Reminder: Please buy Connecticut Yankee at NTHU bookstore by the end of 十月.
Reminder: Please post your group answer to the Emerson comparison in the interior comments. Two similarities, two differences, and whether you prefer Emerson to the other writer in style/ideas.
Reminder: Please read my responses to answers 51-60 in the interior comments.
Reminder: 十一月十七日 will be the midterm exam session, 九十分鐘. Please email my assistant Ms. Chen to indicate when you are available to meet for a 九十分鐘. class session on either 十一月十九日 or 十一月二十日. Please try to indicate as many available times as possible.
Reading: Norton Headnotes (17, 206-07, 570); Aboriginal Creation Stories (17-24); Williams (87-96); Franklin (226-30); Freneau (415-18); Pontiac (207-09); Occam (209-12)
Questions: Carol, Emma, Iris, Ken, Letitia, Meg, Natalie, Peggy, Qian Yu, Rea
Answers:
Zoe = 61. Give us a brief history of government policy toward Taiwanese aboriginals during these two periods: Qing dynasty (1680s-1890s) and Japanese occupation (1890s-1940s). Brief!
Joy = 62. Give us a brief history of government policy toward Taiwanese aboriginals during these two periods: KMT military rule (1940s-1980s), and the present era (1980s-2000s). Brief!
Alyssa = 63. Suppose you are the chief or elder of an aboriginal tribe living in U.S. territory in the 1800s, as described on 17. What are the advantages and disadvantages of collaborating with the Bureau of American Ethnology to record your tribe's stories and legends? A different question... do you agree with the Norton editors' choice to place the creation stories before Columbus in our book's chronology? Why or why not?
Caleigh = 64. One of the major distortions of Euro-American views of American Indians is that they are bloodthirsty savages. But another is that they are gentle and pure; in some way we may consider these two views to be actually the same, where the Indian is seen as a primitive child rather than a political or moral agent. What evidence do you see of political hierarchy or power in the Iroquois and Pima creation stories? Can you interpret this to have any particular significance to the situation of those tribes during the time these stories were transcribed?
Clara = 65. Compare Williams' concept of "lump" on 89 to the "quantity of earth" on 19 and the "greasy earth" on 22. How are they similar and different? Do you see evidence of any aboriginal cultural influence on Williams, or do you believe the exchange is only taking place in one direction?
Crystal = 66. Who are the savages of North America, according to Franklin? What words or techniques does he use to indicate this? Is this essay consistent with your earlier impression of Franklin or not? Explain.
Esther = 67. Why do you suppose all the Indians in this poem are dead? I mean from an ideological standpoint, not their physical cause of death. Next, if I say that Freneau is using them as a poetic or symbolic "resource," what is his purpose for doing so? In other words, what point is he trying to make?
Jane = 68. The Norton editors discuss a difficulty in reading early texts written by American Indians; many were actually edited, transcribed, or composed by Euro-Americans. Of Pontiac's speech, they write, "Neither the accuracy of the date nor the authenticity of the speech can be documented with any certainty." And consider what you learn about the man who composed it on 18 (Francis Parkman). How does this change our approach as readers? Do you think Pontiac's speech should be in the anthology? Why or why not?
Jenny = 69. Compare Pontiac's speech to the Euro-American "jeremiad" of Bradford/Winthrop/Edwards/Emerson/Thoreau/etc. How is it similar and different? Next, what does his three part division of literature (the Delaware's prophetic "dreaming" versus the "hieroglyphic" carving of the prayer versus Pontiac's oratory) tell us about the political life of the Ottawas/Delawares?
Lucille = 70. What do you think of Occam's 補習班 ? Just kidding, that's not a real question. My real question is, how would Occam react to this article? (Read this paragraph on Wikipedia if the context is not clear from the article.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMY RESPONSE TO YOUR ANSWERS 51-60.
ReplyDelete51. Ting-Ju discussed theories of literary development. She saw the theory expressed by the Norton editor as one of discussion, argument, or advocacy, involving a horizontal interchange or competition of ideas rather than a vertical struggle of "father" and "son." The early model for this liberal "marketplace of ideas" is Franklin's junto. I will make one addition... note that membership to this literary community is partially exclusive or vertical, in other words white men have higher status. However, it is true that women, American Indians, and African-Americans have MORE access to literary power than to political power. The literary power comes first, as we shall see in the coming weeks.
52. Rea discussed theories of Taiwanese literary nationalism and pointed to some examples. One of the examples makes a problematic comparison to the use of American English; this example would only make sense if American English was a different dialect than British English. The most appropriate comparison for American English would be a dialect that developed from Qing Mandarin, whereas the "Taiwanese" language is a much earlier Creole, from 1500s, and one that does not relate closely to Mandarin. She also discussed the claim that Taiwanese is the most commonly used language, which I personally do not know. And she discussed the problem of writing Taiwanese; obviously writing it in Mandarin characters does not produce a true distinction from Mandarin, but the alternative seems to be using the Western/Roman alphabet to transliterate, as in Vietnamese. As a comparison, the first American Indian language to be fully transliterated was Narragansett (by Roger Williams, which is in the new reading assignment). But the first transliterated American Indian language that was actually used BY American Indians was Cherokee, which we will discuss on 11/3.
53. Iris discussed Doggett's self reliance in "Big Bear." I just want to remind you that his self-reliance is revealed to be verbal or literary rather than physical, which is an interesting shift. She also discussed the importance of nature in Emerson and Thorpe. In Emerson nature is the fountain of truth. We might say that nature for Thorpe is an arena of physical struggle, but again he actually seems to be more concerned with "human nature." Iris also compared the imaginative use of metaphors in both writers. Metaphor can be seen as a form of originating language; poets like Percy Shelley have often observed that "regular" or "unpoetic" words are very often fresh poetic metaphors that later become part of ordinary speech. In English, you can clearly observe this through Shakespeare's effect on the language. There is no American equivalent, but Jefferson, Emerson, Lincoln, and Twain might have a minor effect of this type. Mandarin clearly demonstrates this as words derive from pictorial metaphors. So metaphoric language as you see in Thorpe and Emerson is what we might call linguistic self-reliance.
54. Was our group activity. See below.
ReplyDelete55. Peggy supposes that O'Sullivan gets his idea of cultural conquest or dissemination from Catholicism, since he is Irish and Irish are Catholic. Perhaps so, but it can be argued just as easily that he gets the idea of cultural conquest or dissemination from writers in the American Protestant tradition like Jefferson and Hamilton. She also discusses how O'Sullivan views Texas annexation as a peoples' action by "Anglo-Saxon" emigrants rather than a government action, and supposes that O'Sullivan would relate to this concept because he is also an immigrant to the U.S. There is an important distinction she has missed, but we can't blame her because this isn't a European history class! The distinction is that the Irish ARE NOT ANGLO-SAXON, meaning that they are not British. In fact, Ireland is considered as inferior or aboriginal, an imperial territory of Britain. And Irish-Americans are not considered to be "white." So actually O'Sullivan's position is more complex. He is writing as if he is part of the white ethnic ruling class when in fact his membership is problematic; in this sense his "Anglo-Saxon" concept may express a form of status anxiety. But we can also say that his optimism that Texas and Mexico can be absorbed into the U.S. may result from his being an Irish Catholic; many U.S. Protestants felt that Catholics could never be "real" American citizens and opposed annexation/conquest on those grounds.
56. Letitia discussed Emerson and O'Sullivan as humanists who believed that "God" or divine spirit exists in both nature and human nature. Excellent point. She then discussed how this idea can lead to arrogance or overconfidence; perhaps we can never separate O'Sullivan's imperialism from Emerson's self-reliance. On the other hand, Thoreau's anti-imperialism also derives from Emerson's self-reliance!
ReplyDelete57. Emma discusses O'Sullivan's arguments against Mexican sovereignty. First, he argues that Mexico never controlled its northern territory after its independence from Spain. This is true, but wouldn't the same logic apply to the vast land that Jefferson purchased for the U.S. from Napoleon's France? Do the British or some other power therefore have an equal right to it? Second, O'Sullivan answers this point by discussing how sovereignty is established through physical settlement. True, but what we must see is that he has extended this concept, that aboriginals have no legal right to their lands, to cover the seizure of land from a sovereign government that has the same "republican" or "post-imperial" character as the United States itself! So there must be some other reason that the U.S. can break this international law. The reason, which he does not state precisely, is that "Anglo-Americans" are somehow racially superior to "Latin-Americans." You see this concept emerge elsewhere in the essay. Third, O'Sullivan argues that Mexico tried to block immigration. This is a false argument. In truth, Mexico encouraged Anglo-Americans to immigrate to Texas, because it did have weak control of the territory and wanted them there to guard against the aboriginals. Mexico made extremely minimal demands of those Anglo-American settlers, yet they still revolted and fought for independence in the name of self-reliance, and then joined the United States!
58. Teresa discusses how O'Sullivan has interpreted self-reliance as imperial manigest destiny. But again, I would argue that his theology isn't really Catholic, as she says, but rather a secular "Franklin" non-theology. She then observes how Thoreau has interpreted self-reliance to be closer to the Puritan notion of spiritual self-discipline; we discussed this quite a lot in class today, so you can see how I was inspired by her comparison!
ReplyDelete59. Qian Yu discusses how liberal political theory means that the government does not directly intervene in certain aspects of social and economic life, which we call non-governmental "civil society." You can compare to a political state like the PRC where this boundary does not really exist. At the same time, even in the U.S. the government does regulate certain economic elements and certain cultural elements. This is the supreme irony of U.S. politics; the radical right-wing wants to have no government regulation of economics, but they are usually Christian fundamentalists who want to regulate culture. The radical left wing want to regulate economics as in a socialist state, but they usually hate regulation of culture. Qian Yu also discusses how difficult it is to "divest" (dis-invest) yourself in Thoreau's manner from injustice in today's interlinked economy. Thoreau couldn't even succeed in doing this in 1848! We should have further discussion of this in future classes.
60. Viola compares Thoreau to Gandhi and King. Thoreau seems to have an early vision of "human rights" for each individual. And yet he has no specific program (unless you count his cabin life!) and no program for group action. I also noted today that Thoreau writes as a member of the political ruling class, even if he is more or less poor, whereas Gandhi and King write as members of a minority class or "underclass."
This is the group of Jefferson and Emerson, and the group members are Natalie, Meg, Zoe, and Taddy.
ReplyDeleteThe two similarities of them are that their ideas are impratical, and both of them are prefer individualism (self-reliance)Moreover, both of them do not support slavery.
The two differemces of them are that Jefferson is more "social" than Emerson. Jefferson is more join in the society since being influenced by the 18th century's thinker. In addition, Jefferson believes government can offer and creae 100% freedom. On the other hands, Emerson thinks that society is alienated from us since being influenced by German Romantics. Furthermore, Jefferson is somehow like a 'rich farmer' who earns lots of money, and being very social.On the contrary, Emerson is like the Chinese thinker 莊子who advocates anything about 'nature'.
Our group neither prefer Jefferson or Emerson's writing styles and ideas, because we think what they write or say is just too impractical.
*Comparison between Emerson and Hamilton
ReplyDelete*Group members: Carol, Jane, Jenny, and Winnie
Similarities:
1) Both of them write with an intention to make their readers side with them. They talk mostly about what supports their own point of views (strategy of persuasive writing); therefore, readers tend to feel as if they have to do something after reading.
2) Both of them talk about individual liberty. Though the “liberty” Hamilton and Emerson talk about may not be 100% the same, they both put emphasis on it.
Differences:
1) Hamilton addresses his reading audience mostly by “you” while Emerson uses “we” more often. In Hamilton’s case, he is trying to unite those who are at that time separated to form a group. Therefore, “you” here is addressed to everyone who now belongs to different communities. Yet to Emerson, he uses “we” because we people are under the same circumstance—influenced very much by many kinds of civil institution.
2) Their means of securing individual liberty differ. Hamilton suggests that people’s liberty can be secured only by a strong government though the “liberty” he talks about here is somewhat limited. Emerson, on the contrary, thinks that no social institution is dependable—security of individual liberty counts on everyone’s self-reliance.
Both of Hamilton’s and Emerson’s ideas have their own strong and weak points, and yet we prefer Emerson’s more. Comparing with Hamilton, Emerson is rather radical; nevertheless, it is because of his radicalness that people can see and understand his point more directly. Also, though in a way quite extreme, Emerson’s ideas still, to some extents, reflect truth in the society today.
We are Tracy, Sherry, Clara, and Alyssa.
ReplyDeleteWe are in charge of Irving. In our opinion, Irving and Emerson both possess the idea of creation and undergo the process of breaking. Irving tries to create a history beyond timeline through his work and Emerson wants to create their own literature by means of self-reliance. Also by doing so, they both have a breaking process from the earlier life.
The two differences we find include that Irving conveys the uncertainty and chaos about the idea of identity while Emerson does not; furthermore, their concept toward history is quite different, too. Irving thinks that history possesses certain importance but Emerson does not care much about the past. He encourages people to speak contradictory to what they have said before.
As for the last question, actually, we have different opinions about it. Some of us like Emerson’s style because it is short and powerful. However, some of us think that some of Emerson’s ideas are too radical to convince others. For short, we have not reached an agreement on the preference of writers’ styles or ideas since our views differ much from each other’s.
If anyone else has trouble posting, you can just email it to me.
ReplyDelete--------------
Here are the comparisons between Crevecouer and Emerson with group members Viola, Lucille and Caleigh.
The similarities of the two are:
1. They both provoke personal hard work on individual responsibility, believing that one should do his own work well to accomplish a better life.
2. They both admire nature and gave plenty examples of it in their texts either in metaphor form or simply out of love for nature.
The differences of the two are:
1. Religion. Crevecouer has no particular faith in religion but rather thought religions melt away in the social combination of various background people. He thought hard work brings a person his own reward.
On the other hand, Emerson has more specific statement about believing in God's existence that God is in everything, and people must respect every subject around.
2. Background that shapes their central ideas. Crevecouer as an immigrant has many traveling experiences that he is constantly at an unfixed position; therefore his ideas are more practical. It's easier for him to view things out of the frame.
However, Emerson is born in Boston. Generations of his family are native-born Americans. He, as a scholar, is always in a fixed position from which he has to take himself out of in order to have a more objective view, but the stable condition of his life still shapes him with utopian, idealistic philosophical ideas.
Our preference is Crevecouer.
Although Emerson as an educated person has huger influence on civilized culture, we while enjoying the fruit of his significant idea "self-reliance" suffer from it also.
Modern society is noisier because of promotion of self-reliance, and when every one gets to think for him/her and speak out loud, the idea of the group's harmony is usually ignored too.
We are exhausted by Emerson’s and more aspired after Crevecouer's pronouncement and his philosophical picture of society, where everyone cooperate and has not much to complain about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello, Aaron. The following is the in-class discussion of our group. The group members are Qian Yu, Letitia, Emma, and Teresa.
ReplyDeleteThe similarities of Emerson and Smith:
Both of them do not agree the idea of Puritan. Also they both approve self value.
The differences between them are their attitudes toward nature and the activities they do.
Toward nature, Smith encourage exploration, he sees nature as economic resource. However, Emerson tries to discover the mystery of nature. To him, nature can offer the nutrition of human spirits.
Also Emerson and Smith devote themselves to different fields. Emerson is a scholar, a philosopher. Yet, Smith is a businessman dealing with commercial pursuits.
Actually we prefer Emerson’s idea. We admire his attitude toward the nature. By discovering the mystery of nature, people can find themselves and sure their self values. It is important to know “self”.
This is Crystal, posting the similarities and differences between Emerson and Franklin:
ReplyDeleteOur group members: Crystal, Esther, and Ting Ju
About the similarities:
1. Both Franklin and Emerson believed that things were moving toward a progressive direction. In Franklin’s case, he identified that every historical dynasty could be better in certain ways and was distinctive from the previous one; Emerson’s idea of self-reliance revealed a promising prospect toward the upcoming future.
2. Both Franklin and Emerson did not trust others. As a member who upheld the capitalism, Franklin preferred to rely on himself rather than depend on others. Similar to Franklin, Emerson promoted the notion of self-reliance, counting on his own strength and abilities to fulfill goals.
About the differences:
1. Franklin seemed to believe in God because he frequently mentioned God while talking to people with diverse social classes; yet virtually, he himself was not really that pious. In order to get his messages across, Franklin applied the notion of God to unify people. On the other hand, Emerson merely believed that there was the heavenly power.
2. Franklin supported his own concepts via wearing different masks in front of the mass, and for him, it appeared that it was his personal idea that really mattered. However, Emerson advocated women’s rights and he was also antislavery. He fought for others’ rights and interests rather than his.
Practically, we prefer Emerson’s conception rather than Franklin’s. Contrary to Franklin’s diverse masks that he put on, Emerson appeared to be more genuine and consistent in his identity. Unlike Franklin’s constant transition from one character to another, Emerson revealed a truer and more sincere self.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
ReplyDelete1. In the Norton Anthology, it is said that some of the texts of Native American oratory are now known to be invented, while others almost surely represent the words actually spoken by an Indian person. However, the stories of the past, either in America or other places such as the ancient China I believe, had all been added, exaggerated, or deleted in some degree. I wonder how are we able to distinguish between the truth and the invented? How are we able to keep this part of the history and ignore that part?
2. From the texts we have read so far, it seems that the Native Indians living in American had been strongly oppressed by this “empire”; but somehow I can see a turning from this “oppression” to a certain degree of “resistance.” So is there a particular “turning point” of this transformation, or is it just a natural path that the history follows?
This is Ken.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through the Occom’s introduction, I am really confused that how can editors connect writing an autobiography and self-justification together… (210) Also, I found that in Occom’s writing, there are abundant of words are capitalized, is it just because of the special style or have other meanings?
Here I have a strange thinking about David Cusick’s The Iroqurous Creation Stories: In the selected paragraph, we can see that the good mind falsely cheats his brother (the bad mind) and finally killed him. (20) I think the “falsely cheating” part is really interesting. Combining the Maureen Konkle’s idea (18) with the Creation Stories together, it seems to me that the good mind is indicating the English people who cheat the bad mind (the native people who actually do no harm to English people) and force them to leave their homeland.
Just a rough and strange thinking about the Creation Story...
Question:
ReplyDeleteIt is inevitable to have some 'bugs' when translates/interpretes something from one language into another. There is no one-to-one word correspondence between any two languages. We know that "The Story of the Creation" of Pima is translated by a white man who has a native Pima Indian to be his interpreter. However, what the Pima Indian tells the white man is just another interpretation. In other words, this story is actually being translated twice times (the old Pima tells the Young Pima-> the young Pima interpretes it into English to the white man-> the white man 'interpretes the young Pima's English and then writes it down as the story we read today')In the story, it is apparent that "Person" and "human beings" are referred to different 'creatures'. The former refers to Juhwertamahkai (The Doctor of the Earth) and Nooee(the Buzzard) who are superior and have power. The latter refers 'us' who are relatively inferior and can not do anything but just eating out food and then begin to kill each other. My question is---is it because the word 'Person' and 'human beings' have different meanings and references at that time? Or it is because the 'bugs' during the translation/interpretation?
Good evening class! We are Ken, Ted, Vincent & Sharon. =)
ReplyDeleteOur literary duel is "Emerson v.s. Hawthorne" as follows:
● Similarity
1. Hawthorne’s character “Robin” had opportunity to make choices for himself while Emerson believes that human should “trust thyself” and should not conform to the society’s values. Both of them expresses the idea to believe in oneself and not be influenced by others opinion.
2. Both of them agree to the idea that it is necessary to destroy the social connection between men and society. In Emerson’s “Self-Reliance,” he portrays the notion of completely self reliance, while in Hawthorne’s Earth’s Holocaust; the inhabitants seek to get rid of the all impurity of society by burning the elements in the great bonfire. Its anti-socialism concept is similar to that of Emerson’s.
● Difference
1. We think the difference is their main writing genre. Emerson tends to focus on composing essay to advocate his idea (ex: “Self-Reliance”) while Hawthorne is mainly dealing with the fiction such as “The Scarlet Letter”.
2. The other difference between them is that Emerson appeals to believe that people can purify us by restoring to the state of “children” or “infant.” He disagrees that there are good and evil but rather “right and wrong” that is determined by the peacefulness of the human heart. However, Hawthorne tends to think that human beings are evil in nature and can never be purified even when isolated from all possible seductions.
● Preference
In our group's view, our general preference is Emerson, especially when it comes to the concept of “right and wrong.” We are interested in this idea and found it logical and reasonable. As the above mentioned, Emerson disagrees that there are good and bad but rather “right and wrong” that is determined by the tranquility of people themselves. As a result, we think this concept of human nature can not only be discussed in the literary field, but also can be put into practice in the real life.
I’m Peggy. This is my question for the texts this week. Reading a few of Philip Freneau’s poem, I find the author write his poems which were influenced by some British poets. Then, I wonder if there is any difference in poetry between American and British literature. In the past, we had learned that British literature continuously changed and developed with different time. It can be distinguished with different periods such as Romanticism and Victorian times. I wonder if there is also clear style difference in American poetry. Or is American poetry closed to any period of British literature?
ReplyDeleteThis is Jenny. I am responsible for answering question 69.
ReplyDeleteHere’s my answer:
Part I
Compare Pontiac’s speech with Winthrop’s A Model of Christian Charity, I found that both of them are trying to maintaining what they used to believe. On page 85, Winthrop said that “Whatsoever we did or ought to have done when we live in England, the same must we do, and more also, where we go.” Winthrop is trying to make people maintain what they believe as a puritan in the American, or in a new and unpredictable environment. When the Whites came to American, Indians live change rapidly. When Pontiac said the Indians were seeking wisdom form the Master of Life, he might indicate that the lives of Indians are changing so rapidly that they lose the way of life. The Great Spirit advised them to “live as your wise forefathers lived before you.” Yet, Winthrop emphasis more on setting on the city upon the hill as a model for other Christians, at the same time, Pontiac emphasis more on maintaining Indians traditional way of value and life.
In Winthrop’s work, he mentioned former sage, Pontiac also mentioned their forefathers. Maybe mentioning the passed great people, and good old days is a good way to conceive their audiences that they can do it.
Edward’s sermon were mostly composed of interpreted the God’s words. However, Pontiac directly repeated what the God said in the prophetic dream.
As for comparing to Emerson, I think that Emerson would say this to the Indians. “Don’t follow the trend, be yourself. Being an Indian doesn’t mean that you are inferior to the White. You have your own value, and you don’t have to reform yourself like a White”
It is really different that Pontiac let his god to indicate out the identity of their enemy (the English, not the French). I think it’s an interesting point, but I don’t know how to compare this to other Euro-American writers.
Part II
I think that the prophetic dreaming is Indians’ traditional way of expressing the wise words or opinion to encourage their tribe people. In some aboriginal stories, their god talks to them in person with wise words to improve their current condition. Pontiac was forming an Indian alliance, according to the introduction of Pontiac. Using the traditional way of Indians, Pontiac was trying to push his audience to believe in him. Telling the dream in public might be more influential, and since it’s a speech, I think that there must gather other tribe of Indians. Usually, people would record down laws, like Code of Hammurabi or Ten Commandments. Or, people might fear that they might forget what had happened. I think that carving down the prayer in Pontiac’s speech shows they are civilized (using words), and those inspiring words could be remembered by their descendants and the Whites’ descendant. Because there’s a record, they wouldn’t be forgot.
I think that Pontiac was surly preparing to ally the Indians together, despite they are different tribes before, so there’s assembly and records
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is my answer of Q67:
ReplyDeleteIn this poem, Freneau uses many metaphors to show readers that what he describes is taken placed in a cemetery. As we can see, in third and fourth stanza, it points out
“The posture that we give the dead,
Points out the soul's eternal sleep”
which let us know people the narrator meets are actually dead;
“Again is seated with his friends,
And shares again the joyous feast”
The word “friends” refers to their dead ancestors; only after their death can they reunite with those “friends” and take a seat together again.
And in the fourth paragraph, it expresses this message of death further:
“His bow, for action ready bent,
And arrows, with a head of bone,
Can only mean that life is spent,
And not the finer essence gone.”
Life is spent but with glory as exchange.
Besides, the poem also mentions about the image of “swelling turf,” “shadowy hunter and deer,” and “bow to the delusion.” They all point out that the subject we are dealing with is people who are no longer live anymore.
After reading this poem, it is surprised for me that there is almost no discriminated word in it unlike other literary works during the same period. To the best of my knowledge, if let me guess what’s the purpose for Freneau to write this poem, I will say that maybe he wants to show readers that the Indians actually have their noble and civilized side. In other words, Freneau tries to idealize Indians, which through this poem, portrays them as “another creature” that is completely different from what Europeans used to stereotyped them.
If I was Occom, I think I’ll cry for a while when I read this article. First is because that the school still doesn’t receive Native Americans as students for most portion of the school.
ReplyDeleteAnd then I'll cry for the over-advertising (exaggeration) of Indians, and the contrast between the mascot and what the real Indians like. I think the idea of the mascot is the embodiment of the stereotype of Indians (in good ways.) However, the fact is, they are the minorities who are just like Occom described, “I am a poor Indian.”
And I think there are not only sad reactions; Occum might cry happily that this article has attacked Wheelock ironically for his hustling, which once raised Occom's hatred.
“thank you Samson Occom, for raising funds for an institution that would ignore you and your people for the next two centuries, but whose student body would later honor you with ridiculous depictions of your race’s ignorant, yet quite amusing lifestyle.” Well, I think I’ll terribly sad to see this if I were Occom. This is not only denied every effort he have done but also show him the fact of despair.
This is Jane, answering Question #68.
ReplyDeleteIn the Norton anthology, on the bottom of page 207, the editor says that “ all reprinting of Pontiac’s speech derived from Francis Parkman’s The Conspiracy of Pontiac (1851). Parkman gives as his source for the speech the “Pontiac, MS.” taken from the “MDougal, MSS.” ….But no manuscript by [McDougall] exists.” Therefore, the Norton editors say that they have to “publish Pontiac’s speech on the assumption….” However, on page 18, the editors suggest that “Francis Parkman mocked [Cusick’s Sketches] in his triumphalist history, The Conspiracy of Pontiac.
It seems that they also suggest the work is an artifact.
The confusion is, whether the “Speech at Detroit” is a composition of Parkman or a document of Pontiac’s speech which is recorded by Parkman? The origin of the source and its credibility is questionable. However, I think the anthology should select this work because the document itself expresses the uncertainty and the duality of the Native American work at that time. No matter the work is created by Parkman, who tried to present Native American in his position, or the work is a written-down version of the speech, this piece of work speaks simultaneously in a voice of two: a white American historian and a resisted Ottawa Indian Chief. As a careful reader, we should take such uncertainty in to consideration and find out the tension and can see the work itself is a kind of conversation. Even though Pontiac’s original voice may be rather small after it was transcribed into English words, the voice in the text reveals the similar situation of Native Americans: new and unfixed. I think that Parkman involved the kind of frontier history in transcribing oratory which is very important for American imperial history. Oh, i think it is also very interesting to have the “classic Norton” remains in a slanted and uncertain situation.
Another question~
ReplyDeleteIn my understanding, “noble savage” refers to people who live in a primitive lifestyle and are unpolluted from civilization. However, what does “noble savage” means to the Native Americans? In this period, the white settler’s attitude toward Native American’s was unsettled. For those American historians, politicians and writers, would they agree with “noble savage”(I regard it as an unsettled term) such oxymoron term in this period? well, I think Franklin would probably agree.
This is Clara, answering the question no.65.
ReplyDeleteIn my observation, “lump” in Williams’ "A key into the Language of America" is the conceptualization of earth. This word is used to describe the sea, the people and territories. (In fact, I don’t quite understand the meaning of lump here and not to mention its relating with earth.) However, I think the difference between “quantity of earth” and “greasy earth” is weather it can grow by itself or not. ”Quantity of earth” on the turtle back increased every moment, while “greasy earth” is made by the perspiration of JuhwertaMahkai. In other words, both “quantity of earth” and “greasy earth” have a practical imagination about how the world be created. On the contrary, “lump” maybe indicates that the concept of world in Williams’ mind is only constructed by a lump of something.
In p.90, it seems that Williams still viewed those aboriginal as vulgar barbarian. Compared with his God who made aboriginal, the God of Englishman is greater and more cultural. Although I haven’t found the evidence of any aboriginal cultural influence on Williams, I think this is a big progress for him to considerate and even compare the aboriginal culture with the western.
This is Letitia
ReplyDeleteMy question :
When we talk about slavery in American history, we usually think about African slaves immediately. I am curious about the reason that the proportions of native Indian slaves and African slaves in south farms are not very even. It seems that African slaves are much more than Indian slaves. Apparently, these two races are discriminated by white people, yet whether hierarchy also exists between Indians and Africans? Such as White>Indians> African. How to describe the relationship between African slaves and native Indians?
This is Rea. Here is my question for this week.
ReplyDeleteIn page 207 it writes "Some 'famous' speeches are now known to be largely or entirely invented, while others speeches almost surely represent the words actually spoken by an Indian person." I wonder why there are "invented" speeches. What do the inventors want from doing this? Are there some political purposes, or they just pretended to be an Indian speaker? (I mean, to write from a perspective of an Indian.)
I see Carol asks a similar question in her post, but our questions still differ. Her question, in my opinion, is more like history question (how to find evidences to know what is true and what is not). I don’t mean something bad about hers; just want to say that we emphasize on different points.
This is Caleigh answering question 64.
ReplyDeleteThe two powers that I observed in the creation story of the Iroquois and the Pimas are the creators in them. In the Iroquois story, The good one won the challenge by deceiving the bad twin. In my perception, this story of rivalry reflects the lives of the Native Americans. In that period of time, they had to hunt for food and fight with the nature in order to survive. The strong one wins and the the weak one doesn't stand a chance, just like the competition between the twin creators.
In the Pima story, Juhwertamahkai destroyed the world that he created for no reason, just because he didn't like it. In my opinion, I think it the same as the situation of survival at that time. It wasn't easy for them to live in the wild and grow to become an adult. Deaths happen often, and they seem to think this as something natural.
I think the above as part of the reasons why the native Americans accepted the European explorers and settlers' concept or ruling powers comparatively easy. They had ruling powers but not the strong or evident kind. They just see things as they are. They opened the communication with later settlers and weren't intend to gain things.
These are my answers but I'm not sure if I'm on the right track. I didn't even know if I'm expressing myself clearly......
Here is my question.
ReplyDeleteIn page 17, it says, “it was not until the mid to late nineteenth century that Euro-American …in a manner that begins to do justice to them.” However, Europeans started to immigrant to America since 17 century. In addition, there were preachers went to America; and many aboriginals converted to Christianity during 18 century. In Roger Williams’ “From A Key into the Language of America”, the author also mentioned a little about the religion of native people. Then why Euro-American didn’t feel they had “cultural understanding necessary” and translate the Native American creation stories until late 19 century?
As I read Roger Williams' work, A Key into the Language of America, I find that in his record of the interaction between native Americans and the white men, the native Americans are pretty much accept and adopt the thought and habits from the white men; moreover, they even praise those ideas, such as why the white men call the native Americans "Indians," and the religious view. However, I have much doubt towards reaction from the native Americans. Therefore, my question is much similar to Carol's; how can we tell the if a record, which always claims to reflect the facts, is authentic, especially when there's not much relevant records from the other side?
ReplyDeleteThis is Zoe to give answer to Q61.
ReplyDeleteBut I have to say it is really impossible to make it any briefer!!
Qing dynasty (1680s-1890s)
During the Qing dynasty, the government’s policy toward Taiwan is separated into two periods. First is the “passive period”, and then the “active period”.
1683-1871 “passive period”
The aboriginals are grounded to the reserve area in the mountains and the Hang people are not allowed to pass the line and go in the area either. On the surface, it’s to protect the aboriginals but actually it’s to prevent Hangs to hide or rebel with the aboriginals.
For the immigrants to survive they are to cultivate land with aboriginals only through the government. In another word, the new comers can only rent land “legally” and pay tax every year whether the land belongs to personal or the aboriginal tribe.
1871-1894 “active period”
After a series of war and events like “牡丹社事件”, “中法戰爭”etc., the Qing dynasty became active toward Taiwan and sent special rulers to Taiwan. Due to the time line, here are three important rulers.
-The first to actively set policy in Taiwan is “沈葆楨”, who built three important roads, the North way, the Middle way and the South way, all leading to the East part of Taiwan. This is actually a plan of assimilating the aboriginals to become Hangs and violence is used when they disobey.
-The second important ruler to mention is “丁日昌”, who took it seriously in educating the aboriginals. He made a research on aboriginal population and their land to set Government Cultivate Institute. This policy was to assimilate aboriginals toward Hangs and to cultivate the land.
-During the formal ruler of Taiwan, “劉銘傳”(1836-1895), more Government Cultivate Institute were built in important market places to make sure taxes came in. To aboriginals who gave in their submission, the government would provide them goods and supplies, and also provide Hang education for the tribe leader’s sons. If they refuse to give in, the military would invade in huge numbers.
Japanese occupation (1890s-1940s)
During the Japanese occupation there are seven emperors that rule the Japanese empire at the time.
-The first to the third, 樺山資紀(1895-1896) and乃木希典(1896-1898), used violence, military and police to suppress Taiwan, including all tribes and reign.
-The fourth, 佐久間左馬太(1906-1915), planed a five-year-policy toward the aboriginal tribes.
By drawing the aboriginals to their side, and they tried to use the aboriginals to raise animosity between tribes. Along with another policy “和番”, which is to encourage marriage between aboriginal and Japanese. Also, the Japanese brought in their education and medical to the tribes but sees aboriginal as barbarians. Other policy to prevent aboriginals to rebel against the government are that the aboriginals were forbidden to practice many traditional customs and to trade salt, guns, metal etc. privately. The result of these policy was ended by “霧社事件” in which the aboriginal finally act against the Japanese and almost got killed off by gas and unbalanced military attacks.
-The last three, during 1919-1945, used wide spread education and rewarding policy to assimilate Taiwanese to become “Japanese” in all ways.
The answer of question 63
ReplyDeleteIf the aboriginal tribe choose to record their history with the assistance of the Bureau of American Ethnology, they can empower& consolidate their ethnic identity. In addition, the written words, I think, implies the power and the authority. It will definately be beneficial for the aboriginal tribes to record their own history, to claim their identity. As to the disadvantages,it may be that the right of recording lies in the Europeans' hands. They have to present their own history through another ethnic group. That means their own history will be the "interpretation" of the Europeans instead of the original one.
I agree to put the creation stories before Columbus. I think it symbolizes that we are using the "Europeans' glasses" to view the aboriginals. The early American literature is mainly from the perspective of "intruders".
Hi, Aaron. The following is my question.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Directions for the Use of the Language, I found it is more like a linguistic analysis. I think it is interesting that as a whiteman, Roger Williams records the aboriginal language and even note what he records. I just wonder that at the time, in 17th century, is anyone belong to the authority doing the same thing like Williams. I mean that Williams is not a man admired by the authority. Is this point makes him easier and have the opportunity to record the aboriginal language? In other words, did the authority forbid people from aboriginal language researching or record?
By the way, I have answered or ask questions for continuous five weeks. I think maybe your majesty will give me the chance to take a rest this week. Thank you.
This is Crystal, posting answer for no.66
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the text, I was not sure that whether my understanding toward the content and the interpretation of mine were correct or not. I spent much time considering it yet could not come up with other ways of thinking, so the following is my perspective. From my observation, I regard the colonial authority, the unsatisfied British who constantly deprived sources of the Indians in the text, as the savages of North America. Franklin brought up some stories depicting the interactions and conversation between the two parties, revealing the different manners they presented respectively. Take the trade of the beaver for example, while the Indian told Conrad about the “good things” that the British learned in their regular meetings, he felt depressed by being cheated over the price of the beaver. And my interpretation of this is that contrary to the genuine and sincere manner of the Indians, the Europeans, members of the so-called civil and powerful empire, gained their interests through savage and irrational approaches. Although the Indian were in the inferior and underprivileged position, they still held certain proper civility and generous hospitality of which they were proud. However, the British people appeared to confine themselves to their own conceptions as well as impose their cultural values to others.
There seems to be a connection between this essay and my former impression about Franklin. Upholding the notion of trusting your own self, Franklin gave a clear portray of their behaviors and left the readers themselves to value by their own judgment rather than blindly followed the mainstream, the ideas promoted by the authorized side. It was the readers’ own strength to analyze and shed light on the relations between the Europeans and the Indians.