exalt, especially in the United States, so one would think that it would be critical for such a powerful thing to be accurate. We base moral lessons and even future actions off of previous historical events and when we do so I feel like we're assuming that the retelling of the event is true. I think these questions regarding the characteristics and quality of history have an important setting in this class because one of the largest themes, decolonization, fits right into the issue of what is history. Back to "the winner writes the history", I think that very valid statement should make us consider the source of indigenous history. Because if it's indigenous history written by the "winner" (Western culture), can it ever really be genuine/accurate?

Word Choice

I chose the title PurpleBalloons because it is completely random. I like balloons.

When reading "Sculpted Stones (Piedras Labradas)" by Victor Montejo the word choice caught my attention more than anything.  Yes, the poem communicates the results of colonization on indigenous peoples and their struggles for preservation, but more importantly it succeeds in strong characterization in only a few lines. Montejo characterizes the Maya as strong and western culture as weak. In the first stanza we see "...several millennia/ of history,/ and forgotten by men/ shinning millenia/ of victory." Millenia is a strong word choice (in contrast to alternatives like 'many years') and it, along with the adjective shinning, it reinforces the depth and strength associated with having a history, like the Maya do. Victory is another obvious designation of the Mayan strength. The only characterization of Western culture in this stanza is forgotten. To forget something critical is a trait of the weak, not the strong.

In the second stanza Montejo tells us that the Maya culture "stand[s] as one" and "bares its teeth" at the "easy going...tourist...[and] onlookers." Standing as one and baring teeth indisputably create an image of strength and easy going tourist makes us of think of a naive traveler: either unaware of the greatness he is witnessing or too self absorbed to respect it. 

Finally, the Maya are characterized in the last stanza as vigilant, another positive trait. The whole of western culture is labeled a traveler. Traveler may or may not denote being unwelcome but it definitely means non native and maybe even out of place. Montejo succeeds in establishing an "Us vs Them" dynamic in this poem. We, the Maya, have millenia of history, are victorious, stand as one while baring teeth and are vigilant. They - the western civilization - are forgetful, easy going, tourists, onlookers and travelers floating through the cobwebs that have developed following the destruction of a glorious, indigenous empire.