Reading: Norton Headnotes (748-49, 1255-58), Winnemucca (1579-90), Zitkala Sa (top of 1837 - middle of 1838, bottom of 1845 - end of 1850), Turner (bottom of 1852 - top of 1855, middle of 1856 - top of 1857), Jefferson (bottom of 749 - middle of 752)
Answers:
79 = Iris. As we discussed last week, we tend to see very vivid and imaginative use of metaphor in the 'internal' American Indian tradition of the 1800s (like the creation stories or Pontiac's speech), but the 'external' writing (by authors like Occam and Boudinot) can sometimes be very restrained or precise. In Winnemucca we clearly see the recovery of the imaginative style for an external (white) readership. Analyze several of Winnemucca's images/metaphor and their literary meaning.
80 = Tady. Analyze Winnemucca's rhetorical usage of well-known references to the Christian bible and to U.S. political ideology.
81 = Letitia. Is the Carlisle philosophy of "kill the Indian and save the man" (pg. 1837) compatible with the "universal enlightenment" philosophy of Crevecouer/Paine/Jefferson/Hamilton/Franklin/etc? How does Zitkala Sa use her story to challenge the Carlisle philosophy?
82 = Meg. Pretend you are reading the next issue of Harper's Monthly that was published after the issue containing Zitkala Sa's story. Now imagine two letters from (white) readers responding to the story, of about 3-4 sentences each. The first is positive toward the story and the second is negative. Write what the letters might say.
83 = Peggy. The Norton editors discuss Turner's frontier theory as being a challenge to 'Anglo-Saxon' racist theory. But in fact, most Americans believed both of them. Discuss how the two theories could be considered compatible.
84 = Rea. Compare Turner to Emerson. Similarities and differences.
85 = Emma. Write a dialogue of 10-12 lines. The first participant in the dialogue is Thomas Jefferson, the political poet of universal human liberty. The second is Thomas Jefferson, the 'scientific' racist and slavery apologist.
This is Carol posting a question:
ReplyDeleteHonestly speaking, after I learned more about Thomas Jefferson, the respected image I had of him started to fade for the contradiction he provided between the words spoken and the practices he actually made during his lifetime. Besides the well-known fact of Jefferson being an outspoken abolitionist but owned many slaves over his lifetime, we can also see some textual evidence of the contradictions in his text. “Human equality” and “Freedom” are the two words repeatedly mentioned in his eloquent speeches; however, in his work “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Jefferson advanced his suspicion that black people were inferior to white people "in the endowments both of body and mind." From his view, “the difference is fixed in nature.” If so, how could this “all men are created equal” saying ever reachable? Moreover, Jefferson on the one hand, approved of freeing all slavery, but on the other hand, tried many times to abolish or limit the advance of slavery. More specific, he still held the control and domination of the placement of the slaves. So in this situation, how can “freedom” be possible? According to historian Stephen Ambrose: "Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African Americans to live in society as free people."
My question is then, how are we supposed to view this “Founding Father” of America? How can we still take him as the Founding Father by knowing all these facts?
This is Peggy’s answer for question 83.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Turner’s “The Significance of the Frontier in American,” I think Turner just transformed European’s racialism into another form. In his article, he emphasized that the expansion of American in their frontier area create new characteristics in American people like individualism or openness to new experience. However, I think his theory only fit white people because the expansion of America was lead by white people instead of other races. They didn’t cooperate with all the Americans but just work their adventure or expansion with other white people. Therefore, instead of opposing past racism theory, Turn’s idea seem to want to form a new national identity for the white people in America. He tried to distinguish themselves from the European people. He thought they were different from them and refused to admit that that American was European’s expansion. The discrimination was still there obviously. In fact, I think it is just similar racism for a group of people with new identity. And I think it is the reason why the two theories can exist compatibly in U.S.
Hello, this is Crystal, posting my question:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Turner’s The Significance of the Frontier in American History, I still feel confused concerning the concept and definition of “the frontier” here. My personal interpretation toward it is that the frontier may be the dividing line between the old and underdevelopment primitive culture and the modernized civility. It could be progressive line moving forward as continual development of the America. Yet there is another point that I am perplexed about, and it is on page 1854 line 7, saying that the American development did not advance along a single line but a return to primitive condition…. How could a development progresses further as it returns to a primitive condition in the meanwhile?
Answer to 81
ReplyDeleteI think the Carlisle philosophy is compatible with “universal enlightenment” philosophy of all authors above. Universal enlightenment philosophy supports Indian assimilation policy (Carlisle philosophy)
When those progressive writers such as Paine and Franklin suggest their enlightenment philosophies, they focus on white people audience group. Indians are not in their concern. At that time, “universal” is limited to white people society.
Universal enlightenment philosophy is only from white people’s point of view.
Then, after many writers’ suggestions, American society’s atmosphere becomes so different from the previous religion prevailing society. Universal enlightenment, American citizen enlightenment in fact, seems to be accomplished. Society seems to be more ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’
White people are satisfied with their accomplishment, and believe their values and culture are superior than others. Therefore, the “universal” field starts to broaden.
White people think they should also awake those savage and poor Indians, enlighten them by depriving their Indian culture and teach them a better or the best one. As the result, organizations like Carlisle Indian Institute are found executing assimilation policy. By showing a Indian boy who accepts the white culture struggling between two cultures and his family‘s tragic end, Zitkala Sa questions the advantages of assimilation policy and hints that assimilation is in fact harm Indian people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIris' answer to 79
ReplyDeleteAt beginning of the story, Winnemucca uses the image of lion to describe white people. When white get near to their land, Indians have to flee and hide into mountain. Indians just like the preys which are threatened by lion. In chapter eight, the author questions that “Is he (president) man or beast?” It seems to echo the former metaphor because lion is also a kind of beast. Through these images, reader can figure out that Winnemucca believe white people are actually cold-blooded barbarians. On the other hand, Winnemucca also provide Festival of Flower and the status of Indian woman as examples to show Indian’s convention and republic and to prove that Indian is not savage but a civilized nation.
This is Clara to ask a question:
ReplyDeleteIn my past realization, I think blacks were discriminated by whites because of their social class as slavery. However, in Jefferson’s work “Notes on the State of Virginia”, I found that Americans prejudiced against blacks just because their physical difference! How could whites accept this kind of logic?
Rea's answer to question 84.
ReplyDeleteSimilarity (sorry about the single)
Both Emerson and Turner write about the idea of “new America.” Emerson encourages his reader to produce pieces by their own observation instead of previous knowledge, and therefore a new ideology is formed. Turner, similarly, states that after a Creole is processed through the frontier adventure, the outcome is no longer an European, but a product that is called American.
Differences
Emerson use a rhetoric tone, lots and lots of “you”, having strong intention to persuade his reader to stand by his side, while Turner has a tender tone and the whole essay is more like a expression of his own belief. And, Emerson is crazy about religion and education, yet Turner talks little or even none about religion/education. What Turner values most is the difference between the old (European) and the new (American).
Here is my answer to question 82.
ReplyDeleteThe positive response:
This is indeed an impressive story. Every turning point of the behavior and thought of the son is so remarkable. I can clearly see that how education can change one’s thought and improve one’s behavior; however, when it comes to life, and family, the bound can never be cut. It is sad to see the story ends as a tragedy, but it does make me reflect about the idea toward one’s life outside and within the family, and what we may make compromise in life.
The negative response:
Why does this main character change his mind so easily? It seems that he tries to improve himself and approach to the civilization by receiving education, but he is not well reformed enough. He first betrays his family and tribe, and then he betrays his belief and education. Therefore, it is naturally he should face his trial, physically and mentally.
In “Life among the Piutes”, Winnemucca records her grandfather’s stories of the beginning of the human being, and the relation between the Indians and their “white brothers”. The stories share some resemblance with the Adam-Eve as well as the Cain-Abel story. The other similar Bible story is “the Parable of the Prodigal son”, which describes one of the two sons return to his home after wasting his substance. The oral styles of these stories are similar. Another similar thing is the telling of her father’s dream. In the Bible, dreams are often described in detail, just like in this book. The other clear usage is that “told men to do to others as they would be done by”, which Winnemucca tries to relate the Indian’s ideas of God to the white people of Jesus. Both races live under some same moral instruction by God.
ReplyDeleteThe word “savage” are mentioned several times in the book. It is the white people’s attitude towards the Indians. However, Winnemucca stressed that in their Congress in the council-tent, not only men but also women can speak whatever they want to say. She also said that if white women could enter the Congress, justice would soon be done. It is clearly a kind of sarcasm towards American’s political ideology. Besides, in the last chapter, she accused the Christian government of educating people the art of war, which is clearly against white people’s “covenanting with God to make this land the home of the free and the brave.” What the white people do in this land is vary from what they assume they should do.
It’s Emma. Here is my answer to question 85.
ReplyDelete‘L’ represents Thomas Jefferson, the political poet of universal human liberty. ‘R’ represents Thomas Jefferson, the 'scientific' racist and slavery apologist.
L: Hooray for human liberty!
R: Hooray for American economy! It is about to take off!
L: I believe all men are created equal!
R: Certainly! Merely some men are much more equal than others.
L: The king of Great Britain is so cruel that he often wages wars against human nature, captivating and carrying harmless men into slavery!
R: Shame on them! The British are essentially different from the moral Americans. We keep black slaves in order to educate them! We are always thoughtful of other people!
L: A slave is a slave. Is it equal for the blacks?
R: You may not know, according to scientific studies, the black race is extremely different from the white. They are simple-minded, vigorous, and full of energy… just like animals! An animal whose body is at rest over a long period of time would be out of function!
L: Your argument seems to make sense.
R: Of course! A discourse based on science is rarely wrong. The enlightened whites work with their brains while the unintelligent blacks labor. Everybody can make the best use of his specialty. This is the true meaning of equality!
L: That’s wonderful! American is really a democratic country!
This is Zoe. I'm here to post a question.
ReplyDeleteThinking about Emerson and Turner’s The Significance of the Frontier in American History, the concept “America” or being conscious of the difference between becoming an “American” instead of a “European” is pretty obvious in a historical development as I understand when I compare to Taiwan’s modern history. However, does this development go along with a geographical development or in what method/space was the concept spread? And also, I'd like to know whether there are people who still refuse to say that they are “American” because some old soldier from main China may recongnize themsleves not as Taiwanese?